Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-learning: Issues and Trends (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-Learning: Issues and Trends Harrison Hao Yang State University of ...

Author: Harrison Hao Yang | Steve Chi-Yin Yuen

115 downloads 3945 Views 6MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-Learning: Issues and Trends

Harrison Hao Yang State University of New York at Oswego, USA Steve Chi-Yin Yuen The University of Southern Mississippi, USA

InformatIon scIence reference Hershey • New York

Director of Editorial Content: Senior Managing Editor: Assistant Managing Editor: Publishing Assistant: Typesetter: Cover Design: Printed at:

Kristin Klinger Jamie Snavely Michael Brehm Sean Woznicki Michael Brehm, Kurt Smith Lisa Tosheff Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference

Copyright © 2010 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in e-learning : issues and trends / Harrison Hao Yang and Steve Chi-Yin Yuen, editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: "This book includes a selection of world-class chapters addressing current research, case studies, best practices, pedagogical approaches and strategies, related resources and projects related to e-learing"--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60566-788-1 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-789-8 (ebook) 1. Internet in education. 2. Information technology. 3. Virtual computer systems. 4. World Wide Web. 5. Online social networks. 6. Blogs. 7. Wikis (Computer science) I. Yang, Harrison Hao, 1964- II. Yuen, Steve Chi-Yin, 1953LB1044.87.H345 2010 371.33'44678--dc22 2009019593 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

List of Reviewers J. Enrique Agudo, University of Extremadura, Spain Luiz Fernando de Barros Campos, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil Leah Massar Bloom, State University of New York Purchase College, USA Curtis J. Bonk, Indiana University, USA Jeff Boyer, University of Florida, USA Cathy Cavanaugh, University of Florida, USA Chaka Chaka, Walter Sisulu University for Technology and Science, South Africa Pearl Chen, California State University, Los Angeles, USA Candace Chou, University of St. Thomas, USA Clara Pereira Coutinho, University of Minho, Portugal Katie Crenshaw, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Elizabeth Downs, Georgia Southern University, USA Michael Douma, Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement, USA Dimitrios Drogidis, School Consultant of Primary Education, Greece Jianxia Du, Mississippi State University, USA Carrie Eastman, State University of New York Purchase College, USA Patricia Edwards, University of Extremadura, Spain Deborah Everhart, Georgetown University, USA Ann Dutton Ewbank, Arizona State University, USA Teresa S. Foulger, Arizona State University, USA Stephen W. Harmon, Georgia State University, USA Richard Hartshorne, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Jeannine Hirtle, The University of Hawaii at Hilo, USA Morris S. Y. Jong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Kathryn Kennedy, University of Florida, USA Fong-Lok Lee, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Meng-Fen Grace Lin, University of Hawaii, USA Yuliang Liu, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, USA, Susanne Markgren, State University of New York Purchase College, USA Paraskevi Mentzelou, Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece F.R. “Fritz” Nordengren, Des Moines University, USA Peter Reed, Edge Hill University, UK

Judi Repman, Georgia Southern University, USA Mercedes Rico, University of Extremadura, Spain Robin M. Roberts, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA Rajani Sadasivam, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Junjie Shang, Peking University, China Kaye Shelton, Dallas Baptist University, USA Brian Smith, Edge Hill University, UK Chareen Snelson, Boise State University, USA Sharon Stoerger, Indiana University, USA Daniel W. Surry, University of South Alabama, USA Ann York, Des Moines University, USA Chien Yu, Mississippi State University, USA Ke Zhang, Wayne State University, USA Robert Zheng, University of Utah, USA Cordelia Zinskie, Georgia Southern University, USA

List of Contributors

Ajjan, Haya / University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA ........................................................ 241 Angelov, Ivan / University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria ................................................................................ 493 Baek, Youngkyun / Korea National University of Education, Republic of Korea ............................ 165 Bloom, Leah Massar / State University of New York Purchase College, USA ................................. 260 Bonk, Curtis J. / Indiana University, USA .......................................................................................... 76 Bottentuit Jr., João Batista / University of Minho, Portugal ............................................................. 19 Boyer, Jeff / University of Florida, USA ............................................................................................ 367 Brown, Robert L. / Mississippi State University, USA........................................................................ 61 Carmean, Colleen / Arizona State University, USA .......................................................................... 211 Cavanaugh, Catherine / University of Florida, USA ....................................................................... 367 Walter Sisulu University, South Africa .................................................................................................. 38 Chen, Pearl / California State University, Los Angeles, USA ........................................................... 402 Chou, C. Candace / University of St. Thomas, USA ......................................................................... 440 Coutinho, Clara Pereira / University of Minho, Portugal.......................................................... 19, 385 Crenshaw, Katie M. / University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA ................................................. 308 Datla, Raju V. / Massachusetts Medical Society, USA ...................................................................... 308 Dawson, Kara / University of Florida, USA...................................................................................... 367 de Barros Campos, Luiz Fernando / Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil ......................... 197 Douma, Michael / Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement (IDEA), USA .......................... 493 Drogidis, Dimitrios / School Consultant of Primary Education, Greece .......................................... 222 Du, Jianxia / Mississippi State University, USA .................................................................................. 61 Eastman, Carrie / State University of New York Purchase College, USA ........................................ 260 Ferdig, Richard E. / University of Florida, USA .............................................................................. 241 Hamilton, Karin / Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA .................................................................. 116 Hartshorne, Richard / University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA.......................................... 241 Hirtle, Jeannine / The University of Hawaii at Hilo, USA ................................................................ 182 Hsu, Jeffrey / Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA.......................................................................... 116 Hung, Hsiu-Ting / National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. ................................................................................................................................ 294 Kennedy, Kathryn / University of Florida, USA .............................................................................. 367 Kim, Bo Kyeong / Jeonju University, Republic of Korea .................................................................. 165 Kumar, Madhuri / University of Houston, USA ............................................................................... 422 Lin, Chun Fu / Minghsin University of Science & Technology, Taiwan ............................................... 1

Liu, Youmei / University of Houston, USA ........................................................................................ 422 Liu, Yuliang / Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, USA......................................................... 150 Liu, Yunyan / Southwest University, China ......................................................................................... 61 Markgren, Susanne / State University of New York Purchase College, USA ................................... 260 Menon, Sathish / Analytic Dimension, USA ...................................................................................... 493 Mentzelou, Paraskevi / Alexander Technological Educational Institute (A.T.E.I.) of Thessaloniki, Greece ................................................................................................................... 222 Nordengren, F.R. “Fritz” / Des Moines University, USA ................................................................. 351 Özkan, Betül C. / University of Arizona South, USA ........................................................................ 278 Reed, Peter / Edge Hill University, UK ............................................................................................. 329 Richardson, Jennifer C. / Purdue University, USA .......................................................................... 138 Roberts, Robin M. / University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA .............................................................. 93 Sadasivam, Rajani S. / University of Massachusetts Medical School, USA ..................................... 308 Sajja, Priti Srinivas / Sardar Patel University, India ....................................................................... 471 Schoen, Michael J. / University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA ................................................... 308 Scott, Carl / University of Houston, USA .......................................................................................... 422 Smith, Brian / Edge Hill University, UK ........................................................................................... 329 Smith, Samuel / University of Texas at Arlington, USA .................................................................... 182 Yang, Dazhi / Purdue University, USA .............................................................................................. 138 Yang, Harrison Hao / State University of New York at Oswego, USA .............................................. 455 York, Ann M. / Des Moines University, USA .................................................................................... 351 Yu, Chien / Mississippi State University, USA ....................................................................................... 1 Yu, Wei-Chieh Wayne / Chang Gung Institute of Technology, Taiwan ................................................ 1 Yuen, Steve Chi-Yin / The University of Southern Mississippi, USA ............................................... 455 Zhang, Ke / Wayne State University, USA ........................................................................................... 76

Table of Contents

Preface .............................................................................................................................................. xxiv Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................... xxv

Section 1 Chronical and Conceptual Perspectives Chapter 1 Computer-Mediated Learning: What Have We Experienced and Where Do We Go Next?................... 1 Chien Yu, Mississippi State University, USA Wei-Chieh Wayne Yu, Chang Gung Institute of Technology, Taiwan Chun Fu Lin, Minghsin University of Science & Technology, Taiwan Chapter 2 From Web to Web 2.0 and E-Learning 2.0 ........................................................................................... 19 Clara Pereira Coutinho, University of Minho, Portugal João Batista Bottentuit Jr., University of Minho, Portugal Chapter 3 E-Learning 2.0: Web 2.0, the Semantic Web and the Power of Collective Intelligence....................... 38 Chaka Chaka, Walter Sisulu University, South Africa Chapter 4 The Key Elements of Online Learning Communities........................................................................... 61 Jianxia Du, Mississippi State University, USA Yunyan Liu, Southwest University, China Robert L. Brown, Mississippi State University, USA

Section 2 E-Learners Chapter 5 Generational Learners & E-Learning Technologies ............................................................................. 76 Ke Zhang, Wayne State University, USA Curtis J. Bonk, Indiana University, USA Chapter 6 The Digital Generation and Web 2.0: E-Learning Concern or Media Myth?....................................... 93 Robin M. Roberts, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA Chapter 7 Adult Learners, E-Learning, and Success: Critical Issues and Challenges in an Adult Hybrid Distance Learning Program ................................................................................. 116 Jeffrey Hsu, Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA Karin Hamilton, Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA Chapter 8 Online Interaction Styles: Adapting to Active Interaction Styles ....................................................... 138 Dazhi Yang, Purdue University, USA Jennifer C. Richardson, Purdue University, USA Chapter 9 Strategies for Providing Formative Feedback to Maximize Learner Satisfaction and Online Learning ........................................................................................................................... 150 Yuliang Liu, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, USA

Section 3 E-Learning Environments and Communities Chapter 10 Exploring Ideas and Possibilities of Second Life as an Advanced E-learning Environment ............. 165 Bo Kyeong Kim, Jeonju University, Republic of Korea Youngkyun Baek, Korea National University of Education, Republic of Korea Chapter 11 When Virtual Communities Click: Transforming Teacher Practice, Transforming Teachers............. 182 Jeannine Hirtle, The University of Hawaii at Hilo, USA Samuel Smith, University of Texas at Arlington, USA Chapter 12 Could Web 2.0 Technologies Support Knowledge Management in Organizations? .......................... 197 Luiz Fernando de Barros Campos, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil

Chapter 13 E-Learning Design for the Information Workplace ............................................................................ 211 Colleen Carmean, Arizona State University, USA Chapter 14 The Impact of Information Communication Technology (ICT) to the Greek Educational Community................................................................................................. 222 Paraskevi Mentzelou, Alexander Technological Educational Institute (A.T.E.I.) of Thessaloniki, Greece Dimitrios Drogidis, School Consultant of Primary Education, Greece

Section 4 Professional and Disciplinary Implications Chapter 15 Faculty Use and Perceptions of Web 2.0 in Higher Education ........................................................... 241 Richard Hartshorne, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Haya Ajjan, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Richard E. Ferdig, University of Florida, USA Chapter 16 Librarian as Collaborator: Bringing E-Learning 2.0 into the Classroom by Way of the Library ....... 260 Susanne Markgren, State University of New York Purchase College, USA Carrie Eastman, State University of New York Purchase College, USA Leah Massar Bloom, State University of New York Purchase College, USA Chapter 17 Implementing E-Learning in University 2.0: Are Universities Ready for the Digital Age?............... 278 Betül C. Özkan, University of Arizona South, USA Chapter 18 New Literacies in New Times: A Multimodal Approach to Literacy Learning .................................. 294 Hsiu-Ting Hung, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. Chapter 19 Transforming Continuing Healthcare Education with E-Learning 2.0 ............................................... 308 Rajani S. Sadasivam, University of Massachusetts Medical School, USA Katie M. Crenshaw, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Michael J. Schoen, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Raju V. Datla, Massachusetts Medical Society, USA

Section 5 Pedagogical Design and Implementations Chapter 20 Mode Neutral: The Pedagogy that Bridges Web 2.0 and e-Learning 2.0 ........................................... 329 Brian Smith, Edge Hill University, UK Peter Reed, Edge Hill University, UK Chapter 21 Dispatches from the Graduate Classroom: Bringing Theory and Practice to E-Learning .................. 351 F.R. “Fritz” Nordengren, Des Moines University, USA Ann M. York, Des Moines University, USA Chapter 22 Student-Centered Teaching with Constructionist Technology Tools: Preparing 21st Century Teachers ........................................................................................................ 367 Kathryn Kennedy, University of Florida, USA Jeff Boyer, University of Florida, USA Catherine Cavanaugh, University of Florida, USA Kara Dawson, University of Florida, USA Chapter 23 Challenges for Teacher Education in the Learning Society: Case Studies of Promising Practice .......................................................................................................................... 385 Clara Pereira Coutinho, University of Minho, Portugal Chapter 24 From Memorable to Transformative E-Learning Experiences: Theory and Practice of Experience Design ......................................................................................... 402 Pearl Chen, California State University, Los Angeles, USA Chapter 25 Authentic Learning in Second Life: A Constructivist Model in Course Design................................. 422 Carl Scott, University of Houston, USA Youmei Liu, University of Houston, USA Madhuri Kumar, University of Houston, USA Chapter 26 Student Perceptions and Pedagogical Applications of E-Learning Tools in Online Course .............. 440 C. Candace Chou, University of St. Thomas, USA

Chapter 27 Using Blogfolios to Enhance Interaction in E-Learning Courses ....................................................... 455 Steve Chi-Yin Yuen, The University of Southern Mississippi, USA Harrison Hao Yang, State University of New York at Oswego, USA Chapter 28 Multi-Tier Knowledge-Based System Accessing Learning Object Repository Using Fuzzy XML .............................................................................................................................. 471 Priti Srinivas Sajja, Sardar Patel University, India Chapter 29 Finding Information: Factors that Improve Online Experiences ........................................................ 493 Ivan Angelov, University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria Sathish Menon, Analytic Dimension, USA Michael Douma, Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement (IDEA), USA

Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 507 About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 559 Index ................................................................................................................................................... 570

Detailed Table of Contents

Preface .............................................................................................................................................. xxiv Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................... xxv

Section 1 Chronical and Conceptual Perspectives Chapter 1 Computer-Mediated Learning: What Have We Experienced and Where Do We Go Next?................... 1 Chien Yu, Mississippi State University, USA Wei-Chieh Wayne Yu, Chang Gung Institute of Technology, Taiwan Chun Fu Lin, Minghsin University of Science & Technology, Taiwan Dramatic changes in information and communication technologies (ICTs) provide a powerful force for the growth of e-learning. E-learning has become the undeniable trend for both secondary and higher education. This chapter provides an overview of e-learning computer technologies within the teaching and learning, an examination of current research studies in related areas, and a discussion of the paradigm shift as well as on the trends and issues pertinent to the development of computer-mediated instruction/ learning and e-learning. Furthermore, this chapter explores how students perceived the effectiveness of computer-mediated instruction and learning and their perceptions and attitudes toward learning using computer technology. Chapter 2 From Web to Web 2.0 and E-Learning 2.0 ........................................................................................... 19 Clara Pereira Coutinho, University of Minho, Portugal João Batista Bottentuit Jr., University of Minho, Portugal In this chapter the authors analyze issues and ideas regarding the next generation of e-Learning, which is already known as e-Learning 2.0 or social e-Learning. The authors look at the new learning tools that have emerged from the evolution of the Web, to the Web 2.0 paradigm, discussing their potential for supporting modern and independent lifelong learners. Even more important, the authors justify

the modeling of a new concept for the future of teaching and learning in the knowledge-based society in which we live. The conclusion of this chapter presents a scenario for the evolution of the Web, the Semantic Web or 3.0 generation Web, which is emerging as a higher environment that will advance the design and development of e-Learning systems in promising new directions: machine-understandable educational material will be the basis for machines that automatically use and interpret information for the benefit of authors and educators, making e-Learning platforms more adaptable and responsive to each individual learner. Chapter 3 E-Learning 2.0: Web 2.0, the Semantic Web and the Power of Collective Intelligence....................... 38 Chaka Chaka, Walter Sisulu University, South Africa This chapter contends that both Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web (the SW) serve as critical enablers for e-learning 2.0. It also maintains that the SW has the potential to take e-learning 2.0 to new frontiers of advancement. Most significantly, the chapter argues that Web 2.0 and the SW provide an ideal platform for harnessing collective intelligence, collective knowledge, the power of the groundswell, the network effect, and the power of collective simulation for higher education institutions (HEIs) in the area of elearning 2.0. Against this backdrop, the chapter provides, first, a short overview of e-learning 2.0, Web 2.0 and the SW. Second, it characterizes the way in which Web 2.0 social software technologies (e.g., blogs, wikis, social networks and virtual worlds) can be deployed in HEIs for delivering e-learning 2.0 for educational purposes. In addition, it outlines the manner in which the SW (in the form of semantic blogs, semantic wikis, semantic social networks and semantic virtual worlds) can enhance each of these Web 2.0 technologies for deploying e-learning 2.0 in HEIs. Chapter 4 The Key Elements of Online Learning Communities........................................................................... 61 Jianxia Du, Mississippi State University, USA Yunyan Liu, Southwest University, China Robert L. Brown, Mississippi State University, USA An online learning community can be a place for vibrant discussions and the sharing of new ideas in a medium where content constantly changes. This chapter examines the different definitions that researchers have provided for online learning communities. It then illuminates several key elements that are integral to online learning communities: interactivity, in both its task-driven and socio-emotional forms; collaboration, which both builds and nurtures online communities; trusting relationships, which are developed primarily through social interaction and consist of shared goals and a sense of belonging or connectedness; and communication media choices, which impact the other three elements. This chapter also provides suggestions for the practical application of these elements in the online classroom.

Section 2 E-Learners Chapter 5 Generational Learners & E-Learning Technologies ............................................................................. 76 Ke Zhang, Wayne State University, USA Curtis J. Bonk, Indiana University, USA This chapter reviews the characteristics of learners of different generations. In particular, it compares their differences in terms of learning preferences as well as their typical skills and attitudes towards technology in e-learning. In addition, it discusses the impacts of these shared and varied learner characteristics on e-learning and provides suggestions and recommendations on how to address generational learning diversity in e-learning design and delivery. In responding to the emerging learning technologies, this chapter specifically analyzes generational learners’ preferences and characteristics regarding learning technologies, and the practical implications for designers and educators working on e-learning for highly diversified audiences representing various generations. Chapter 6 The Digital Generation and Web 2.0: E-Learning Concern or Media Myth?....................................... 93 Robin M. Roberts, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA The relationship between the Digital or Millennium Generation and Web 2.0 is investigated focusing on how post-secondary students just entering American colleges and universities use the interactive or read-write web popularly known as “Web 2.0” and what implications their use of those web sites has for E-learning. Central to the investigation is addressing the question of whether the Digital Generation and Web 2.0 concepts describe actual realities or exist merely as popular media constructions. The basic thrust of the chapter is the position that the Digital Generation does not function as a monolithic group, but that the use of Web 2.0 technologies is related to developmental stages and life situation. Chapter 7 Adult Learners, E-Learning, and Success: Critical Issues and Challenges in an Adult Hybrid Distance Learning Program ................................................................................. 116 Jeffrey Hsu, Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA Karin Hamilton, Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA Adult learners have a set of specific and unique needs, and are different from traditional college students. Possessing greater maturity, interest in learning, and also career and life-oriented objectives, they have different expectations for their education, as well as different backgrounds and goals. This chapter examines what adult learners are, theories of adult learning, and the applicability of online learning to adult learners. Specific teaching methods and techniques are discussed for online and hybrid distance learning courses, as well as hybrid arrangements; encompassing teaching methods, types of exercises and activities, intensive course structures, block scheduling, and the use of modular course segments. Examples from an adult learner hybrid distance learning undergraduate program, Fairleigh Dickinson University’s Global Business Management, are also provided. Future trends and areas for further research conclude the chapter.

Chapter 8 Online Interaction Styles: Adapting to Active Interaction Styles ....................................................... 138 Dazhi Yang, Purdue University, USA Jennifer C. Richardson, Purdue University, USA Past studies indicate that students demonstrate different online interaction styles, which consist of the ways or habits students acquire knowledge from computer-mediated discussions (Sutton, 2001). Such interaction styles include the active interaction style (Beaudion, 2002), the vicarious interaction style (Sutton, 2001), and the mixed or balanced-interaction style. The purposes of this chapter are to: (a) examine relative studies on students’ online interaction styles; (b) propose a hypothesis that students’ online interaction styles can change during the course of computer-mediated discussion; (c) conduct a case study on students’ online interaction styles to test the hypothesis. This chapter reviews current issues related to students’ online interaction styles. It offers practical suggestions on the design of online learning environments, instructor’s role in online courses, and educational tools to facilitate students in adapting to more active interaction styles in computer-mediated learning environments. Chapter 9 Strategies for Providing Formative Feedback to Maximize Learner Satisfaction and Online Learning ........................................................................................................................... 150 Yuliang Liu, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, USA Learner satisfaction and learning is currently a very important topic in online instruction and learning. Blignaut and Trollip (2003) proposed six types of response for providing formative feedback in online courses. These six response types include: Administrative, Affective, Other, Corrective, Informative, and Socratic. The first three types involve no academic content while the last three types are related to academic content. Each type serves a different purpose for online learners. This study is designed to validate how the appropriate use of six response types for providing formative feedback affected learner satisfaction and online learning in an online graduate class at a mid-western university in the summer semester of 2008. Results indicated that all six response types are necessary to ensure maximum online learner satisfaction and effective online learning although each has its different focus. Findings have implications for all other online courses in the future.

Section 3 E-Learning Environments and Communities Chapter 10 Exploring Ideas and Possibilities of Second Life as an Advanced E-learning Environment ............. 165 Bo Kyeong Kim, Jeonju University, Republic of Korea Youngkyun Baek, Korea National University of Education, Republic of Korea Web 2.0 is changing the paradigm of using the Internet which is affecting the e-learning paradigm. In this chapter, e-learning 2.0 and its strategies are described for net generation. E-learning 2.0 is followed by introduction of Second Life as an advanced e-learning environment. Flexibility, strong social net-

working, and residents’ creative activities of Second Life allow unlimited potential to educators when they apply various educational principles to designing a learning environment. The authors assert that Second Life is a classroom built-in 3D cyber space. This chapter presents some cases on how Second Life is used in a new e-learning environment. Also, it explores ideas and possibilities of Second Life that can provide to make up for the limits in the current e-learning environment. Chapter 11 When Virtual Communities Click: Transforming Teacher Practice, Transforming Teachers............. 182 Jeannine Hirtle, The University of Hawaii at Hilo, USA Samuel Smith, University of Texas at Arlington, USA Communities of practice (CoP’s)—much touted and studied as a mechanism for teacher education and professional development—may offer environments for deeper learning and transformation of their participants. This chapter examines more meaningful outcomes possible in community-centered learning— deep learning, changes in professional culture and identity, and participants “finding voice”—outcomes of value not often seen in formal educational and traditional professional development settings. Drawing on qualitative data from participants in a three-year community of writers and literacy educators, the authors suggests that CoP’s can be linked not only to development of knowledge and skills, but also to changes in participant beliefs, attitudes, voices, visions, and the identities of practicing educators. Chapter 12 Could Web 2.0 Technologies Support Knowledge Management in Organizations? .......................... 197 Luiz Fernando de Barros Campos, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil This chapter investigates whether information technology tools typical of Web 2.0 can support Knowledge Management (KM) practices in organizations. An investigation on the Web is conducted and the appropriate literature examined. The information technology tools employed in organizations nowadays are discussed with the help of three guidelines which each present two opposing ideas: knowledge creation versus knowledge sharing, tacit knowledge versus explicit knowledge, and hierarchical KM versus organic KM. It is argued that these tools reveal an innate contradiction: they are based on a centralized conception and production but aim to deal with informal, fluid processes, which resist structuring. The term Enterprise 2.0 is defined and examined, since it brings out a critical view of traditional KM technology. Also, the challenges and opportunities in the organizational use of Web 2.0 technologies are remarked. Finally, the managerial interventions appropriate to enable the success of KM projects based on Web 2.0 technologies are discussed. Chapter 13 E-Learning Design for the Information Workplace ............................................................................ 211 Colleen Carmean, Arizona State University, USA Anytime and all-the-time access to electronic resources, artifacts and community have changed learning practices in the workplace as surely as it has changed the workplace itself. Learning today is measured not by what we know, but by how successfully we tap into our network to find the information we need in the moment we need it. The business environment now demands anytime and just-in-time answers

at all levels of the organization. In response to new expectations within the information-rich workplace, the organization must look to a new practice of comprehensive design for a shared knowledge architecture that can leverage the digital tools, methods and effective practices now available. To understand not simply technology but the affordance (Norman, 1988; Carmean & McGee, 2008) and effective use of each technology now available, a new design practice is needed. Current digital learners seek practices, resources and help in navigating the shared knowledge flow and have little training or support in understanding the network of information available. If anytime, anywhere, and from any source is a new e-learning paradigm in the digital workplace (Cross, 2006), then the challenge for a new breed of designers will be to understand, create and support the digital learner in their access and use of the shared knowledge embedded within local and global networked resources. Chapter 14 The Impact of Information Communication Technology (ICT) to the Greek Educational Community................................................................................................. 222 Paraskevi Mentzelou, Alexander Technological Educational Institute (A.T.E.I.) of Thessaloniki, Greece Dimitrios Drogidis, School Consultant of Primary Education, Greece The aims of Greek education system is to give to students the ability to develop the required skills, character and values that will enable them to contribute to the prosperity of Greek Society, Greek Nation and humanity. The fulfillments of these aims require a dynamic educational system with the potential of incessant adjustment emanated from the interaction between national education and societal needs and demands. Living in an information and knowledge society where quality is its goal, Greek education system has to be enriched with all the characteristics and means that specify educational quality. In a framework, where educational changes are unavoidable due to the entrance of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and especially the use of World Wide Web in Greek education system, an effort to present the current impact to Greek Educational community is attempted. This chapter describes ways, efforts, stages and methods that have been set for the application of ICT to Greek education system and presents effects, issues, trends and utilization of World Wide Web by the Greek educational community.

Section 4 Professional and Disciplinary Implications Chapter 15 Faculty Use and Perceptions of Web 2.0 in Higher Education ........................................................... 241 Richard Hartshorne, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Haya Ajjan, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Richard E. Ferdig, University of Florida, USA In this chapter, the authors provide evidence for the potential of various Web 2.0 applications in higher education through a review of relevant literature on both emerging educational technologies and social networking. Additionally, the authors report the results and implications of a study exploring faculty

awareness of the potential of Web 2.0 technologies (blogs, wikis, social bookmarks, social networks, instant messaging, internet telephony, and audio/video conferencing) to support and supplement classroom instruction in higher education. Also, using the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior as the theoretical foundation, the authors discuss factors that influence faculty decisions to adopt specific Web 2.0 technologies. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the study and recommendations for future research. Chapter 16 Librarian as Collaborator: Bringing E-Learning 2.0 into the Classroom by Way of the Library ....... 260 Susanne Markgren, State University of New York Purchase College, USA Carrie Eastman, State University of New York Purchase College, USA Leah Massar Bloom, State University of New York Purchase College, USA In this chapter, the authors explore the role of academic librarians in the e-learning 2.0 environment. Librarians are excellent partners in developing e-learning 2.0 spaces with faculty, because they are already familiar with many Web 2.0 technologies being used in these environments. The authors explore how libraries and librarians have traditionally served their patrons, and how the library is currently becoming a collaborative technology center serving increasingly tech-savvy students. With this in mind, the authors define e-learning 2.0 and examine the history behind the development of the concept. They also address the librarian’s role as it pertains to information literacy on campus and collaboration with faculty in order to facilitate the e-learning process. The chapter concludes with a focus on how librarians can help bring e-learning 2.0 in to the classroom through faculty workshops, consultations, and embedding of librarians within classes. Chapter 17 Implementing E-Learning in University 2.0: Are Universities Ready for the Digital Age?............... 278 Betül C. Özkan, University of Arizona South, USA Because of the ways students learn and make sense of world change, higher education institutions try to re-conceptualize this change process and search for better approaches to respond to the demands of the information age. This chapter addresses current transformation specifically occurring in e-Learning environments through emerging technologies and discusses new approaches to teaching and learning so the future of education can be better grasped. The chapter also provides a list of suggestions so adoption of new technologies as well as e-Learning strategies are more effective in Universities 2.0. Chapter 18 New Literacies in New Times: A Multimodal Approach to Literacy Learning .................................. 294 Hsiu-Ting Hung, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. The focus of the chapter is two-fold: on one hand, it seeks theoretical understanding of literacy as social practice; on the other hand, it explores how emerging technologies afford and transcend the practice of literacy in social interaction. The chapter begins with a re-conceptualization of literacy from the perspective of New Literacies Studies and outlines key principles pertaining to the plural notion of literacy to

provide a theoretical context for the discussion of a multimodal approach to literacy learning. The chapter then links the development of the emerging literacy approach with the advent of technology to explore new possibilities in language and literacy classrooms. Vignettes of emerging technologies, more specifically, social networking services are also presented to demonstrate possible pedagogic uses of multimodal resources in education. The chapter concludes with directions for future literacy research, promoting a multimodal approach to learning that attends to teaching and learning with emerging technologies. Chapter 19 Transforming Continuing Healthcare Education with E-Learning 2.0 ............................................... 308 Rajani S. Sadasivam, University of Massachusetts Medical School, USA Katie M. Crenshaw, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Michael J. Schoen, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Raju V. Datla, Massachusetts Medical Society, USA The e-learning 2.0 transformation of continuing education of healthcare professionals (CE/CME) will be characterized by a fundamental shift from the delivery of static information online to a seamless, digital operation in which all users have the ability to access, create, and share knowledge in a multidimensional, instantaneous, collaborative, and interactive manner. This transformation will be disruptive, blurring existing boundaries between CE/CME professionals, content experts, and student learners, and modifying the traditional structured learning process to a more informal one. While the opportunities are unlimited, the transformation will present not only technology challenges but also social and educational challenges. Recent experiences with similar disruptive technologies show that a meaningful transformation can be achieved only if the application of technology is accompanied by strategic operational changes. This chapter offers a conceptual framework to guide CE/CME professionals interested in transforming their operations with new e-learning 2.0 technologies. Employing several usage scenarios, a new e-learning 2.0-based model of CE/CME operation is introduced. The authors also present several examples of approaches adopted by their academic group to address the various challenges discussed in this chapter.

Section 5 Pedagogical Design and Implementations Chapter 20 Mode Neutral: The Pedagogy that Bridges Web 2.0 and e-Learning 2.0 ........................................... 329 Brian Smith, Edge Hill University, UK Peter Reed, Edge Hill University, UK In this chapter, the authors share their excitement about the 2.0 era with some notes of caution. From an educational perspective, the authors believe there is a void between Web 2.0 and E-learning 2.0 - in the shape of pedagogy. What academics have traditionally delivered in a classroom setting has been framed around a sound set of principles – the pedagogy. As for e-learning, many educators have adopted classroom pedagogies within the ever-evolving online world and have noted their incompatibilities. Nevertheless, the common aim of using technology in education is intended to support the learner in their studies. Integrating any (new or old) technologies into education requires a pedagogy that is effective

in information exchange, yet flexible enough to respond to the various demands placed upon learning and teaching by both the learner, and the technology. This chapter details the authors’ evidence-based pedagogical model – Mode Neutral – showing how contemporary education can promote the use of Web 2.0 tools to harness collective intelligence. The authors outline their case study of using (arguably) a Web 1.0 technology, the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) as the single learning space, with Web 2.0 tools integrated to encourage collaborative learning. Chapter 21 Dispatches from the Graduate Classroom: Bringing Theory and Practice to E-Learning .................. 351 F.R. “Fritz” Nordengren, Des Moines University, USA Ann M. York, Des Moines University, USA This chapter is a practical overview of both the theoretical, evidence-based research in pedagogy and the anecdotal, experience-based practices of faculty who work daily in online and blended learning communities. This approach combines best practices with theoretical aspects of delivering and facilitating education with diverse adult learners. Issues and trends in E-learning are presented with specific examples for implementation and suggestions for future research. Using an evidence-based approach, the authors explore and summarize recent research with a concurrent analysis of the anecdotal popular literature. This chapter explores the concept of information literacy and other skills necessary to succeed in the Web 2.0 world. The discussion takes readers away from the traditional “sage on stage” versus “guide on side” dichotomy towards both a new understanding of Web 2.0’s role in education as well as a preface to what may become Web 3.0 and beyond. Chapter 22 Student-Centered Teaching with Constructionist Technology Tools: Preparing 21st Century Teachers ........................................................................................................ 367 Kathryn Kennedy, University of Florida, USA Jeff Boyer, University of Florida, USA Catherine Cavanaugh, University of Florida, USA Kara Dawson, University of Florida, USA Using the theoretical framework of “craft” highlighted by Richard Sennett (2008) in The Craftsman, this chapter focuses on constructionism and the implications of project-based learning in an undergraduatelevel pre-service teachers’ technology integration course. The chapter evaluates an approach to teaching undergraduate pre-service teachers to teach children to use constructionist technology tools, including Web 2.0 technologies – wikis, blogs, podcasts, etc. Data were collected and analyzed to document preservice teachers’ experiences with these tools as well as to gauge their level of confidence in teaching with the technology in their future classrooms. Data collected included pre-post concept maps, pre-post preinternship interviews, and learning artifacts. Analyses show an increase in pre-service teachers’ complexity of knowledge and awareness of Web 2.0 tools and skills, and a moderate impact on their beliefs about student constructionism in their future classrooms.

Chapter 23 Challenges for Teacher Education in the Learning Society: Case Studies of Promising Practice .......................................................................................................................... 385 Clara Pereira Coutinho, University of Minho, Portugal In this chapter, the author presents the results of a project developed in pre-service and in-service teacher education programs at the University of Minho, Portugal. The main goal of the research was to test the importance of providing technological-rich experiences in education programs as a strategy to promote the integration of technologies in the classroom. The author assumes that the failure of ICT integration in Portuguese schools is due to a lack of teacher training in technology-supported pedagogy. This chapter presents and discusses a set of principles that are essential to understand and sustain the importance of the learning experiences in teacher education programs both for pre-service and in-service teacher education. Different Web 2.0 tools are explored in different contexts and with different pedagogical goals: to build e-portfolios, to enhance cooperation and collaboration among peers, to develop skills in searching, organizing and sharing Web resources and to facilitate interaction and communication competencies. Results are presented and discussed in order to infer a set of guidelines for the design of teacher education and training programs regarding the use of ICT in teaching and learning. Chapter 24 From Memorable to Transformative E-Learning Experiences: Theory and Practice of Experience Design ......................................................................................... 402 Pearl Chen, California State University, Los Angeles, USA This chapter reviews the current state of theory and practice of experience design and suggests that the notion of experience should be regarded as an essential and unifying theme in guiding a broader perspective of design and study of e-learning. Underlying this chapter is a view that suggests a shift from designing learning environments to “staging” learning experiences. By looking at learning through the prism of experience design, we may begin to discover ways to create compelling, memorable, and transformative e-learning experiences. Some existing models and effective practices in education are considered as viable models for adapting experience design to e-learning contexts. Furthermore, this chapter identifies some converging areas of research from the fields of experience design and education, so as not to reinvent the wheel but to expand our knowledge on designing quality e-learning experiences that are engaging and valued by people. Chapter 25 Authentic Learning in Second Life: A Constructivist Model in Course Design................................. 422 Carl Scott, University of Houston, USA Youmei Liu, University of Houston, USA Madhuri Kumar, University of Houston, USA This chapter examines the relationship between a constructivist teaching approach and online learning experiences in the Virtual Worlds of Second Life, using a specifically constructed MBA-level course teaching Systems Analysis and Design. A research study was incorporated in the course design to test the Constructivist Learning Design (CLD) model (Gagnon & Collay, 2006) and social (use of individual- vs.

group-oriented activities) domains. This chapter covers: (a) fundamentals of Systems Analysis and Design course; (b) current research of Second Life in education; (c) course design based on CLD models; and (d) research data analysis of course delivery through constructivist learning in Second Life and student learning experiences in the Virtual Worlds. Chapter 26 Student Perceptions and Pedagogical Applications of E-Learning Tools in Online Course .............. 440 C. Candace Chou, University of St. Thomas, USA This study explores student views of various E-Learning tools as teaching and learning media in an online course for pre-service and in-service teachers. This chapter also examines the pedagogical applications of E-Learning tools in an online course. The capabilities of a system that allows meaningful interaction, reflection, personal identification, and a sense of community play a key role in the degree of social presence. This study highlights some key findings regarding the efficacy of E-Learning tools from student perspectives and make recommendations for future pedagogical practice. Chapter 27 Using Blogfolios to Enhance Interaction in E-Learning Courses ....................................................... 455 Steve Chi-Yin Yuen, The University of Southern Mississippi, USA Harrison Hao Yang, State University of New York at Oswego, USA Enhancing the substantial interaction in e-learning courses can be a challenge to instructors. The chapter gave an overview of online interaction, portfolios development, and blogs use in education. It then discussed the potential uses of Weblog-based portfolio for e-learning courses in supporting interactions among students and instructors, and presented a case study on how a blogfolio approach was implemented into three hybrid courses and one fully online course at two universities in the United States. The effectiveness of the blogfolio approach on interactions in both fully online and hybrid courses has been assessed and confirmed in this study. Chapter 28 Multi-Tier Knowledge-Based System Accessing Learning Object Repository Using Fuzzy XML .............................................................................................................................. 471 Priti Srinivas Sajja, Sardar Patel University, India Quality of an e-Learning solution depends on its content, services offered by it and technology used. To increase reusability of common learning material which is accessed by multiple applications, there is a need for user-friendly and cost-effective knowledge based approach. This chapter discusses basic concepts of learning object repositories; presents work done so far and establishes the need of knowledge based access of the learning repositories to improve cost-benefit ratio of an e-Learning solution. For this purpose, a multi-tier knowledge based system accessing a fuzzy XML learning object repository is described with architectural framework and detailed methodology. The working of course tier, reusable LO tier, presentation tier, fuzzy interface tier and application tier is discussed in detail with an example to identify learners’ level and determine presentation sequence accordingly. The chapter concludes by discussing the advantages and questions related to further enhancement.

Chapter 29 Finding Information: Factors that Improve Online Experiences ........................................................ 493 Ivan Angelov, University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria Sathish Menon, Analytic Dimension, USA Michael Douma, Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement (IDEA), USA This chapter outlines central findings from surveys that considered factors that drive online experience as expressed by the three different groups of subjects – nonprofit organizations and cities, web designers and firms, and the general public. The survey’s significant findings are: designers underestimate the thresholds for an effective site; easy access to complete information is the key to visitor enjoyment; good visual design and up-to-date information are critical; visitors want information fast; visitors want a broad range of topics; designers are overly optimistic about visitors’ ability to maintain orientation; visitors still need handholding; and visitors cite the lack of breadth and depth of content as causing an “information gap.”

Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 507 About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 559 Index ................................................................................................................................................... 570

xxiv

Preface

Learning has been dramatically influenced by information and communication technology (ICT). There is no doubt that ICT keeps bringing new excitement into learning and communication. Multimedia on the Internet, telecommunications, wireless applications, mobile devices, social network software, Web 2.0, etc. are all radically redefining the way people obtain information and the way to learn and communicate. Consequently, electronic learning (e-learning) has become one of the most exciting, dynamic, and yet challenging fields that we have been facing. What is the history of e-learning? Where are we now? What will the future bring? What are the key elements of e-learning we need to focus on? Where has progress been made? How will we face and rise to new opportunities and challenges? How do we analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate e-learning? In order to shed light on these questions, we’ve taken a comprehensive view and looked at e-learning and innovative e-learning 2.0 from historical, conceptual, empirical, practical, and vocational perspectives. The result is this book, entitled Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-Learning: Issues and Trends. Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-Learning: Issues and Trends is written for broader audiences including educators, trainers, administrators, and researchers working in the area of e-learning or distance learning in various disciplines, e.g. education, corporate training, instructional technology, computer science, library information science, information technology, and workforce development. We hope readers will benefit from the work of authors who range from cutting edge researchers to experienced practitioners regarding the research and practices in e-learning. The book covers focal points of e-learning and is organized into five parts of e-learning: Chronical and Conceptual Perspectives (Chapters 1-4); E-Learners (Chapters 5-9); E-Learning Environments and Communities (Chapters 10-14); Professional and Disciplinary Implications (Chapters 15-19); and Pedagogical Design and Implementations (Chapters 20-29). Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-Learning: Issues and Trends provides not only the advanced and latest development of e-learning for experienced professionals, but also provides clear and inclusive information for novice readers. It is designed to be used in a flexible manner, and it can adapt easily to suit a variety of ICT related courses/workshops and needs by students, instructors, professionals, and administrators. The book can be used as a research reference, pedagogical and professional guide, or educational resource in the area of e-learning.

Harrison H. Yang and Steve C. Yuen March 11, 2009

xxv

Acknowledgment

Throughout this endeavor we have benefited from the advice, encouragement, and support of numerous individuals, including the contributing authors, thoughtful reviewers, supportive colleagues, and patient family members. Without the contributions of all of these people, this book would not been possible. First, we would like to express our deepest thanks and sincere appreciation to the authors whose chapters appear in this book. We have enjoyed working with all of them, for they have made our work interesting, enjoyable, and relatively painless. Their excellent contributions make us feel confident that readers will truly benefit from reading chapters of this book. Second, we are very grateful for the support provided by the reviewers. They have done outstanding work providing us with detailed comments and constructive suggestions for each of the chapters. Their comments and suggestions were helpful to us in making editorial decisions and providing important feedback to the authors for improving and revising their chapters. Finally, we would like to thank our families for their patience and encouragement. Both of our families have been a constant source of understanding, support, and encouragement. We dedicate this book to our spouses, Li Chen and Patrivan K. Yuen, and thank them both for love and support and for letting us disappear into the abyss for hours on end.

Harrison H. Yang and Steve C. Yuen March 11, 2009

Section 1

Chronical and Conceptual Perspectives

1

Chapter 1

Computer-Mediated Learning: What Have We Experienced and Where Do We Go Next? Chien Yu Mississippi State University, USA Wei-Chieh Wayne Yu Chang Gung Institute of Technology, Taiwan Chun Fu Lin Minghsin University of Science & Technology, Taiwan

ABSTRACT Dramatic changes in information and communication technologies (ICTs) provide a powerful force forthe growth of e-learning. E-learning has become the undeniable trend for both secondary and higher education. This chapter provides readers with an overview of e-learning computer technologies within the teaching and learning, an examination of current research studies in related areas, and a discussion of the paradigm shift as well as on the trends and issues pertinent to the development of computer-mediated instruction/learning and e-learning. Furthermore, this chapter will explore how students perceived the effectiveness of computer-mediated instruction and learning and their perceptions and attitudes toward learning using computer technology.

INTRODUCTION Today, knowledge and technology play a critical role in driving productivity and economic growth. A new phenomenon, commonly known as the “knowledge economy,” uses information and communication technologies (ICTs) to create revolutionary changes in the workplace and in society in general. Kozma (2003) stated: DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch001

The knowledge economy gives rise to ICTs because they provide the needed tools and these tools allow us to create, collect, store, and use this new knowledge and information. They also enable us to connect with people and resources all over the world, to collaborate in the creation of knowledge, and to distribute and benefit from knowledge products (p. 2). Due to their rapid development and growing popularity, ICTs have gained many proponents in

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Computer-Mediated Learning

education. Some researchers (Finger, McGlasson & Finger, 2007, Kozma, 2003) are convinced that the innovative use of new and emerging technologies can bring about quality change in the world of education in terms of opening the possibilities for improved presentation and delivery of programs that benefit both the educators and the students. Many studies (Johnston & Joscelyn, 1989; Kozma & Johnson, 1991; Perkins, 1992) emphasize that the use of computers in a learning environment can increase students’ active engagement in thinking and problem solving, promote understanding and mastery learning, and add realism to instruction to enhance knowledge construction. Even though the majority of researchers and practitioners have positive views related to the potential that information and communication technologies (ICTs) have in our education systems, some have remained cautious in using computer technology to facilitate teaching and learning. Bransford, Brown and Cocking (as cited in Kozma, 2003) noted that the positive impact of the computer does not come automatically because much is dependent on how instructors and students use computers in their classrooms. Oliver (2005) stated that the prevailing use of the new and emerging computer technologies will only occur as greater numbers of teachers perceive that such technology will benefit them and their learners, because for many, ICTs simply present more barriers than opportunities for teaching and learning. Derek Bok (as cited in Kozma & Johnston, 1991), a former Harvard university president, also shared his cautious optimism, saying that technologies can undoubtedly engage students in the active thinking process and problem solving and at the very least, helping students learn. However, he suspected that “computers can contribute much to the learning of open-ended subjects such as moral philosophy, religion, historical interpretation, literary criticism, or social theory – fields that cannot be reduced to formal rules and procedures” (p. 10-11). This chapter provides the reader with an overview of e-learning computer technologies within teaching

2

and learning, an examination of current research in related areas, and a discussion of the paradigm shift as well as on the trends and issues pertinent to the development of computer-mediated instruction/learning and e-learning. Furthermore, this chapter will explore how students perceived the effectiveness of computer-mediated instruction and learning and their perceptions and attitudes toward learning using computer technology.

COMPUTER-MEDIATED INSTRUCTION The use of computer technologies has presented numerous opportunities to support teaching and learning for educators and improves quality and excellence in education. Vogel and Klassen (2001) pointed out “teaching methods that assume a single language and shared homogeneity of proficiencies, learning styles, and motivational systems are increasingly inadequate and inappropriate” (p.105). They suggested that educators should reassess current teaching methodologies and incorporate a variety of teaching methods. Bentley (2003) indicated that conducting classes in an entirely computer-mediated learning environment can effectively facilitate students’ knowledge construction. According to Bull, Kimball, and Stansberry (1998), computer-mediated instruction means the efficient and effective use of computer and/ or technology to support and facilitate teaching and learning activities. There are various forms of computer-mediated educational environments, such as Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), blended Technologies, the Internet, online learning. This section reviews these forms and the practices of computer-mediated instruction and learning.

Computer Mediated Communication Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is a broad term used to refer to the use of computers to


support human communications (Santoro, 1995). It is also referred to as the use of computer networks to facilitate interactions among distance learners (Jonassen, et al, 1995). Activities that are associated with CMC include electronic mail, group conferencing systems, synchronous (real-time) or asynchronous (delayed) group communication modes such as chat rooms or listservs. Jonassen, et al. advocated that when used properly and effectively, things such as group conferencing systems and e-mails can be powerful constructivist learning tools to enhance conversation and collaborative learning. Students who are engaged in electronic interaction or discussion with peers or experts are in a form of social negotiation. Through different exchanges of positions and perspectives, students are able to reflect, re-evaluate and re-structure their positions and perceptions. As a result, these activities may lead to a higher level thinking and understanding of materials in which knowledge construction takes place. For example, in the study of Virtual Classroom & Virtual Corporation Systems (VICTORY), a Communication Mediated Communication device, was developed and integrated in a business policy course at National Taiwan University. Tyan and Hong (1998) revealed that by making VICTORY a part of the course requirement, students showed true collaboration among themselves through working together as close-knitted group in decision making and in solving problems presented to them. Furthermore, they noted that students expressed positive attitudes toward CMC learning in particular because it allowed out-of-classroom communication between the instructor and learners. CMC students learned to think analytically, to articulate their thoughts, and to be more critical in terms of negotiating their own views with others. In addition, Morse (2003) supports conducting classes in a computer-mediated environment. He found that the overall class objective, which was the discussion, argument and analysis of knowledge development and e-business in light of technology changes in the 1990’s, was achieved using

a computer-mediated seminar class in place of a conventional face-to-face class, and the learners’ responses were generally positive. However, he inferred that computer networks present additional challenges to students such as technology frustrations related to “coordination difficulties, timing/ delay frustration, and skills deficits” (p. 39).

The Internet The core of e-knowledge, the Internet, will ‘democratize’learning, providing greater access at lower cost, ultimately improving quality. Ubiquitous PCs combined with high-speed bandwidth will facilitate engaging anytime, anywhere learning and human capital management. Online learning should become the new ‘killer application’ for the Internet, providing attractive growth potential for e-knowledge enterprise that can effectively marry learning, technology and electronic commerce (Moe & Blodget, 2000, p. 24).

The world of postsecondary education has been faced with increased demands to increase productivity, to offer quality academic programs and to allow greater and easier student access to education. As a result of these formidable challenges, institutions are resorting to new information and communication technologies that claim to increase access, promote the quality of instruction and at best, control costs (Baer, 1998). The development of the Internet has been praised to speed up the technological transformation in higher education. With its vast amount of information and constant emergence of creative Web uses, such as web blogs, instant messaging, RSS (Really Simple Syndication) web feeds, streaming videos, and other interactive media, the Internet is substantially changing the way people access, retrieve and use information (Hiemstra & Poley, 2007). The Internet can be a powerful tool to facilitate teaching and learning and to enhance and enrich academic and social life if it is utilized properly

3


and effectively. The World Wide Web can provide personal motivation, inspiration and interest as well (Brode, 2005). Breneman, Pusser, and Turner (2006) suggested that the Internet does not provide “a single output but a range of different educational products… and it has played a significant role in the institutional evolution of higher education” (p. 4). Liaw (2002) revealed that computer-based or Internet-based instructional designs can be rewarding experiences to teachers, trainers, and students, with teachers being more attentive and considerate of the learners’ perceptions toward Web-oriented instructional and learning environments.

Online Learning Almost every higher education institution has infused or intends to incorporate some features of information and communication technologies into its curriculum delivery system, even though each varies in the manner of technology organization and integration (Rudestam & SchoenholtzRead, 2002). Harasim (1998) claimed that there are basically three levels of application of instructional technology in education: (a) as the dominant pedagogical mechanism for one or more courses, (b) as a facilitative or enhanced medium to conventional face-to-face classes, and (c) as a platform for information exchange and discussions and for accessing resources over the Internet. Higher education, in connection with teaching and learning with online technology, can take many forms. For example, some colleges and university choose to offer the majority of their courses exclusively online for distance education; some prefer to take full advantage of computer networks to supplement the teaching and learning experience (Rudestam & SchoenholtzRead, 2002); still others encourage faculty to use “blended technologies,” that is, using computer conferencing systems in conjunction with or as an add-on to the traditional classroom experience. Bridges, Baily, Hiatt, Timmerman and Gibson (2002) outlined the following available blended

4

technology options for instructional designers: Interactive Television (ITV), Web-based curriculum, including websites, WebCT and Blackboard software programs, VCR and CD-ROM technologies, and other technologies such as Web (Pod) casting, desktop video conferencing and instant messaging. Online learning/education has become a crucial part of computer mediated learning.

WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED: RESEARCH STUDIES FOR COMPUTER-MEDIATED LEARNING The Emerging Use of Computer Technology “Computers have a vital role in the area of education, and it is inevitable that the role is going to continue to grow at an ever increasing rate,” says Dr. Donald J. Senese (1983, p. 10), former Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement at U.S. Department of Education. The technology of the computers available for educational use has vastly improved since Dr. Senese delivered his speech more than 20 years ago. A number of trends are emerging within this changing environment. Oliver (2005) offered his own observations in terms of the developmental progress of educational computing, noting the increasing expenditures on hardware, software and technical support beginning in the mid-1990s. Figuratively speaking, in 1994 alone, more than $6 billion dollars were spent by American colleges and universities on hardware and software, network wiring and technical support. During this same period nearly $2 billion dollars were spent to support learning and instruction. Since then, the investment has continued to grow, but at a less rapid rate. In the school year ’99-00, an estimated $2.7 billion was invested in academic computer hardware and software (Cuban, 2001). Since computer technology continues to advance in capacities and capabilities (Yu et


al., 2008), the computer is gaining popularity in mainstream classrooms. Every day computers become more capable of storing, processing, and analyzing larger amounts of data faster and in a much more effective and organized manner. Teachers can easily craft and/or edit their lesson plans and tests, and can generate more complex yet meaningful student records with computers. In addition, Yu, et. al (2008) and Vogel & Klassen (2001) state that the adaptive nature of computer technology permits teachers to cater to students’ learning needs, addressing a variety of learning styles and abilities. Software companies have also been striving to produce more affordable, yet high-quality programs to meet the needs in a diverse environment. Teachers who teach with the computers seem to be able to better promote the emerging educational trends of collaborative (partnering) learning, cooperative learning, and autonomous (individualized) learning (Annand & Haughey, 1997; Kozma & Johnston, 1991; Vogel & Klassen, 2001; Wheeler, 2001). Another very noticeable trend in educational technology is the availability and wide adoption of the broadband Internet (Baer, 1998; Goffe & Sosin, 2004; Hiemstra & Poley, 2007; Oliver, 2005; Vogel & Klassen, 2001). Over 90% of college students have access to the Internet on college and university campuses (Tutty & Klein, 2005), and almost 79% of college students agree that Internet use has enhanced their college academic experience (Pew Internet & American Life, 2002). The high speed Internet enables individuals to use multimedia representation of enriched audio and video to create complex social networks in which people communicate, exchange ideas, explore and learn (Grementieri, 1998). The success of the University of Phoenix, one of the pioneer institutions specializing in online, degree-granting, postsecondary education, depends on Internet access. Allen and Seaman (2007) for the Sloan Consortium provided evidence on the growth of online learning. They reported that nearly 3.5 million students (20% of all U.S. higher education students) were enrolled

in at least one online course in the Fall 2006 term. That is a 10% increase compared to the number reported in 2005. Institutions are enjoying a 9.7% growth rate for the online enrollments, which is far exceeding the estimated 1.5% growth of the entire higher education student population. The Internet also provides added benefits to a computer-mediated teaching/learning environment. As suggested in the report of NCRIPTL’s (National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning) study of computer use in higher education (Johnston & Joscelyn, 1989), “computers increase student engagement, add realism to instruction, promote skill mastery. . . and encourage inferential thinking” (p. 2). It is not unusual to see computers used in disciplines such as foreign languages, mathematics and sciences, just to name a few. For instance, the computer in an English composition class can be used for providing and receiving useful and just-in-time feedback that can contribute to the quality of student writing. It can also be used for facilitating the process of writing so that students and teachers or students and students can interact with the content in meaningful ways that are difficult with pencil and paper in a traditional classroom (student engagement/skill mastery). The computer technology used in linguistic expression is expanding our capabilities to interpret, understand and infer ideas in other symbol systems (Kozma & Johnston, 1991). Taking advantage of today’s virtual reality computer technology, students in Asia can even take an interactive field trip to The Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, without traveling one-half way around the globe. Educational uses of computer technology cannot go unnoticed, and the list of technologies coming to classrooms cannot be overstated. The truth is that we are living in unprecedented times of technological change (Knapper, 2001) where the new economy is a social economy and a knowledge economy based on intelligence, entrepreneurism and ideas (Moe & Blodget, 2000).

5


To help students become productive members of the world of tomorrow, our schools need to make computers an integral part of the educational setting. As Dr. Senese (1983) once said, computer technology offers the educator a great opportunity to improve education, and it is here to stay. He concluded as, “We must not treat this technology as a fad or game but as a tool tied to quality and excellence in education” (p. 13).

Changes Driven by Computer Technology in Higher Education Higher education has also experienced notable changes driven by accelerated advances in computer technology, the same force that has reshaped our society and many aspects of life. Such changes include a very heavy dependence on schools’ management and administration systems. In terms of teaching and scholarship, it is believed by many that more promising results can be seen and that students are better served in a computer-mediated learning environment (Duderstadt, Atkins & Houweling, 2002) due to the computer’s seemingly infinite ability to multiply and expand, to simulate physical phenomena, to create virtual experiences and to open learning environments made possible by powerful information networks (Brode, 2005; Grementieri, 1998; Hiemstra & Poley, 2007). Not everyone has shared the same optimism about the introduction of computer technology into the academic area. In mid-1980s, when college faculty members and administrators were hyped about adding new computing to campuses, Gilbert and Green (1986) pointed out that purchasing and integrating computer technology can raise complicated issues at the core of academic life, and these issues involve considerable costs. For many school managers and administrators, allocating a large sum of capital from limited resources is indeed a big gamble. They further added that one misstep in decision making can mean catastrophic damage to the organization.

6

Cuban (2001) indicated that even though the cost of the computers declined quite dramatically in the late-1990s, and became more affordable to the institutions; schools nationwide were facing a dilemma of technology being oversold and underused. In 1999, the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California in Los Angeles published the findings of its triennial survey of teaching methods, which was sent to 71,000 professors of undergraduate instruction in over 500 private and public colleges and universities. Based on a 42% return rate, equivalent to close to 30,000 responses, the report revealed that in academic year 1998-1999, 53% of the respondents said they used “Extensive Lecturing” as primary instructional method in most or all undergraduate courses, down 2% from 55% in the 1995-1996 academic year. Only 17% responded that they used “Computer/Machine-Added Instruction” in most or all undergraduate course, up from 14% in three years. This percentage growth is relatively small compared to that the 35% increase of the total projected computer technology expenditure in postsecondary schools during the same time span (Cuban, 2001). Zemsky and Massy (2004), in their “Thwarted Innovation,” contested that corporations are pushing too many products to educators that fail to deliver as much value as promised. Nevertheless, many educators (Brode, 2005; Grementieri, 1998; Hiemstra & Poley, 2007) still believe that the effective use of computer technology will enhance teaching and learning in higher education. As a result, in 2002, more than two million participated in web-based education and over 90% of U.S. higher education institutions offered online options in 2005 (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005).

Use of Computer Technology and Its Impact on Student Attitude, Satisfaction and Achievement In the areas of the impact of computer technology and students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of


computer mediated technology, researchers often made comparisons across various course delivery methods. In their study comparing two alternative delivery approaches, Computer-Based Instruction versus Video Presentation for instructing the learners in their use of an electronic communication system (FIRNMAIL), Ivers and Barron (1994) reported that the computer-based simulations pedagogical method enhanced knowledge transfer and was superior to other media such as audio/ video tapes, prints or lectures. Their findings revealed that computer-based simulated tutorials exhibited greater impact on students’ perception of instruction as well as “near-transfer performance” than on-screen video presentations. “Near-transfer performance” is the degree to which the learners transfer what they learn into the real work environment. Students in the computer instruction group reported that they enjoyed the instruction and preferred learning the materials via using a computer over watching a video in a lecture room or reading the content in a book. Their achievement level on assignments was higher than that of the comparison group. However, the study did not find any significant difference in the area of student achievement, based on a 25-item, multiple-choice, knowledge-level question test. According to Ivers and Barron, the results from the tests indicated both methods were equally effective. When Passerini and Granger (2000) sought to explain “whether or not interactive multimedia applications are effective learning tools compared to traditional learning environments” (p. 50), they did not find any significant variations in students’ perceptions (satisfaction and attitude) of learning effectiveness under the environment they were placed for the purpose of the study. Thus, they concluded that the learning effectiveness of instructional technology had yet to be proven. On the contrary, Beard, Harper and Riley’s (2004) study showed positive impact as their study took on a single course, Characteristics of Disabilities, which was offered in two delivery modes, traditional face-to-face classroom environment in

the first half and online in the remaining half of the school term. Questionnaires were used, and learners’ written comments were also collected. Students provided positive feedback by saying they were allowed to proceed at an individualized pace in the online setting, because online instruction allowed reasonable accommodations for students needing special assistance as well as students with disabilities to learn new techniques. On average, the researchers concluded that the students agreed they learned from the online setting just as much as they would have from the tradition setting. However, even though the researchers indicated that many students would recommend the online class format to their friends, they failed to take into account it was the same group who also said they were less likely to take Internet classes over traditional classes in the future. Lacking of interaction was cited as one of the students’ main concerns. Contrast to the other studies, Summers, Waignandt, and Whittaker’s (2005) compared the two outcome dimensions: students’ examination grades and students’ satisfaction with the course between an online and a traditional, face-to-face undergraduate beginning level statistic course. The researchers found no significant differences for either online or traditional classroom group between students’ pretest and posttest scores measuring students’ statistics knowledge. However, their findings revealed that online group was less satisfied with the course than traditional group, mainly because of the instructor ‘lack of clarity in his or her explanations regarding class matters (assignments, questions/discussions, and evaluation/grading). The researchers indicated missing personal contacts in the online environment contributed to students’ dissatisfaction with the course because they felt the instructor was not enthusiastic or interested in student learning. Studies have been conducted to investigate the impact of new computer technology on students’ perceptions of course quality and instructors in a computer-mediated environment. Weitzenkamp

7


and Heckathorn’s (2001) study involved a graduate special education class which was originally developed for delivery via primarily audio and video recordings. The researchers observed that this synchronous delivery mode failed to account for the instructor-students and students-to-students interaction and the visual cues that were usually evident in face-to-face classrooms. Compared to a traditional classroom, time for the instructor to respond to students’ inquiries was reduced significantly also due to this delayed delivery mode. Furthermore, learning effectiveness was diminished because the instructor and students’ inexperience and/or inability to operate the equipment. To provide a solution to the problem, the researchers added a web-based element to the synchronous course. Text-based materials were used to supplement audio and video presentations. A technical advisor also joined the instructor to support any potential difficulties. The outcomes were positive. The instructor developed good skills in the application of digital resource with proper technical assistance and monitoring. Students’ learning needs were better met because of the considerable latitude of a web-based course. Interaction between the instructor and students and among students was improved due to the communicative features such as email, chat room and discussion board. Richardson and Swan’s (2003) survey study examined the relationship between the social presence, for instance, teacher immediacy behaviors, learners’ participation and the presence of other students in online courses and students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. The researchers concluded that students who had high overall social presence scores also rated higher in term of their learning and satisfaction with their instructors. Therefore, the amount and intensity of students’ perceptions of online social presence was a good indicator of their own learning and satisfaction toward the instructors and the courses. Richardson and Swan further found that gender accounted for some of the deviation in learners’

8

overall perception of social presence with women overwhelming perceiving a much higher degree of social presence. Despite studies that found evidence of students’ perceptions of satisfaction in learning outcomes, course quality and course instructors based on the chosen delivery method(s), there appears to be a paucity of literature that deals with direct computer technology use and the student achievement, which is sometimes referred to as the true measurement of learning effectiveness. It could have been that the word “achievement” can be defined in unique ways for various studies and use interchangeably with other terms. Sankaran, Sankaran and Bui’s (2000) questioned whether students’ attitude toward course format, specifically web-based or classroom-based, can have much impact on their learning performance. They reported there was no significant difference between groups in learning performance despite students’ varying perceptions of course formats.

Incorporating Constructivism with Computer-Mediated Learning Many researchers often associate meaningful computer-mediated learning with the constructivist’s view of knowledge construction. Constructivists view effective learning as learners’ own interpretations and reflections on the new information received, based on their prior experiences. Learners ought to be able to analyze and interpret the meaning of knowledge and also to revise their understanding by drawing from the new experiences (Bednar & Charles, 1999). Cooper and Hirtle (1999) described a constructivist orientation to education as “teachers are to encourage students in schools to develop problem solving and critical thinking skills and to apply, analyze, synthesize and evaluate knowledge, skills and attitudes” (p. 3). To the extent that a constructivist approach is incorporated in using computer technologies in learning and instruction, Rakes, Fields and


Cox (2006) maintained that the adequate use of computer technology in an educational setting can not only strengthen learners’ higher cognitive skills and complex thinking skills but also can provide them with complete and dynamic learning experiences. Jonassen, Carr and Yueh (1998) suggested that computers should be used as mind tools to engage learners in critical thinking as many computer applications have been explicitly developed to do. Cooper and Hirtle (1999) became interested in learning how a traditional skills-based course like a computer science class could be organized in a manner that students can not only obtain the required skills but also at the same time can gain an understanding of how to apply the skills to solve real world problems? They conducted a study in an introductory Multimedia and Networking Computer class with an enrollment of 138 pre-service undergraduate teacher educators and in-service graduate students. The class was restructured using the constructivist approach in which students were expected to learn to use a number of software applications such as word processing, spreadsheet, database management and presentation, as well as communication applications such as email, World Wide Web and web development tools. Students in the newly structured learning environment were provided with more time, resources and motivation to obtain appropriate skill levels, compared to other Multimedia and Networking Computer classes in a conventional setting. The researchers reported that in many cases, students used other features of the requisite applications or even used different applications and hardware in addition to what they were expected to use, which has not been the norm in a traditional class. A study carried out by Bednar and Charles (1999) supported Cooper and Hirtle’s points by indicating students should engage in authentic tasks and be placed in real world contexts whenever and wherever possible. The students should also be encouraged to reflect on their

own prior experiences and their own learning as it progresses. They concluded that students can learn needed skills collaterally and collaboratively in a constructivist-driven curriculum. According to Perkins (1992), “technologies and the constructivist point of view, together, fashion an image of education much more attentive to understanding and the active use of knowledge and skills” (p. 54). Constructivist views of learning offer theoretical bases for unique and exciting learning environments, and the computer, with its expanding capabilities, can effectively support meaningful learning and knowledge construction (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell & Haag, 1995).

Changing Role of the Teacher Incorporating constructivist disciplines in computer technology-driven classrooms has resulted a call for the development of learner-centered instruction and learner-directed learning. As technological revolution brings about changes in the classroom, the role that teachers/faculty play in an educational setting has been examined under magnifying glasses. Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) described the multi-faceted acts by the teachers at work (p. xv): •

• • •

•

Teachers alternatively spin, balance and toss knowledge of where students are and where they need to go; Teachers gain insights into students’ special needs and progress; Teachers need to make choices of curricular materials and activities; Teachers follow the rules that govern students, as well as the norms and rules that govern themselves as teachers; Teachers need to deal with expectations from parents, communities and of course, from students.

9


As teachers unfold their enormous responsibilities every day, researchers and practitioners are often concerned with bottom line questions such as: does the computer pose more opportunities than threats to classrooms in terms of teaching and learning? What role(s) do teachers play as a result of a significant shift in paradigms due to a systematic change of computer technology use? Will the computers eventually replace teachers? Kozma and Johnston (1991) maintained that the role of teacher is shifting because students are given a more active role in knowledge construction, an opportunity presented by computer innovations. The teacher acts more like a mentor or coach, helping solve problems as they are posed or encountered by the students. In a discussion of instructor considerations in Computer Mediated Communication classes, Wells (1992) suggested teachers function more like facilitators than monopolists in an educational setting. Bullen (1999) stated that because of the pragmatic features of the computers, teachers’ roles will change from a content expert to a mixture of content expert, learning process design expert and learning process implementation expert. McCain and Jukes (2000) suggested educators’ roles as that of a futurists, learning-process instructors, guides, knowledge experts, models and most importantly, as learners. In their studies, Cooper & Hirtle (1999) and Bednar & Charles (1999) all noted that instructors took the collective roles of content expert, coach and encourager. Teachers not only act as a resource that guides and structures learning experiences, but also provide necessary motivational supports when organizing multiple group projects in classes.

TRENDS, ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR E-LEARNING The innovation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has challenged tradi-

10

tional teaching and learning, and the concept of e-learning has been greatly impacted our educational system. E-learning represents a very broad concept, which includes or even has frequently been interchangeable with computer-mediated learning, distributed learning, online education, web-based learning, virtual learning, networked learning, and also distance learning (Jereb & Smitek, 2006). Although e-learning has been shown to impact students’ learning, little empirical evidence exists to show that e-learning leads to meeting more learning outcomes than traditional methods (Wang, 2008). It is critical for educators to realize that many elements and adjustments need to be made in order to ensure better use of e-learning. The following section reviews the trends, issues, and recommendations for increasing learning outcome with e-learning.

Adjusting Teaching Styles for E-Learning Torrisi-Steele (as cited in Yu, et al., 2008) believed that as some educators realize the potential of technologies to enrich and revive teaching and learning opportunities, others definitely fail to do so. The researcher contended that these teachers often lack much needed pedagogical skills and are generally unprepared for substantial changes. This supports the point made earlier by McCain and Jukes (2000) that conventional school culture does not adapt itself well to change. As a result, it is difficult for teachers to adjust their teaching style from one of sole providers of knowledge as students are moved away from being the passive receptors of information. When the educators do not capitalize the on the full benefits of innovative computer learning technology, they fail to provide our nation with good and productive citizens (McCain & Jukes, 2000). From a traditional face-to-face to e-learning environment, teachers and educators have to realize that they need to adjust themselves to the “high-tech” world in order to maximize students’ learning progress and outcome.


More Interactive Multimedia Instruction The design of e-learning depends on the digital platform of multimedia to present the information. Multimedia involves the integration of images, video, sounds, animation, and simulations, and can offer many potential benefits to instructors for delivering information and instruction (as cited in Jereb & Smitek, 2006). Some of the benefits of multimedia instruction include non-linear design format and flexibility, and more importantly, multimedia instruction can be more interactive than traditional classroom lectures. Therefore, applying effective multimedia instruction would be needed for instructors to ensure the media used in e-learning complements the content instruction used in such an environment.

More Virtual Learning Environments While the quality of e-learning is still being debated, research that addressed the innovation of virtual learning environment is mounting. According to the Second Life Virtual Economy report, there have been more than 200 universities or academic institutions involved in Second Life (Liden Lab, 2007). Among these account users, over 26% were between 18 and 24 years old, and 38% were between 25 and 34 (Liden Lab, 2007). These statistics indicated that the majority (65.81%) of the Second Life users belonged to the “potential” target population of higher education (Kelton, 2007), and educators are gradually integrating new technologies into the curriculum to convey the knowledge and information to acclimatize today’s tech-savvy students. The use of virtual worlds for e-learning has been rapidly growing in the academic arena and has greatly impacted on our educational system as well. One of these virtual learning examples is Modesto City Schools’ PacRimX project in 2007. In this study, students spent one year sharing space in Second Life with a school in Kyoto, Japan, and

the Japanese students then traveled to the United States in 2008 to meet with their Second Life counterparts in California (Kelton, 2007). Northern Illinois University is using Second Life to enhance students’ learning experience in the areas of education, computer science, and communication. As Jennings and Collins (2007) posited, “virtual worlds such as Second Life, Active Worlds. . . are expected to become more widely used and more sophisticated within two to three years. . . as more educational institutions begin to participate, the complexity and abundance of virtual locations for these institutions will continue to grow” (p. 180). Although the growing popularity of virtual environments for e-learning provides educators with new platforms for teaching and learning, this also means both faculty members and institutions need to work together to conceptualize a pedagogic framework of teaching and learning within virtual learning environments.

More Emerging Technologies for E-Learning Today’s students are growing up with pervasive multimedia technology, such as the World Wide Web, cell phones, iPod®, and digital cameras. As so-called “academic/formal learning” has long been the focus of learning as a whole, “informal learning” which is facilitated by web-based social networking communities such as Facebook, Flickr, MySpace® and YouTube®, has also been gaining significant ground and attention. According to Duffy (2008), “User-centered Web 2.0 phenomena such as blogging, social video sharing (exemplified by YouTube®) and collective editing (e.g., wiki or Wikipedia® as an example) are disrupting traditional ideas about how students interact online and how content is generated, shared, and distributed” (p. 121). New emerging technologies like podcasting for e-learning and online social communities such as Web 2.0, blog, wiki, or YouTube® will become an integral component of e-learning.

11


More Multiple Assessment and Evaluation The assessment and evaluation processes play an important role in education. As Russell, et al., (2006) indicated, “assessment can help students process actively what they have learned, discover what they know and can do, and also identify where their knowledge and skills are weaker” (p. 465). As a result, assessment has a profound impact on student’s attitude toward learning, and successful assessment is an ongoing cycle that involves the identification of outcomes, the gathering and analyzing of data, discussion, suggesting improvements, implementing changes, and reflection (Buzzzetto-More & Alade, 2006). The use of computer technologies and e-learning strategies can provide an efficient and effective means of assessing teaching and learning effectiveness by supporting traditional, authentic, and alternative assessment protocols (as cited in Buzzzetto-More & Alade, 2006). Buzzetto-More and Alade (2006) summarized a number of eassessment technologies that have been successfully implemented and are gradually becoming popular, including ePortforlio®, TaskStream®, Foliotek®, TrueOutcomes®, SpringBoard®, FolioLive®, and Foliotek®. These systems can not only support authentic assessment, but also allow greater learner expression and greater adaptive capabilities and accessibility. Thus, to enhance e-learning outcomes, it is important for educators to employ multiple assessment methods, other than testing, to facilitate and improve students’ learning outcomes.

More Mobile E-Learning Today, a variety of mobile devices with wireless network connections are supporting teaching and learning in educational institutions. Some researchers (Georgiev, Georgieva, & Smrikarov, 2004) even believe that mobile learning (m-learning) is a new stage in the progress of e-learning.

12

Availability of advanced mobile technologies, such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile phones, or portable computers, has started to extend e-learning towards m-learning (Triantafillou, et al, 2008). Other advantages of m-learning such as flexibility, low cost, small size, ease of use and timely application had a positive impact on e-learning. M-learning is web-based e-learning, but can be wireless without connecting to physical networks permanently. M-learning has the potential to change the way students interact with one another as well as to change the way learning materials are distributed. A number of studies have been conducted to examine new educational applications. Triantafillou, et al. (2008) evaluated the use of computerized adaptive test on mobile devices, and reported positive comments from the users. Segall, et al. (2005) compared a PDA-based quiz and standard paper-and-pencil applications, and indicated the PDA-based quiz was more efficient because students could complete it in less time. Although no differences in efficiency and satisfaction were found between these two quiz types, they concluded that PDAs were an attractive test administration option for schools. The introduction of mobile devices into the learning process can complement e-learning (Triantafillou, et al., 2008), and we believe this development will add more value for teaching and learning in e-learning environments.

More Careful Management for the Learning Process The phenomenon of e-learning offers enormous potential to make our teaching and learning more effective and efficient. However, this promise does not automatically come and happen overnight. When technologies offer the rich potential of learning delivery at anytime, anywhere, on any topic, it is thus necessary to delineate a vision and direction for e-learning in education. Effective E-learning technologies must be guided and


directed to carefully manage the learning process, must include staff development and learner support services, and must be built on sound learning principles and educational values.

More Learner-Centered for Continual Changing Demographic Profiles of Learners No matter how much technologies become integrated in our educational processes, practices, and pedagogy, learners have always been and will continue to be the heart of our teaching and learning. E-learning provides a flexible learning environment for students who had limited learning opportunities in the past, because of employment, family commitments, financial limitations, and distance and time restrictions; the flexibility of E-learning as a student-centered design is one tool that can be used to address the needs of this diverse population. Therefore, for learners to be knowledge owners, e-learning practices not only require quality instructional content, but also implement an appropriate context that includes an effective understanding of the learner.

CONCLUSION Dramatic changes in information and communication technologies provide a powerful force for the growth of e-learning. E-learning has become a viable delivery system for both secondary and higher education. As Randy and Terry (2003) revealed, e-learning technology has changed “the speed and power of communications and the expanded the capacity to send, receive, and use information and to bridge time and space for educational purposes” (p. xi). Good teaching and effective learning have become more and more important. Lawless and Brown (1997) emphasize, “Technology is not effective learning in and of itself, but only provides a forum for effective learning” (pp. 127-128). In enhancing access to

effective learning opportunities, the development of e-learning will need to focus more on quality and standards that ensure access to effective learning experiences. Although e-learning implementation will need to evolve with time and further research, educators need to believe in the benefits of e-learning in order to achieve better learning experience. E-learning cannot be the one size fits all solution, and thus needs to be associated to a clear vision, strategy and an inclusive policy by administration. Administrators and educators should be forthcoming in showing collaborative efforts in fundamental policy changes to overcome the Digital Divide, one factor that has long been posed as the potential hindrance for effective implementation of electronic learning. Learners’ limited access to computers and the Internet further leads to their digital illiteracy. Policies furnished to facilitate the needs of specific groups of learners can be motivational and help make better transition to e-learning.

REFERENCES Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Needham, MA: The Sloan consortium (Sloan-C). Annand, D., & Haughey, M. (1997). Instructors’ orientations towards computer-mediated learning environments. Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), 127–152. Baer, W. S. (1998). Will the Internet transform higher education? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 434551). Beard, L. A., Harper, C., & Riley, G. (2004). Online versus on-campus instruction: Student attitudes & perceptions. TechTrends, 48(6), 29–31. doi:10.1007/BF02763579

13


Bednar, A. K. & Charles, M. T. (1999). A constructivist approach for introducing pre-service teachers to educational technology: Online and classroom education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432306). Bentley, M. L. (2003). Teaching science on-line: A reflection on a year’s experience. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 474947). Breneman, D. W., Pusser, B., & Turner, S. E. (2006). The contemporary provision of forprofit higher education: Mapping the competitive market. In D. W. Breneman, B. Pusser, & S. E. Turner (Eds.), Earnings from learning: The rise of for-profit universities (pp. 3-22). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Bridges, B. R., Baily, M. C., Hiatt, M., Timmerman, D., & Gibson, S. (2002). A blended technologies learning community – From theory to practice. In P. L. Rogers (Ed.), Designing instruction for technology-enhanced learning (pp. 209-227). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Brode, A. (2005). Ways in which technology enhances teaching and learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 490591). Bull, K. S., Kimball, S. L. & Stansberry S. (1998). Instructional design in computer mediated learning. Oklahoma State University. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417885). Bullen, M. (1999). What’s the difference: A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 102–114. Buzzetto-More, N. A., & Alde, A. J. (2006). Best practices in e-assessment. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 252–269. Cooper, P. A. & Hirtle, J. S. (1999). A constructivist approach to technology literacy for preservice teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432239).

14

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Duderstadt, J. J., Atkins, D. D., & Van Houweling, D. E. (2002). Higher education in the digital age: technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Duffy, P. (2008). Engaging the YouTube Googleeyed generation: Strategies for using Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. Electronic Journal elearning, 6(2), 119-130. Finger, G., McGlasson, M., & Finger, P. (2007). Information and communication technologies: Towards a mediated learning context. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Technology and diversity in higher education (pp. 81-102). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Floyd, D. L. (2003). Distance learning in community colleges: Leadership challenges for change and development. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 337–347. doi:10.1080/713838144 Georgiev, T., Georgieva, E., & Smrikarov, A. (2004). M-learning-A new stage of e-learning. International Conference on Computer Systems & Technologies – CompSysTech’2004. Retrieved November 21, 2008 from http://ecet.ecs.ru.acad. bg/cst04/Docs/sIV/428.pdf Gilbert, S. W., & Green, K. C. (1986). The new computer in higher education. In D. DeZure (Ed.), Landmark in teaching and learning in higher education from change magazine, 1969-1999 (pp. 405-406). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Goffe, W. L., & Sonsin, K. (2005). Teaching with technology: may you live in interesting times. The Journal of Economic Education, 36(3), 278–291. doi:10.3200/JECE.36.3.278-291


Grementieri, V. (1998). Innovation technology and higher education. Higher Education in Europe, 23(2), 169–175. doi:10.1080/0379772980230203 Harasim, L. M. (1998) The Internet and intranets for education and training: A framework for action. In C. de Moura Castro (Ed.), Education in the information age (pp. 181-201). New York: Inter-American Development Bank. Hiemstra, R., & Poley, J. (2007). Lessons pertinent for teaching with computers. Journal of Educational Strategies . Issues and Ideas, 80(3), 144–148. Ivers, K. S. & Barron, A. E. (1994). Teaching telecommunications: A comparison between video and computer-based instruction. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378963). Jennings, N., & Collins, C. (2007). Virtual or Virtually U: Educational Institutions in Second Life. International Journal of Social Science, 2(3), 180–186. Jereb, E., & Smitek, B. (2006). Applying multimedia instruction in e-learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 15–27. doi:10.1080/14703290500467335 Johnston, J. & Joscelyn, M. K. (1989). The computer revolution in teaching. Accent on improving college teaching and learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 474947). Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 1–24. doi:10.1007/BF02818172 Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26.

Kelton, A. J. (2007). Second Life: Reaching into the virtual world for real-world learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 17, 1–11. Knapper, C. (2001). Lifelong Learning in the Workplace. In A. M. Roche & J. McDonald (Eds.), Systems, settings, people: Workforce development challenges for the alcohol and other drugs field (pp. 129-138). Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA). Kozma, R. B. (2003). ICT and educational change: A global phenomenon. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 1-18). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Kozma, R. B., & Johnston, J. (1991). The technology revolution comes to the classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 423195). Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117–131. doi:10.1023/A:1002919531780 Liaw, S. S. (2002). Understanding user perceptions of World-wide web environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 137–148. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00221.x Linden Lab. (2007). Terms of service. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.secondlife. com/corporate/tos.php McCain, T., & Jukes, I. (2000). Windows of the future: Education in the age of technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Moe, M. T., & Blodget, H. (2000). The knowledge web. New York: Merrill Lynch & Co.

15


Morse, K. (2003). Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning in a multicultural environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 37–55. Oliver, R. (2005). Ten more years of educational technologies: How far have we travelled. Australian Educational Computing, 20(1), 1–8. Passerini, K. & Granger, M. J. (2000). The learning effectiveness of instructional technologies: Results from pilot studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 473385). Perkins, D. N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A conversation (pp. 45-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2002). Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www. pewinternet.org Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. S., & Cox, K. E. (2006). The influence of teachers’ technology use on instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 409–424. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online course in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.

Russell, J., Elton, L., Swinglehurst, D., & Greenhalgh, T. (2006). Using the online environment in assessment for learning: A case-study of a web-based course in primary care. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 465–478. doi:10.1080/02602930600679209 Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Sankaran, S. R., Sankaran, D., & Bui, T. X. (2000). Effect of student attitude to course format on learning performance: An empirical study in web vs. lecture instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 66–73. Santoro, G. (1995). What is computer-mediated communication? In Z. L. Berg & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom, (Vol. 1, pp. 11-27). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Senese, D. J. (1983). Our future growth is tied to educational technology. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298881). Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics course. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250. doi:10.1007/s10755005-1938-x

Rowntree, D. (1977). Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them? London: Harper and Row.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). IT by the numbers. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from The Chronicle of Higher Education Website: http:// chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i21/21b02901.htm

Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2002). The coming of age of adult online education. In K. Erik Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training. (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Triantafillou, E., & Georgiadou, E., & Economides. (2008). The design and evaluation of a computerized adaptive test on mobile devices. Computers & Education, 50, 1319–1330. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2006.12.005

16


Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Effects of collaboration mode and group composition in computermediated instruction. International Convention of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX.

Yu, C., Williams, A., Lin, C. F., & Yu, W. C. (2008). Planning effective multimedia instruction. In T. T. Kidd & H. Song (Eds.), Instructional systems and technology (Vol. 1, pp. 216-231). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computermediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 101–124. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9050-9

Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: What happened to e-learning and why? University of Pennsylvania, The Learning Alliance.

Tyan, N. N. & Hong, F. M. (1998). When western technology meets oriental culture: Use of computer-mediated communication in a higher education classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416839). Vogel, D., & Klassen, J. (2001). Technology-supported learning: Status, issues and trends. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 104–114. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2001.00163.x Wang, T. (2008). Web-based quiz-game-like formative assessment: Development and evaluation. Computers & Education, 51, 1247–1263. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.011 Weitzenkamp, D. J., & Heckathorn, B. H. (2001). Opening gates of learning environments through technology: Introducing new technologies to the adult learner. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 458189). Wells, R. (1992). A review of computer-mediated communication for distance education: Teaching and design. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386162). Wheel, S. (2001). Information and communication technologies and the changing role of the teacher. Journal of Educational Media, 26(1), 7–17. doi:10.1080/135816500120069292 Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_literacy

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Computer Mediated Instruction/Learning: Computer mediated instruction/learning is an umbrella term (Strange & Banning, 2001, p. 184) that describes the efficient and effective use of computer and/or technology to support and facilitate teaching and learning activities (Bull, Kimball & Stansberry, 1998). Computer Technology: A combination of computer related hardware or software such as multimedia computers, different types of media (graphics, audios and videos) and networked communication tools (email, bulletin boards, Blackboard or WebCT, and listserves), together in an educational setting in order to enhance language learning.(Floyd, 2003). E-Learning: e-Learning is the use of network technology (broadly, the “Internet”) to design, deliver, select, administer, and extend learning. Components of Internet-enabled learning can include content delivery in multiple formats, management of the learning experience, and a networked community of learners, content developers and experts. Multimedia Instruction: Computer-based guidance that involves the use of diverse types of media, such as presentations, web-based guides and online tutorials, in order to convey an instructional message. Second Life: a 3-D virtual world created by its Residents and it allows users to interact with

17


each other through motional avatars, providing an advanced level of a social network service combined with general aspects of a metaverse. Residents can explore, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade items (virtual property) and services with one another. (Wikipedia, n.d.). Simulation: An interactive multimedia application device intended to imitate a real life situation and permit the user to partake and experience in a risk-free environment.

18

Technology Integration: Technology integration is a term used by educators to describe effective uses of technology by teachers and students in K-12 and university classrooms. Teachers use technology to support instruction in various content areas and when they do so, and the learners are empowered to be actively engaged in their learning (Wikipedia, n.d.).

19

Chapter 2

From Web to Web 2.0 and E-Learning 2.0 Clara Pereira Coutinho University of Minho, Portugal João Batista Bottentuit Jr. University of Minho, Portugal

ABSTRACT In this chapter the authors analyze issues and ideas regarding the next generation of e-Learning, which is already known as e-Learning 2.0 or social e-Learning. They will look at the new learning tools that have emerged from the evolution of the Web, to the Web 2.0 paradigm, discussing their potential for supporting modern and independent lifelong learners. Even more important, the authors will justify the modeling of a new concept for the future of teaching and learning in the knowledge-based society in which we live. The conclusion will present a scenario for the evolution of the Web, the Semantic Web or 3.0 generation Web, which is emerging as a higher environment that will advance the design and development of e-Learning systems in promising new directions: machine-understandable educational material will be the basis for machines that automatically use and interpret information for the benefit of authors and educators, making e-Learning platforms more adaptable and responsive to each individual learner.

INTRODUCTION With the arrival of the Internet it was possible to create virtual learning environments supported through models of bi-directional communication (synchronous and asynchronous), which justified the exponential increase of courses available online. Malvestiti (2005) established a non-conventional DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch002

distance-learning method and has since been earning increased attention from those responsible for the development of formal and non-formal learning systems and from people, who are concerned about responding to the needs of a knowledge-based society, which is demanding the need for lifelong training (Bottentuit & Coutinho, 2007). Information communication technology (ICT) created new spaces for building knowledge. The virtual learning environment, traditionally orga-


From Web to Web 2.0 and E-Learning 2.0

nized around learning platforms, began to make room for new resources and free services, which were available on the Web and could be accessed without any substantial computer knowledge. In fact, teachers and students involved in courses in the subject of e/b-learning, can today rely on a series of tools from the new Internet generation called Web 2.0. These are resources that are simple to use and do not need installation or constant maintenance. They encourage new ways of communication, expression and interaction, as well as enrich pedagogical practices, with activities such as: cooperative and collaborative work, writing stimulation, interactive and multidirectional communication, increased ease of use in data storage, creation of online pages, the creation of practice communities (Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior, 2007). Besides being free, these tools also allow knowledge to be published and shared with the rest of the academic community. This range of tools and services opened new horizons for teaching and distance training. It provided the educator with alternative ways to use e-Learning courses, which minimized some of the traditional criticism of this model of learning. In fact, in this new generation, the learner has a more active and personalized intervention in their learning process. The possibilities of communication and interaction are greater, the bonds to a community are deepened, and the spirit of cooperation and sharing is increased (Martinez, 2003). After briefly examining the recent evolution of distance learning, this article aims to develop a set of principles relating to what we understand to be the next generation of e-Learning; this has also been called e-Learning 2.0. It will look at some of the emerging learning tools from the Web 2.0 and will analyze its potential in terms of training, and its implications on the future of learning.

20

PHASES IN DISTANCE LEARNING It is possible to distinguish different phases in the evolution of distance learning. The first phase was characterized by teaching based on correspondence, that is, the teacher and the student exchange learning materials through the mail. With the emergence of audiovisual resources (educational TV, videos and cassettes), distance education moved into a second phase, providing students with alternative ways of learning; in fact, besides reading, students could hear and see pictures associated with their educational content, allowing teaching to better adapt to individuals’ different styles of learning. With the introduction of the Internet, distance learning stepped into its third phase, opening new spaces for learning and allowing synchronous and asynchronous communication between teachers and students. In this phase, the use of the electronic mail and chat tools quickly grew. The fourth generation was marked by the replacement of scripted material (texts, notebooks and books) by digital multimedia material that could easily be accessed through teaching and learning environments and platforms (see Figure 1). In this fourth and last phase, the process of teaching and learning was mediated by technology and therefore, new names for this new reality appeared such as, “e-learning”, “online learning”, “online training” or even “online education”. According to Gomes (2005a) e-Learning can ensemble multiple situations from tutorial support to physical teaching but not all scenarios are effective for distance learning: In this context e-Learning takes essentially the place of “electronic” tutorial to support students who fit in a scenario of physical teaching. The concept of e-Learning can also be associated with a complement between physical and distance activities, having as support the services and technologies available on the Internet (or another network) (Gomes, 2005a, p. 234).


Figure 1. Different phases of distance learning

The appearance of the Learning Management Systems (LMS) platforms brought numerous possibilities, both for teacher and student. Through these environments, it was possible to integrate into a single space, a series of services and tools, such as chat rooms, forums, attendance registers, exercises and online tests, which made a range of multimedia content available to them. However, what actually happened was that many of these environments and platforms were expensive, requiring payment for some kind of purchase license or maintenance contract. According to Silva, Oliveira, Carvalho & Martins (2008), LMS platforms, of which Moodle is probably the most used, allowed course contents to be made available in a similar way to the trainer’s Web site. However, it also made possible the use of new tools in the teaching–learning process, not only at the level of the asynchronous interaction (news, discussion forums, inquiry) and synchronous (chat) among students, but also in their evaluation (publication and reception of scheduled works, online evaluation tests, inquiries). In spite of all these new opportunities, it is argued that many students do not like to work with this technology, especially those who are not comfortable using it. In 2001, Kathleen Gilroy argued that e-Learning faced a critical moment in its evolution. The computer-mediated distance training had turned into an important business for professional training and was at the top of the agenda of numerous

private and public universities that had invested strongly in the training market. However, most of the e-Learning courses had kept the traditional format: programs organized around the needs of the content providers, not around those of the individual learners. The outcome was that students were provided with homogenized, standardized content “course cartridges” and “e-packs”. Thus, the problems traditionally associated with distance training, remained unchanged: low enrolments and high attrition rates stemming from user dissatisfaction (Martinez, 2004). Gilroy suggested a solution that meant creating groundbreaking learning environments, where the members of the online community could communicate and interact, establish relationships and learn with other members of the community. He defended his opinion, saying: “Learning is fundamentally both social and experiential” (Gilroy, 2001, online), an opinion shared by many other authors. It is undeniable that the first Internet generation opened up the horizon for e-Learning. This was because it allowed access to a large source of contents that were free of charge and could be used and adapted to the profile of the user. However, it needed to develop further so that the burden for learning was not placed wholly on the shoulders of the learner. To succeed, the online training had to centre itself with the students and find ways to involve them in the learning process:

21


E-learning should be first and foremost about creating a social space that must be managed for the teaching and learning needs of the particular group of people inhabiting that space. When the focus is no longer the content but rather the management of the learning experience, then the pedagogical process becomes the most important factor in the design and support of that experience (Gilroy, 2001, online). Impelled by the development of broadband, there was a revolution in the way we use, connect and interact on the Internet: the Web 2.0 generation opens new possibilities for education, mainly for the design and development of e-Learning models. Today there are more flexible alternatives for the implementation of e-Learning models that can be adapted to the distinctive distance training needs of students, of companies and other institutions. Today there are free, easy-to-use tools that ask for an active role from the student, in the learning process. It is argued that there is great potential for the Internet’s new generation tools — Web 2.0 — to flexibly and significantly contribute to minimize physical and time distances, so increasing the communication and interaction between the instructor and the trainee at any time and in any location.

THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW WEB PARADIGM In Rosen’s opinion (2006), every ten years new technological trends emerge: in the 1970s, mainframe computers appeared; in the 1980s, customer-server technology; in the 1990s, the Internet, and in 2000 onward, Web 2.0 was developed. The concept of “Web 2.0” began with a conference brainstorming session between Tim O’Reilly and MediaLive International (O’Reilly, 2005). They noticed that after the bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001, the Web was

22

more important than ever. The companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common, and they called them Web 2.0, the second generation of the Web. Web 2.0 encompasses a variety of different meanings, which include an increased emphasis on user-generated content, data and content sharing and collaborative effort, together with the use of various kinds of social software, new ways of interacting with Web-based applications, and the use of the Web as a platform for generating, re-purposing and consuming content (Trechera, Mellado, Patino, & Huertas, 2008). To Simão (2006), “the title Web 2.0 is not innocent and follows all the used terminology for updates and upgrades of computer programs. This means that Web 2.0 is an evolution of Web 1.0”. Yet, what exactly was the evolution that justified the new title? In Stephen Downes’ opinion (2005), Web 2.0 is much more a social than a technological revolution; of greater importance was the new position and attitude of those accessing and using the network. In Simão’s opinion (2006), one of the main and first characteristics of the new Web was the fact that the users, who before had a passive role, were now able to produce content. The ease of producing content and of placing it online, generated several developments: 1) the critical and active ability of the users who now had new ways to communicate with the world; 2) the ease of publishing, created communities that could gather around a common interest/subject leading to the creation of interpersonal relations that strengthened the sense of community; 3) the more people got involved in the production of Web content, the better the quality of the service. As membership increased, Web content was updated and validated to an even greater extent. Another of the great innovations of Web 2.0 was that it allowed access to, and use of, online applications, which created a familiar working environment for the user. Users were able to update their own content information. This simplicity and


speed powered the generation of social networks, which are sites supported through databases that allow information to be kept and updated by an individual and to establish links between virtual or real friends. Content aggregation and cataloguing allows the user of the network to create a personalized Web environment, adapted to their likes and needs. Content aggregation is possible through Really Simple Syndication (RSS) technologies, which allow the user to aggregate, on the Internet, small, chaotic pieces of content and organize them, thus creating their own systems of signification (Garrido, 2008). Information classification on Web 2.0 frees users from the classic rules of categorization of resources (taxonomy) because it allows a less linear and more similar classification to their thought processes. This is achieved through tags that can be translated for key-words or labels. A categorization system is developed by placing one link in more than one category simultaneously, so creating one folksonomy (Hayman, 2007). In practice, the new version of the Web is characterized by: a) focus in the contents; b) independent publication of contents created by the user; c) network effects due to participation-based architecture; d) social ware or collective user intelligence as a result of the contribution and shared experience among users with common interests. In light of the above, the following question arises: with such panoply of applications and free services and with so many educative potentialities, should it not it be expected that e-Learning evolved via the same route and that new opportunities were developed for online learning experiences?

FROM WEB 2.0 TO E-LEARNING 2.0 The term e-Learning 2.0 describes the new generation of e-Learning that followed the change of paradigm in the Web (Rosen, 2006; Voigt, 2007). In Garrido’s opinion (2008, online), many teachers and instructors had already realized the potential

of Web 2.0 tools in the creation of innovative learning where: The student/trainee has … the possibility to contact with other students/trainees in other parts of the world, to research contents or share their own, that is, contact with the real world and be himself/herself the creator of meanings, therefore, of knowledge. According to Silva et al. (2008), the benefits of Web 2.0 tools and services as an online learning environment, can be summarized as follows: •

•

•

• •

Promotes better teacher–student relationships and communication, in a friendly environment; Helps students feel more comfortable about expressing themselves without embarrassment; Provides tools that stimulate students’ enthusiasm in writing, forming opinions, peer evaluation through debate, a type of journal for peer review; Promotes collaborative work; Increases active intervention, which promotes students’ self-confidence.

It is argued that the explosion in the popularity of this new Web paradigm was due to ease of access to the Internet and the wide availability of cheaper broadband as well as the ease of use of the content’s creation tools with free applications from the Web. These applications will be soon be widely available, in several forms of hardware, due to the emergence of some innovative technologies such as AJAX1 and Flex2. The emergence of online distance education tools and e-Learning 2.0 has also been enhanced by the easy access to databases through JavaScript, Java or Flash, the language XML3 and RSS. In fact, almost all characteristics of the Web 2.0 can be applied to e-Learning within Learning Content Management System (LCMS) or plat-

23


forms like Moodle. Interaction with, and among, students is more active and, because of this built-in interactivity, students are offered new possibilities to become involved in, and to interact with, the content (Balog-Crisan, Roxin & Smeureanu, 2008). To summarize, the key characteristics of e-Learning 2.0 are: • •

•

•

•

• •

•

•

24

The focus is in the contents (Silva et al., 2008); It allows independent creation, editing and publishing of contents created by the user (Karrer, 2006); The online exchange and sharing of information with the teacher and fellow students makes the course easier and simpler (Garrido, 2008); The production of micro-contents that are not exclusive to designers, teachers, instructors or, most importantly, to trainees (Leene, 2006); The contents produced by teaching professionals and non professionals can be searched and shared with the whole community (O´Hear, 2006); Network effects due to a participationbased architecture (Silva et al., 2008); Trainees can select and aggregate the contents to better adapt to their interests and needs helping to create and manage their own Personal Learning Environment (Graham Attwell, 2007), which Atwell believes, will be the future of e-Learning; The use of social software favours the integration of people and groups, easing communication and promoting collaborative working in the network (Rosen, 2006); The features of online communities diminish the artificiality due to the restrictions imposed by “discussions” in the traditional LMS; it allows for the creation of the true spirit of practice communities (Wenger,), since the discussion and sharing is opened up to all those with access to the Internet,

•

•

and to those who share the same interests (Downes, 2006); In terms of format, the e-Learning 2.0 courses, as suggested by Anita Rosen (2006), must be short but sophisticated in terms of design and versatility; Adaptive learning is created, which enables students to select their modular contents and to customize their learner-centric learning environments (Martinez, 2004, 2007).

For Stephen Downes (2006, 9) the new generation of “digital natives” or “n-gen”, enjoy learning, work and leisure in a different way. They live in the age of the Web 2.0 and this means rethinking new models for e-Learning, models that will subtlety combine formal and informal learning logic, which is essential to the success of any development of policy in lifelong learning. For “digital natives”, communication is continuous, (Prensky 2004). They move from face-to-face interaction to online interaction very easily. They are accustomed to working in virtual teams and learning through simulation. Their multiple communication styles and their ease of using the Web have opened new ways for formal and, more important, informal forms of learning. We are already starting to see the impact in the workforce. According to Barna and Lenghel (2008), over the next ten years, higher education and workplaces will be flooded with technical and communication experts, expecting to develop their styles of communication. Teachers must be conscious that they are teaching a generation born in the computer age. Technology is second nature to these students. By the time they had started to walk, they were familiar with remote controls, computers, cell phones, and other technology. To teach this group effectively, educators must keep abreast of developments in digital and Web-based media and take advantage of the opportunities they offer to help students learn. In 2007, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD (2007)


published an extensive study on the key role of the content created by users in relation to the fast growth of the Web 2.0 and the social and cultural implications, and their respective impact, in the economic opportunities of their countries. As this study suggests, all the commercial agents have already understood the motivation of young people in relation to the use of the Web. They understand that content is created by users and so they are investing seriously in projects that aim to amplify this interest. The commercial and services sites are opening up to the idea that content can be produced by users, which has significantly increased all interactivity, adding value for customers. Education cannot ignore this reality: E-Learning 2.0 is essential if the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems is to be improved and to ensure that they are accessible to all.

Some E-Learning 2.0 Tools In the world of education, Web 2.0 tools can be used to teach information literacy, collaboration with colleagues, implementation of student projects, and information sharing. A summary of Web 2.0 tool with the potential for e-Learning 2.0 is set out below. A blog is a, “system that allows a single author (or sometimes, but less often, a group of authors) to write and publicly display time-ordered articles (called posts)” (Franklin & VanHarmelen, 2008, p.5). Blog sites like Blogger, Wordpress, Blogmeister, and Edublogs are some of the most popular. The blog is the ideal tool for the discussion and exchange of ideas on the network, allowing the creation of real virtual communities, who share interests at several levels (Gomes, 2005b). Blogs can be used individually or collectively and are very versatile in terms of pedagogical exploration, and very easy to conceive and to update. In an e-learning 2.0 scenario, the trainees can use blogs to express their ideas and to comment on blogs from colleagues, thus creating an intense network of interactions that, in Downes’ opinion (2006),

resembles that of the practice communities that Wenger (1998) talks about. In the context of higher education in Portugal, the use of blogs to create digital portfolios is probably the most used and investigated tool and has very promising results (Brescia & Miller, 2006; Coutinho, 2006; Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior, 2007a, 2007b). A wiki is a “system that allows one or more people to build up a corpus of knowledge in a set of interlinked Web pages, using a process of creating and editing pages” (Franklin & VanHarmelen, 2008, p.5). Wiki sites like PBwiki, Seedwiki and Wikispaces are often the top choices among educators. Factors that may influence the choice of a wiki site may include lack of advertisements or ease of account creation. In education, wikis can be used for discussions, brainstorming, collaborative projects, or sharing lists. When training teachers, some discussion points may include how/whether or not to limit access, Internet safety and ethics, and roles/ permissions of users. To E-learning 2.0, a Wiki: a) allows the accomplishment of collaborative works to the level of an entire group (repository of lessons, re-creation of manuals, glossaries); b) allows the dynamic interaction between both colleagues and teacher (by the inclusion of commentaries, suggestions, corrections); c) allows users to see the history of all the modifications, allowing the teacher/instructor to evaluate the evolution, and d) allows the creation of structures of knowledge shared in a learning community (Santamaria & Abraira, 2006; Qian, 2007). Media Sharing Services, store user-contributed media and allow users to search for and display different types of contents (VanHarmelen, 2007). Examples of media sharing services include podcasts, videocasts, video sharing, art sharing, and document sharing. Podcast tools such as Audacity or Apple’s GarageBand allow users to easily create an audio podcast, while free podcasting hosting sites, such as Switchpod, allow for easy publishing. Teachers may use podcasts to record and publish lectures, practice world languages, record readings or announcements, and record

25


stories or poems (McCombs, Liu, Crowe, Houk, & Hitgginbotham, 2007; Pastore & Pastore, 2007). Videocast and video sharing tools such as youtube or teachertube allow users to easily upload and comment on videos. Teachers may use these tools to supply videos of experiments before lab sessions or to aid in distance learning. Newer tools such as Flickr (photo sharing), Devianart (art sharing) and Scribd (document sharing) allow users to collaborate and discuss the media. When training teachers, it is important to discuss the tools, review editing features, and demonstrate the posting of shared media. It is also important to review copyright rules and ensure that media is posted legally. Social Bookmarking is a Web-based service for saving and referencing Internet Website favorites. Bookmarks have been available for many years, but social bookmarks that conform to the RSS information sharing standard, have emerged very recently (Fryer, 2005). One free example is Del. icio.us (http://del.icio.us), a Website that allows users to (through the use of “bookmarklets”) save desired Website addresses and categorize them quickly, with one or multiple “tags”, which are user-defined. As a social bookmarking service, the del.icio.us Website indicates how many other users have links to a particular Website address, and allows users to link to the social bookmarks of those other users. Social bookmarks can be an invaluable aid in student research projects, teacher technology workshops, and for personal use in keeping track of and sharing of valuable Internet resources. According to Fryer (2005), since the del.icio.us.site “speaks” RSS, any “tag” (topic) in a person’s social bookmarks can be syndicated/ subscribed to using an aggregator like Bloglines. The sharing of Website favorites/bookmarks has never been so easy, powerful, cheap and fast. Social Networking refers to systems that allow people to network together and share web resources (VanHarmelen, 2007). Some of the more popular social networks include Myspace, Xanga, and Facebook. For younger students, Club

26

Penguin and Webkins provide age-appropriate social networks. Virtual worlds such as Second Life are also considered social networks. Students and teachers may use Myspace, Xanga or Facebook to network with friends or colleagues and to communicate on college or school campuses. Second Life activities range from simple study group activities to collaborative development of online spaces (islands). When training teachers in the use of social networking tools, it is imperative to speak of privacy rights as well as to review ethical and legal use of such tools. Another interesting tool of the new Web 2.0 generation is the Google Calendar. It is an online agenda and calendar service offered free by the Google Company. Available in a Web interface, it allows users to do a range of functions including: to add or to control events, make commitments, share programming with other people, and add other public agendas of their own. This tool can be served in several e-Learning activities - for instance, the online tutorial – to set appointments, as well as advertizing future events via SMS or registering absences, and setting course-work deadlines. Collaborative editing tools allow users to collaborate on a document, edit and create in groups. Examples of these tools include Google Docs & Spreadsheets. Most of these tools are still text only and do require a voice tool for full collaboration. Educational uses would include collaborative work over the Web either via simultaneous editing or shared work. One of the most peculiar advantages of this tool is the document sharing tool as it allows the editing of the same document by more than one user, as well as the resource to direct publication in a blog. In the E-learning 2.0 courses this tool could be used for the students to work in a collaborative way, allowing or restricting the access of the edited documents by the remaining members of the group. In online tutorial activities, GoogleDocs can efficiently serve as the individualized support of the teacher/instructor, sufficing that the document is edited just by the trainee and its tutor.


Google Pages also belongs to the Google family of tools and allows the creation of online pages without demanding major computer knowledge. The system is like a text editor and, therefore, in a quick and simple way, the trainees can build sites that can work as digital portfolios of the developed materials during an e-Learning course. The use of this tool by the teacher/instructor can be an excellent alternative to the creation of course or group pages as an alternative to the traditional LMS platforms. Syndication and notification technologies provide tools to keep users up-to-date on recent changes to shared content. A feed reader can be used to centralize all of the recent changes and works with a Real Simple Syndication (RSS) tool to list changes. The RSS tool essentially provides a feed of data to the user. In education, these tools can be used to keep all members of a group informed. This may be particularly useful when employing a blog or wiki in the classroom as users would be made aware of up-to-date information (Simão, 2006). These are just some of the new generation tools that can be used successfully in the e-Learning 2.0 environment. However, the technological evolution does not stop, constantly developing new and more versatile and interactive tools. The great challenge for teachers and instructors is to know how to use these tools in a way that learning environments can become even more personalized and adapted to each student’s needs. The challenge will be to ensure environments are capable of integrating tools and services that can be managed by, and be the responsibility of, the user/student, that is, Personal Learning Environments, which will be address next

PERSONAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS In 2007, Graham Attwell published in the electronic magazine eLearning Papers (www.

elearningpapers.eu), the article entitled Personal Learning Environments: the future of e-Learning, where he emphasized the questions that have been analyzed in this paper. The notion of Personal Learning Environment (PLE), as conceptualized by Attwell (2007), refers to a set of different applications, services and various other types of learning resources, gathered from different contexts. A PLE is a kind of e-portfolio extension, which shows the abilities and accomplishments of the student and it is from there that the student presents their professional qualifications. It is constructed by an individual and used in everyday life, for learning. It is not an application or a system but a personal assemblage supporting new learning modalities, induced by ubiquitous technologies and social software. According to Henri, Charlier and Limpens (2008), from the technological point of view, ubiquitous computing allows learning to take place almost everywhere, through wireless and GSM (Global Systems for Mobile Communications) networks and mobile communication devices that are able to access the Internet. The authors consider that new forms of learning can emerge from the use of the PLE. Because the same technologies are used in the different context of our life, work, home, school, it could be possible to mobilize what has just been learned and apply it in the context it could be used (transfer of knowledge). Additionally, social software, predominant in PLE, represents technological development that allows people to connect and collaborate, and to create and share (Henri et al., 2008, p. 3767). There is a strong idea underlying the PLE concept: autonomy of the learner and what Bandura (2003) calls self-directed learning. A PLE is not something that is imposed on an individual but something that one builds autonomously to suit a person’s own needs and the type of learning they want to pursue. Self-direction is recognized by the

27


capacity to choose learning resources or learning providers – the time, place and context of learning. It is also manifested through the ability to grasp opportunities to learn that could be supported by PLE (Henri et al., 2008). According to Kurzel (2004) and Henri et al. (2008), PLEs can seamlessly bring together various types of learning; learning by personal interest or the desire to solve a problem, community learning, school learning, experiential learning, workplace learning, etc. In short, it can embrace all formal and informal learning. PLEs have potential for more meaningful learning by facilitating reinvestment of knowledge in different contexts: There is a major issue in that everyday informal learning is disconnected from the formal learning which takes place in our educational institutions (…). Personal Learning Environments have the potential to bring together these different worlds and inter-relate learning from life with learning from school and college (Attwell, 2007, p. 4). Since lifelong learning is recognized as being crucial to our knowledge societies, it can easily be envisaged that everyone will develop their own PLE. In this context, PLEs should be considered as permanent, adaptable and evolving, enabling different types of learning, in different contexts and at different times in life. The new generation of students who share the culture of Web 2.0 use, in their daily lives, blogs, wikis, RSS flux, podcasts and social software. Building their own PLE, thanks to ubiquitous technologies and social software, becomes natural. By doing so, they gain control of their learning and adapt it according to individual needs and interests (Henri et al., 2008). They therefore become part of a community for which they can create new content or roles to drive innovation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Institutions must then recognize their loss of control over content production, modes of trans-

28

mission, learning process and validation. They have to accept the fact that ownership of learning is moving over to students. Educational systems should not ignore this phenomenon but rather try to find ways to valorize learning that takes place outside the institution and recognize its contribution to personal and professional development. This means that educational institutions have to develop a better knowledge and understanding of this new situation and learn how to exploit it in a constructive manner, for instance, being concerned in finding innovative ways to encourage the efficient use of PLEs, easing the blending of learning from PLEs and other educational resources (see Figure 2). So, what will be the future role of the e-Learning institutions in this new context of learning? Will they cease to produce contents and offer courses online? The answer to these questions is still unknown, but we can foresee new ways to manage the production of contents for e-Learning. In fact, content will no longer succeed through the creation of courses, in the true meaning of the term, but through micro-contents, which are spread throughout the Internet. Blogs are one such micro-content demonstrated here: The fact that a blog consists of individual postings is the start of MicroContent. These blog postings can not only be published on Web-pages, but also in syndication formats such as the RSS and Atom. By publishing postings in these formats a user syndicates his/her content, so that others may re-use it (Leene, 2006, p. 31). Once aggregated, this type of micro-content allows the user to group and organize information within its PLE in a meaningful way. The teacher/ instructor or learning designer thus has tools that surpass, in terms of the creation of knowledge, any platform of e-Learning that may have recently existed. In this context, e-Learning ceases to be only a medium, but starts to be the platform for learning:


Figure 2. Resources dynamics in a PLE (adapted from Henri et al, 2008, p. 3770)

What happens when online learning ceases to be like a medium, and becomes more like a platform? What happens when online learning software ceases to be a type of content-consumption tool, where learning is “delivered,” and becomes more like a content-authoring tool where learning is created? The model of e-Learning seen as a type of content, produced by publishers, organized and structured into courses, and consumed by students, is turned on its head. So far as there is content, it is used rather than read – and is, in any case, more likely to be produced by students than courseware authors. And while there is a structure, it is more likely to resemble a language or a conversation rather than a book or a manual (Downes, 2005). However, the very fact that students/trainees create the content of the course, could question its validity. Folksonomies may be the solution, in terms of evaluating these resources. Yet here, the role of the teachers/instructors could gain new dimensions for effective study. Regarding the aggregation of micro-contents, the new trends

also point in the direction of the development of technological tools that allow the student/trainee to create knowledge, developing new and influential concepts of learning, such as Adaptive Learning: Adaptive learning is important because it enables learners to select their modular components to customize their learner-centric learning environments. Secondly, it enables them to offer flexible solutions that dynamically adapt content to fit individual real-time learning needs (Martinez, 2004, online). Having the student/trainee develop their own course content is a new way of perceiving learning paths. What advantages will this new concept of learning bring to the student? The availability of several learning stages in a course brings qualitative advantages. In the future, with the development of the technologies that support them, these paths will be built by the student/trainee (Martinez, 2007). This raises the importance of the new role of the teacher/ instructor in this construction of knowledge.

29


AND THE FUTURE? IS IT WEB 3.0 OR E-LEARNING 3.0? The first era of the Web is over; online spaces are becoming increasingly interactive; in the past, radio, video and multimedia enthusiasts had perceived these developments as an endless set of opportunities, bringing improvements in social relations, effectiveness of participation, and in decisions about the future of people. Web 2.0 tools not only promote sharing and collaborating, they define it. These tools have personalized users’ experience and have dramatically changed the ways we communicate. We have become part of a community for which we can create new content or roles, and drive innovation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In educational, cultural and linguistic spheres, these spaces can be used, most fully, to promote creativity and new ways to see beyond Web 2.0 technologies to the future – to the new emerging Web that is already upon us (Lansiquot & Rosalia, 2008). The pending Semantic Web continues to develop, establishing the Web as tomorrow’s intelligence (Berners-Lee, 2001). Will this be Web 3.0? One of the limits of Web 2.0 environments is the lack of contextual information; there is a lot of information but no one can organize and structure it in a meaningful manner. Therefore, the Semantic Web technologies aim at providing contextual information and co-ordination through workflow tools as supporting infrastructure. To invest in the Semantic Web means welcoming the accomplishments of more complex research, impracticable with the search engines known today. The purpose of this intelligent, new generation Web is to classify information in categories in a standardized way so that it is easy to access required information; discussion is already taking place on search systems that are operated through the human voice or even through the search for similar pictures, by means of digitalization (Teten, 2007). According to Lassila & Hendler (2007), the term Web 3.0 was used for the first time by John

30

Markof in 2006, in an article in the New York Times. Here, the author associated the term with the concept of a Semantic Web, although he considered that the latter was just one of the many technologies that would be used in the future, along with a much wider set of other tools and services, capable of turning the Web even more intelligent and effective. However, the association of the future Web generation to the Semantic Web is a recurrent subject in the perspective of many authors who recently approached these questions (Lansiquot & Rosalia, 2008; Balog-Crisan et al., 2008; Peter, Dastbaz & Bacon, 2008; Huyng-Kim-Bang, Dané & Grandbastien, 2008). In 2007, Tim Berners-Lee, author of the term Web 2.0, in an interview with Peter Moon for the site COMPUTERWORLD, when questioned about the future of the Web, he answered that the “future will be the semantic Web that will arise in the moment that the users of the network start to place links of public data or their personal files in the network”. This means that the databases, restricted today, will be even more open in a Web 3.0 scenario, allowing for total access to the data as well as the creation of combinations (mashups) of different information gathered in a large number of databases. The Semantic Web will change the Web as we know it today. It will also deeply affect the e-Learning environment. The online world of the near future promises to fundamentally alter our perception of the Internet from a static communication channel into a thriving, virtual, global community. To understand where the Web is heading, we can take a look at its past, and at the intentions of its creators. Entrepreneurs such as Nova Spivack and the co-founder of Microsoft, Paul Allen, developed a time line that traces and foresees the appearance of Web 3.0 in the year 2010 (see Figure 3). As one can see, the line shows how the evolution in the services and programs of the network went through the appearance of operational systems such as Windows, by the development of languages for the Internet, through the appearance of the generation


Figure 3. Evolution of the Web services (adapted from Radar Networks & Nova Spivack, 2007)

2.0 services (blogs, wikis, podcasts) and ended with a forecast of what would be the intelligent Internet, that is, generation Web 3.0. According to Reneta Lansiquot and Christine Rosalia (2008), as the latest version of the Web continues to mature, an assortment of ideas for Web 3.0 has begun to take shape. Educators must think about how they will interact with the possibilities of a semantic, media-centric, and pervasive Web. In the semantic Web, for instance, machines will be able to read sites almost as easily as humans, enabling users to go beyond what they do now. The media-centric Web goes beyond searching on just keywords, allowing, for instance, an art student to use a favorite painting to find a similar painting via search engines—finding media using other media. As for the pervasive Web, designers imagine the Web incorporated not only on handhelds and mobile phones but also on transparent surfaces, such as classroom windows: your closed window could have its corner pane reporting the

news from around the globe! The World Wide Web will soon morph into a World Wide Simulation: an immersive, 3-D visual environment that combines elements of virtual worlds (Lansiquot & Rosalia, 2008, p. 2662).

CONCLUDING REMARKS The model of current training requires constant training throughout a person’s professional life. Companies and institutions must keep their employees updated because innovations can quickly become obsolete in the ever changing learning society (Smith, 2000). Traditional training is not always appropriate, since employees (students) often have inflexibility time constraints therefore it is necessary to provide access to knowledge when and where it is most convenient: flexible training systems are needed, alongside custom-built programs, where students can personalize their own learning process. E-learning is the tool that

31


will allow this to be accomplished as a life-long training process. The first Internet generation, which some call Web 1.0 had a huge amount of accessible information, which could be accessed by all. However, the role of the user, in these scenarios was that of a simple spectator; users did not having permission to alter its content. This first phase did not allow applications or services to be made available throughout the network unless they were purchased, and they were only accessible to a restricted number of users. With the development of the new generation, Web 2.0, comes a new and varied range of online applications serving different purposes (blogs, wikis, podcast, online page editors, collaborative tools, etc.) To use these free resources and to actively participate in them does not require the user to have substantial knowledge of programming or the need for sophisticated computer environments. According to this new philosophy, users also become producers of the information, distributing and sharing their knowledge and ideas through the Internet, in an easier and faster way. In this context it is possible to think of new scenarios for e-Learning, scenarios that replace traditional platforms to support teaching and learning (LMS) in more personalized, virtual environments, where, in formal education, students use the same tools that they use every day, to communicate in informal environments (Kurzel, 2004). E-Learning 2.0 allows the creation of learning environments adapted to the style of each student; it allows the teacher/tutor to have at their disposal a range of free tools for communicating and learning. By building their own PLE, thanks to ubiquitous technologies and social software, students gain control of their learning. Institutions must then recognize their loss of control over knowledge content, ways of transmission, learning process and validation. They have to accept the fact that ownership of learning is moving towards the students. Educational systems should not ignore this phenomenon but rather, try to find

32

ways to appreciate the learning that takes place outside the institution and recognize its contribution to personal and professional development. This means that educational institutions have to develop a better knowledge and understanding of the new situation and learn how to exploit it in a constructive manner. E-learning 2.0 has to be understood as a tool that allows students to address the changes in the dynamic environment around them. It must be seen as the key success factor for any institution or business that wants to meet the demands of the globalization challenge. E-Learning 2.0 is at the center of lifelong learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This project was financed by CIED, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

REFERENCES Al-Huwail, N., Al-Sharhan, S., & Al-Hunaiyyan, A. (2007). Learning Design for a Successful Blended E-learning Environment: Cultural Dimensions. INFOCOMP - Journal of Computer Science, 60-69. Retrieved January 25th, 2009 from http://www.dcc.ufla.br/infocomp/artigos/ v6.4/art08.pdf Atwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers, 2(1). Retrieved April 20th, 2008 from www. elearningpapers.eu Balog-Crisan. Roxin, I. & Smeureanu, I. (2008). e-Learning platforms for Semantic Web. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008 (pp. 1695-1699), Vienna, Austria.


Bandura, A. (2003). L’auto-efficacité. Le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle. Paris: De Boeck. Barna, C., & Lenghel, E. (2008). E-Learning: the core of lifelong European Education. In L. Gómez Chova et al (Eds.). INTED 2008, Proceedings of International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia: IATED (International Association for Technology, Education and Development). Berners-Lee, T. (2001). The Semantic Web. Scientific American, (May): 17. Bottentuit Junior, J. B., & Coutinho, C. P. (2007). A Educação a Distância para a Formação ao Longo da Vida na Sociedade do Conhecimento. In Barca, A., Peralbo, M., Porto, A., Silva, B.D. & Almeida L. (eds.), Actas do IX Congresso Internacional Galego Português de Psicopedagogia. Setembro, Universidade da Coruña. A Coruña, (pp. 613-623). Brescia, W., & Miller, M. (2006). What` s it worth? The Perceived Benefits of Instructional Blogging. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 44-52. Retrieved April 20th, 2008, from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume5/ Brescia.pdf Cho, A. (2007). An introduction to mashups for health librarians. Retrieved Jan 25th from http:// pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/jchla/jchla28/c07-007.pdf Coutinho, C. P. (2006). Utilização de blogs na formação inicial de professores: um estudo exploratório. In Panizo, et al (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computers in Education, (Vol. 2, pp. 157-164).

Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Junior, J. (2008). Comunicação educacional: do modelo unidireccional para a comunicação multi-direccional na sociedade do conhecimento. In M. Lemos Martins & M. Pinto (Orgs.). Comunicação e Cidadania Actas do 5º Congresso da Associação Portuguesa de Ciências da Comunicação. 6 - 8 Setembro 2007, Braga: Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade (Universidade do Minho), (pp. 1858-1879). Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2007a). Collaborative Learning Using Wiki: A Pilot Study with Master Students In Educational Technology In Portugal. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimédia, Hypermedia e Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2007), (pp. 1786 – 1791). Vancouver, Canadá. Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2007b). Blog e Wiki: os futuros professores e as ferramentas da Web 2.0. In M. J. Marcelino & M. J. Silva (org.), Actas do IX Simpósio Internacional de Informática Educativa (SIIE 2007), (pp. 199204). Porto, Portugal: ESE-IPP. Downes, S. (2005). E-Learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine, October 16. Retrieved May 24th, 2008, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section= articles&article=29-1 Downes, S. (2006). E-Learning 2.0 at the ELearning Forum. In E-Learning Forum. Canadá: Institute for Information Teachnology. Retrieved April 24th 2008, from http://www.teacher.be/ files/page0_blog_entry38_1.pdf Franklin, T., & VanHamarlem, M. (2008). Web 2.0 for content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. JISC Publications, May 28th. Retrieved June 17th 2008, from http://www.jisc. ac.uk/publications/publications/Web2andpolicyreport.aspx

33


Fryer, W. (2005). Teaching & Learning with the Read/Write Web. Retrieved March 30th, 2008, from http://www.wtvi.com/TEKS/04_05_articles/ read-write-Web.html. Garrido, J. (2008). Evolução para E-Learning 2.0: implicações para o design de aprendizagens num ensino a distância com recurso à Internet. Comunicação apresentada no III Congresso de Educação a Distância dos Países de Lingua Portuguesa 2008. Retrieved the 24th May 2008 from http//:www.n-learning.blogspot.com/ Gilroy, K. (2001). Collaborative E-Learning: The Right Approach. Retrieved May 24th, 2008, from http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/ ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=45991 Gomes, M. J. (2005a). E-Learning: reflexões em torno do conceito. In P. Dias & C. V. Freitas, (org.), Challenges’05: Actas do Congresso Internacional sobre Tecnologias da Informação e Comunicação na Educação, (pp. 229-236). Braga, 2005. Centro de Competência da Universidade do Minho. Gomes, M. J. (2005b). Blogs: um recurso e uma estratégia educativa. In Actas do VII Simpósio Internacional de Informática Educativa, SIIE, (pp. 305-311). Leiria: Portugal. Hayman, S. (2007). Folksonomies and Tagging: new developments in social bookmarking. Retrieved the 17th June, 2008, from http://www. educationau.edu.au/jahia/Webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/papers/arkhayman.pdf Henri, F., Charlier, B., & Limpens, F. (2008). Understanding PLE as an Essential Component of the Learning Process. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th World Conference on Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 3766-3770). Austria: University of Vienna.

34

Huynh-Kim-Bang, B., Dané, E., & Grandbastien, M. (2008). Merging semantic and participative approaches for organising teachers’ documents. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds). Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 4959-4966). Austria: University of Vienna. Karrer, T. (2006). E-Learning Technology. Retrieved the 23th April, 2008, from http:// elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/03/elearning20-defined-with-resources.html Kurzel, F. (2004). Introducing Instruction into a Personalised Learning Environment. Informing Science InSITE 2004, Rockhampton, Australia, June, (pp. 25-28). Lansiquot, R., & Rosalia, C. (2008). Second Languages, Virtual Worlds: Living Second Lives. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds), Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 2660-2664). Austria: University of Vienna. Lassila, O., & Hendler, J. (2007). Embracing “Web 3.0”. Retrieved the 29th June 2008 from www. mindswap.org/papers/2007/90-93.pdf Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leene, A. (2006). Microcontent is Everywhere. In Micromedia & e-Learning 2.0: Gaining the Big Picture – Proceedings of Micromedia Conference 2006. Retrieved the 24th May 2008, from http//:www.microlearning.org/MicroCon_2006/ Micromedis-06-final.pdf Malvestiti, M. L. (2005). Tutoria em Cursos Pela Internet. In XII Congresso da Associação Brasileira de Educação a Distância. Retrieved May 24th, 2008, from www.abed.org.br/congresso2005/por/ pdf/032tcd5.pdf


Martinez, M. (2003). High Attrition Rates in eLearning: Challenges, Predictions and Solutions. Retrieved the June 16th, 2008 from http://www. elearningguild.com/pdf/2/071403MGT-L.pdf Martinez, M. (2004). Adaptive Learning: Research Foundations and Practical Applications. In S. Stein & S. S. Farmer (eds.), Connotative Learning. Washington, DC: IACET. Martinez, M. (2007). Personalized Learning Model. In P. Shank (Ed.), The Online Learning Idea Book: Proven ways to Enhance TechnologyBased and Blended Learning. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved the 17th June, 2008, from http://www.learningpeaks.com/ McCombs, S., Liu, Y., Crowe, C., Houk, K., & Higginbotham, D. (2007). Podcasting Best Practice Based on Research Data. In R. Craslen et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007, (1604-1609). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Moon, P. (2007) Qual é o futuro da Web, segundo Tim Berners-Lee. ComputerWorld. Retrieved the June 29th, 2008, from www.geocities.com/ adagenor/Webs/QualfuturodaWeb.pdf O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved May 24th 2008, from http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/ news/2005/09/30/what-is-Web-20.html OECD (2007). Participative Web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis, and social networking. OECD 2007 Report. O`Hear, S. (2006). E-Learning 2.0 – How Web Technologies are Shaping Education. Retrieved the April 20th, 2008 from http//:www.readwriteWeb.com/archives/e-learning_20.php.

Pastore, R., & Pastore, R. (2007). Technology for the Classroom: Creating and Using Podcasts. In R. Craslen, et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007. (2080-2082). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Peter, S. E., Dastbaz, M., & Bacon, E. (2008). Personalised e-learning, Semantic Web and Learning Ontologies. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds), Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 1818-1825). Austria: University of Vienna. Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging Online Life of the Digital Natives. Retrieved the July 24th, 2008, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/ Prensky-he_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf Qian, Y. (2007). Meaninful Learning with Wikis: making a connection. In R. Craslen et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007. (2093-2997). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Rosen, A. (2006). Technology Trends: e-learning 2.0. The e-learning Guild’s Learning Solutions EMagazine. Retrieved May 24th 2008, from http:// www.readygo.com/e-learning-2.0.pdf Santamaria, F. G., & Abrairia, C. F. (2006). Wikis: possibilidades para el aprendizaje colaborativo em Educacion Superior. In L. Panizo et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computers in Education, (Vol. 2, pp. 371-378). Léon, Spain: University of Léon. Silva, C., Oliveira, L., Carvalho, M., & Martins, S. (2008). 3c@higher Education - Contribution, Collaboration, Community at Higher Education. In L. Gómez Chova et al (Eds.). INTED 2008, Proceedings of International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain: IATED.

35


Simão, J. (2006). Relação entre os Blogs e Webjornalismo. Revista Prisma, 3(Outubro), 148–164. Smith, M. K. (2000). The theory and rhetoric of the learning society. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved May 24th, 2008 from www. infed.org/lifelonglearning/b-lrnsoc.htm Stock, W. G. (2007) Press Folksonomies and science communication: a mash-up of professional science databases and Web 2.0 services. Information Services & Use, 97–103, 97 IOS. Retrieved Jan 25th, 2009 from http://wwwalt.phil-fak.uniduesseldorf.de/infowiss/admin/public_dateien/ files/1/1194272247inf_servic.pdf Story, H. (2007). Developing Web 3.0. JavaOneSM Conference. Retrieved the 29th June, 2008, http://bblfish.net/work/presentations/2007/ BOF-6747.pdf Teten, D. (2007). Web 3.0: Where are Headed? Retrieved the 29th June, 2008, from www.teten. com/assets/docs/Teten-Web-3.0.pdf Trechera, l. M., Mellado, A. G., Patino, S. F. & Rodriguez Huertas (2008). Web 2.0 tools in Education. In L. Gómez Chova, et al (Eds.), INTED 2008, Proceedings of International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain: IATED. Vanharmelen, M. (2007). Briefing paper on Web 2.0 technologies for content sharing: Web 2.0 – An introduction. Retrieved the 17th June, 2008, from www.franklin consulting.co.uk/LinkedDocuments/Introduction%20to%20Web%202.doc Voigt, E. (2007). Web 2.0, E-Learning 2.0, EaD 2.0: Para Onde Caminha a Educação a Distância. In Congresso da Associação Brasileira de Ensino a Distância. Retrieved May 24th, 2008, from http://www.abed.org.br/congresso2007/ tc/55200750254PM.pdf Wenger, E. (1998). Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

36

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Web 1.0: The first generations of Internet were the users are all consider readers, they cannot interact with the content of the page (no comments, no responses, no quotes, etc). Being entirely limited to what the Webmaster rises to the website. Web 2.0: The term Web 2.0 was first coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2004 to refer to a second generation in the history of Web-based communities of users and a range of special services such as social networks, blogs, wikis, podcast that encourage collaboration and exchange of information between users. Web 3.0: Web 3.0 is used to describe the evolution of the use and interaction in the network through different paths. This includes the transformation of the network in a database, a move towards making content accessible by multiple non-browser applications, the thrust of artificial intelligence technologies, the semantic web, the Geospatial Web, or Web 3D B-learning: According Al-Huwail, Al-Sharhan, and Al-Hunaiyyan, B-learning or Blended learning, merges aspects of e-learning such as: web-based instruction, streaming video, audio, synchronous and asynchronous communication, etc; with traditional “face-to-face” learning. The benefits of blended e-learning is that it allows students from different cultures the ability to select the delivery format of their learning content, hence improving their interaction with the environment. Semantic Web: It’s a concept proposed by Tim Berners-Lee inventor of World Wide Web. States that the web can be made more useful by using methods such as content tags to enable computers to understand what they’re displaying and to communicate effectively with each other. That, says Berners-Lee, will increase users’ ability to find the information they seek. Folksonomies: According Stock (2007) In order to index documents the producer’s and


consumer’s of information apply the method of folksonomy, which is a kind of collaborative free keyword indexing. There are no indexing rules, everyone can tag a document with his or her favorite words. (p.97) Meshup: According Cho (2007) originally a term used in pop music by artists and disc jockeys

when two songs were remixed and played at the same time, Web experts have borrowed the term when two or more softwares tools are merged. The resulting new tool provides an enriched Web experience for end-Users. (p.19)

37

38

Chapter 3

E-Learning 2.0:

Web 2.0, the Semantic Web and the Power of Collective Intelligence Chaka Chaka Walter Sisulu University, South Africa

ABSTRACT This chapter contends that both Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web (the SW) serve as critical enablers for e-learning 2.0. It also maintains that the SW has the potential to take e-learning 2.0 to new frontiers of advancement. Most significantly, the chapter argues that Web 2.0 and the SW provide an ideal platform for harnessing collective intelligence, collective knowledge, the power of the groundswell, the network effect, and the collective power of simulation for higher education institutions (HEIs) in the area of elearning 2.0. Against this backdrop, the chapter provides, first, a short overview of e-learning 2.0, Web 2.0 and the SW. Second, it characterises the way in which Web 2.0 social software technologies (e.g., blogs, wikis, social networks and virtual worlds) can be deployed in HEIs for delivering e-learning 2.0 for educational purposes. In addition, it outlines the manner in which the SW (in the form of semantic blogs, semantic wikis, semantic social networks and semantic virtual worlds) can enhance each of these Web 2.0 technologies for deploying e-learning 2.0 in HEIs.

INTRODUCTION E-learning 2.0 has a lot to gain from leveraging both Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web (the SW). This is particularly so as these two sets of hybrid technologies are the critical drivers of not only e-learning 2.0 but of other forms of today’s learning technologies as well. In addition, the SW adds DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch003

semantic ingredients to the existing Web 2.0 social software applications that underpin e-learning 2.0. Based on this, this chapter explores the uses that blogs and semantic blogs, wikis and semantic wikis, social networks and semantic social networks, and virtual worlds and semantic virtual worlds have for higher education institutions (HEIs). It draws on relevant documented instances and argues that the deployment of blogs and semantic blogs on the one hand, and of wikis and semantic wikis on the


E-Learning 2.0

other hand, respectively helps leverage collective intelligence (CI) and collective knowledge (CK) for HEIs in relation to e-learning 2.0. Likewise, it contends that the use of social networks and semantic social networks on the one hand, and of virtual worlds and semantic virtual worlds on the other hand, enables the harnessing of both the power of the groundswell (PoG) and the collective power of simulation (CPoS), respectively.

E-LEARNING 2.0, WEB 2.0 AND THE SW: OVERVIEW This section offers a brief overview and related multidimensional definitions of e-learning 2.0, Web 2.0 and the SW. It also establishes the nexus existing between the last two instances of hybrid technologies and e-learning 2.0.

E-Learning 2.0 E-learning 2.0 is perceived in three related perspectives here. First, it is an approach that involves virtual collaborative and distance learning leveraged through computer-mediated communication technologies. Accordingly, it enables learners to actively participate in the learning value chain as creators and co-creators of content, and as authors, co-authors and contributors of knowledge by harnessing each other’s CI. In this sense, it entails an e-learning 2.0 ecosystem existing within a Web 2.0 universe (Ivanova, 2007) – such as reflected in Figure 1 - that views a learning space as a medium for personal activities and for communication and collaboration with members of learning communities. Second, it is about Web 2.0 social software technologies and services applied to e-learning (Calvani, Bonaiuti & Fini, 2008; Downes, 2004; Spadavecchia, 2008). In this instance, it is a loosely coordinated, components approach that harnesses the synergy of distinct but complementary applications and web services such as blogs, wikis, and other social software

tools to support learning. As such, it is a bottomup and learner-driven peer learning. Third, it refers to an architecture of learning networks. Such networks are decentralised, distributed, emergent and dynamic. Therefore, it encompasses networked learning. The latter is a learning in which information and communication technologies are employed to foster connections between learners, between learners and tutors, and between learning communities and learning resources.

Web 2.0 Web 2.0 has many and varied definitions. In this chapter, Web 2.0 is understood from four complementary perspectives: transition, technologies, environment and mindset. The transition perspective of Web 2.0 relates to the transitional stage in which the Web has evolved from Web 1.0 into Web 2.0. It also underlines the idea that the Web is in a constant beta version. The technologies view of Web 2.0 refers to the fact that the latter consists of social software technologies (e.g. blogs, wikis, social networks and virtual worlds) and offers value-added services and data. This embodies the environment conception of Web 2.0: the view that Web 2.0 is a social and participation Web environment. The mindset approach to Web 2.0 encompasses the notion that the latter is a Read/ Think/Write Web and that data, content, and applications/tools are services (see Ullrich, Borau, Luo, Tan, Shen & Shen, 2008). Additionally, it is about the Web as a platform through which the long tail, the network effect, social data and the wisdom of the crowd (WoC) (e.g., users, learners, employees, and customers) can be leveraged. This is the Web connecting end-users in an ecosystem of value additions.

The Semantic Web Like Web 2.0, the Semantic Web (the SW) has multiple definitions and is often represented through

39

E-Learning 2.0

Figure 1. The sample e-learning 2.0 ecosystem made up of composite Web 2.0 applications (Source htpp:// bp2.blogger.com/_OxsnUFtqD1o/R0bENKEeIwIAAAAAAAAAFo/Tgx--cYEQGE/s1600-h/el2.jpg)

different metaphors. Three such metaphors - Web 3.0, the Data Web, and the Intelligent Web - are employed here to concisely delineate the SW. Web 3.0 signals the evolutionary nature - the perpetual beta - of the Web. It is an advanced stage and the next wave of the Web after the current Web 2.0. It is a view conceiving of the SW as a universal medium facilitating information exchange through documents containing computer-processable meanings (semantics) (Metz, 2007). It is the Web based on artificial intelligence and knowledge representation theories. It thus allows data to be published using semantic technologies or standards such as resource description framework (RDF) and web ontology language (OWL). As a Data Web, the SW entails a universally reusable Web of data that seamlessly inter-connects complex and unstructured data across diverse applications, platforms and contexts. Hence, it comprises self-executable Web abstraction layers (Bittencourt, Isotani, Costa & Mizoguchi, 2008; Davis, 2007-2008) signalling a transformation of the Web from a network of discrete applica-

40

tions and content repositories to an interoperable medium. Moreover, the SW is also the Intelligent Web. This means it possesses smart and intelligent agents, applications, tools and ontologies that can handle data, content, knowledge and information autonomically. That is, it can reason about and represent meanings, theories and knowledge separately from data, documents and programme codes. Moreover, it can mount intelligent searches. In this manner, the SW synergistically integrates Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 technologies (Bittencourt et al., 2008; Davis, 2007-2008; Wahlster & Dengel, 2006). Given the above, it becomes clear that e-learning 2.0 not only leverages Web 2.0 technologies but is also modelled on the Web 2.0 paradigm. This is where it derives its 2.0 orientation and philosophy. In this way, integrating both Web 2.0 and SW technologies into e-learning 2.0 has an added value of synergising the collective power of these technologies for e-learning 2.0 purposes (Gruber, 2007; Ullrich et al., 2008). Thus, both Web 2.0 and the SW are critical enablers for e-learning

E-Learning 2.0

2.0. This is more so as Web 2.0 and the SW share commonalities: both combine natural language, taxonomies and tools in an open environment and strive to improve Web capabilities.

•

E-Learning 2.0, Web 2.0 Social Software Applications and the SW: Leveraging Collective Intelligence

•

This part of the chapter focuses on the way in which Web 2.0 and SW social software applications can be deployed for delivering e-learning 2.0. In particular, it outlines and demonstrates how applications such as blogs/semantic blogs, wikis/semantic wikis, social networks/semantic social networks and virtual worlds/semantic virtual worlds can be leveraged for deploying e-learning 2.0. The main focus here is on the educational uses of these applications and on their ability to harness collective intelligence (CI), collective knowledge (CK), the power of the groundswell (PoG), and the collective power of simulation (CPoS) respectively. In each case, this section draws on instances documented at and applicable to given higher education institutions (HEIs) and highlights how the SW can enhance such applications for e-learning 2.0 purposes.

• • • •

Blogs and Collective Intelligence Blogs are among the earliest Web 2.0 social software applications to have been deployed by HEIs for educational uses. In this context, they serve as a social writing and collaborative participation platform. In particular, they are the primary Web 2.0 technologies capable of harnessing CI for educational purposes in an e-learning 2.0 environment.

Blogs and their Educational Uses Blogs can help synergise participants’ CI in the area of e-learning 2.0. Thus, they can serve as a medium for:

•

• •

•

Online collaborative learning and research, and the expression of diverse views, perspectives and opinions Communities of learners (CoLs) and communities of practice (CoPs) Group projects to co-produce content (e.g., collaborative writing projects for teachers and students, group e-portfolios, and group journals) Discussion groups Networks for teachers and students Personalised learning environments Conference participation (e.g. conference blogs) Constructing a corpus of interrelated knowledge via collective posts and comments Syndication technologies (e.g., really simple syndication (RSS) feeds) to enable groups of teachers and students to have notifications or alerts regarding new posts A collaborative reviewing of course content by both teachers and students (Cobb, 2008; Franklin & Van Harmelen, 2007).

There are several documented instances of educational blogging pertaining to HEIs. Among these are: University of Warwick; University of Leeds; University of Brighton; University of Edinburgh; Bond University; Queensland University of Technology; Central Queensland University; University of Melbourne; Harvard University; University of Arizona; and University of British Columbia (Coghlan, Crawford, Little, Lomas, Lombardi, Oblinger et al., 2007; Franklin & Van Harmelen, 2007). For example, the University of Brighton (United Kingdom) rolled out the Elgg blogging system in September 2006, integrating it with its existing institutional systems. Both staff and students swiftly adopted the system which they used as an online social and academic community. Currently, Elgg - a multi-purpose application - is used formally by staff and students within courses and modules, thereby enabling them to share in-

41

E-Learning 2.0

formation, reflections and comments across course boundaries. At the same time, students use the system for their personal development planning and for creating their e-portfolios. Some of them even use the system in tandem with social networking applications such as MySpace (Franklin & Van Hermelen, 2007). In this scenario, Elgg allows staff and students to constitute themselves into communities of practice (CoPs) and communities of learners (CoLs) capable of leveraging their CI. Integrating Elgg and MySpace in this case represents a peer-to-peer (P2P) harnessing of CI. In a different but related scenario, Central Queensland University (CQU) launched - in 2006 - a blog-based project for its master’s level course - Systems Development Overview. The latter is offered online to more than 1 000 students (many of whom are international) spread across 7 of CQU’s campuses. At the start of the project, 278 students - assigned to 14 instructors - were asked to set up their blogs on Blogger or WordPress. Their blogs were then integrated into CQU’s blog aggregation management system. One of the aims of the blog-based project - relevant to this chapter - was to give students and instructors authentic experience of using Web 2.0 technologies. The project itself was intended for online submission, assignment management, plagiarism detection, grading and student records. One salient feature of the project is that it enabled both the students and instructors to blend Web 2.0 applications such as blogs with existing institutional systems (Coghlan et al., 2007). As such, it introduced all the participants involved to the practice of harnessing their CI in an elearning 2.0 context. Likewise, the University of Melbourne trialled CultureBlogging in its Cultural Studies Programme in 2007. Equipped with RSS feeds, marking tools and variable cataloguing functions, among other features, this platform involved 225 first year students. Preliminary results of this project indicated that blogging was a valuable teaching and learning tool (Farmer, Yue & Brooks, 2008).

42

There are also instances of synergising blogs with other Web 2.0 applications such as wikis that lead to tapping into the CI of these applications. One such instance is an undergraduate course IST301X: The Information Environment offered by the State University of New York - University at Albany. The course incorporates both blogging and a wiki - introduced in 2005 and 2007 respectively - to encourage student team presentations and collaborative writing. The use of these two tools helps foster CoPs among students (Mackey, 2007) and enables the latter to harness the wisdom of the crowd. Another instance is iMechanica hosted at Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (since 2006) and powered by Drupal, an open-source content management system. The platform allows mechanics academics, practitioners and students to experiment with innovative ideas on engineering education, and collaborate and share these ideas among themselves, and with other interested users globally. It leverages three Web 2.0 applications: blogs, a wiki (wikiMechanica) and RSS feeds. The iMechanica project has had institutional collaborative efforts. In 2007 a fracture mechanics course was offered to students from Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Nebraska (Li & Suo, 2007). Thus, this platform manages to harness CI at the level of users, applications and institutions.

Semantic Blogging Semantic blogging is part of the SW. It builds on traditional blogging technology and adds semantic structure and metadata to the SW. For example, it can: use a resource description framework (RDF) vocabulary to represent and export blog metadata; enrich snippet metadata by using published vocabularies such as Friend of a Friend; and integrate data across multiple blog entries. Moreover, semantic blogging offers the following benefits for HEIs: rich semantic searches/queries and retrievals; distributed conceptual blogging

E-Learning 2.0

and opinion publishing; semantic navigation and annotation; autonomic knowledge management and content management; intelligent harvesting, aggregation and syndication of data; enhanced data sharing; and human-machine synergy (Cayzer, 2004, 2006; Wahlster & Dengel, 2006). Based on the above, semantic blogging offers many opportunities for harnessing CI or the wisdom of the crowd. That is, it allows new ways of convenient data exchange between users within a blogosphere — blog authors and blog users alike. For instance, semantic blog users at HEIs can mount semantic queries/searches and retrievals to access and leverage their respective communities’ CI. Alternatively, they can mount semantic navigation and annotation so as to find blog items of interest or blogs bearing semantic similarity (Metz, 2007). They can do so in order to facilitate collaboration, research and development, and innovation adoption or service promotion. One semantic blogging application offering value to users is semiBlog. This application leverages, references and annotates users’ blog posts (e.g., address book entries, events, publications and music files) stored on their personal desktops. The value-added benefits offered by this application include the following: reuse of data (once a user has entered metadata into their desktop applications, there is no need to re-enter it when annotating a blog post); reuse of functionality (external applications such as electronic address books and calendars integrate well with semiBlog); and always up-to-date affordance (semiBlog links to desktop objects instead of duplicating them this means that, when a user updates data in an external application, this update is automatically reflected in their blog) (Möller, 2006). Most importantly, researchers at HEIs can share, annotate and aggregate their research publications using a decentralised semantic blogging publication aggregation system such as Bibster or SocioBiblog. The former – depicted in Figure 2 - is a peer-to-peer system for exchanging bibliographic data among researchers. It allows researchers to:

•

•

•

Query a single specific peer (e.g., their own computer), a specific set of peers (e.g., all colleagues in an institution), or the whole network of peers Search for bibliographic entries using simple keyword searches or advanced semantic searches for special publications (together with their relevant attribute values) Integrate query results into a local knowledge base for future use (Haase, Broekstra, Ehrig, Menken, Mika, Plechawski et al., 2004; Shakya, Takeda, Ohmukai & Wuwongse, 2006).

The latter is a decentralised platform for sharing bibliographic information often used in conjunction with BuRST (Bibliography Management using RSS Technology). It has the following affordances: •

•

•

•

Decentralised information sharing (it is fully decentralised and supports both the publishing and aggregation of information) Social network based aggregation (bibliographic metadata is aggregated from the social network neighborhood of bloggers and posts by co-authors of publications are also listed) Interoperability (bibliographic information feeds can be aggregated from different systems, metadata from different systems can be quoted in blog entries, and comments can be posted on the publications) Integration and filtering (information from different sources can be integrated using a common semantic standard, the collection can be filtered by metadata criteria, and results can be redistributed as new feeds) (Shakya, Takeda, Wuwongse & Ohmukai, 2007).

As pointed out earlier, within this educational semantic blogosphere, users can engage in distributed conceptual blogging and opinion

43

E-Learning 2.0

Figure 2. A screenshot of Bibster (Source http://bibster.semanticweb.org/screenshots.htm)

publishing. This twin process involves conceptmaps constructed collaboratively in different containers with each participant controlling specific containers for viewing and publishing. It is aided by concept browsers. One example of the latter is Conzilla, which facilitates an effective collaboration environment for knowledge management on the SW. Conzilla presents knowledge in terms of specific context-maps. This is a semantic blogging tool for representing content in contexts through concepts. Another aspect of semantic blogging is Confolio which is a SW portfolio platform for a distributed opinion publication network allowing portfolio owners to publish anything which has a publicly retrievable Universal Resource Identifier. Other instances of semantic blogging applications that help harness CI by educational semantic blog users are Magpie, Wordpress, SemanticGuide and SemanticIntegrator (Cuel, Louis, Delteil, Jack, Leger, Rizzi et al., 2008).

Wikis and Collective Knowledge Wikis are convenient Web 2.0 social software applications for leveraging collective knowledge (CK) for educational purposes in an e-learning 2.0 environment. Like blogs, they also serve as a social writing and collaborative participation platform. Additionally, they too can harness the power of multiple users and be used jointly with other Web 2.0 applications such as podcasts, social networks, RSS feeds, etc.

Wikis and their Educational Uses In the area of e-learning 2.0, wikis can aggregate and synergise CK possessed by multiple users. Therefore, among other functions, they: • • •

44

Facilitate CK from diverse experts and contributors Enable collaborative management of educational resources Serve as repositories of CK, as a platform

E-Learning 2.0

•

•

• •

•

for knowledge management and content management, and as tools for electronic portfolios Foster teamwork, group research projects and collaborative publication of course resources (e.g., syllabi and handouts) Enable users (teachers and students) to co-author, co-edit, co-revise and peer review content and co-produce annotated bibliography Operate as online encyclopaedias and dictionaries Serve as virtual forums for (re-)versioning, (re-)writing and (re-)reading content, thereby promoting a beta concept of content creation Promote virtual communities of practice (Cobb, 2008; Franklin & Van Harmelen, 2007).

There are many and varied documented cases of educational wikis related to HEIs. The following are but a handful: University of Vancouver; University of Arizona; Deakin University; University of Leeds; University of Plymouth; University of Zagreb; University of Sydney; University of British Columbia (UBC); Cambridge University; and University of Melbourne. As an illustration, staff at the University of Vancouver incorporate wikis into their e-learning system. They use them as: reference tools for courses, database for course outlines, brainstorming strategies, and teaching tools; in-class communication tools; collaborative content and project management resources; and collaborative writing spaces. Moreover, at the University of Plymouth, medical and health education students use wikis in tandem with blogs and podcasts as part of e-learning 2.0. Some of the functions they serve, in this case, are as: tools for creating, sharing, disseminating and sourcing information and knowledge; a method for e-collaboration; and a means for facilitating group dialogue. To this effect, students even create medical wikis such as the

Flu Wiki which helps local health officials prepare for the flu season (Boulos, Maramba & Wheeler, 2006; Mietz, n.d.). Thus, not only are students able to form a virtual community of practice but they also manage to tap into the collective knowledge of the entire virtual community of practice. In a different but related scenario, in 2006 the University of British Columbia (UBC) created a health library wiki to support its health library course in the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies. This was established using MediaWiki and the resultant wiki was intended to be a knowledge base for health librarians. The wiki now boasts about 150 articles and 100 registered users and has had more than 260 000 page views. Moreover, UBC has course development wikis used by collaborating staff, and wikis for teaching writing skills and organising live conferences. Other wiki applications used in medicine are Ask Dr. Wiki (http://wwww.askdrwiki.com) and Ganfyd (http://ganfyd.org) (Barsky & Giustini, 2007). There are two more noteworthy instances of educational wiki practices leveraging CI and CK. The first is the Engwiki project launched by the Faculty of Organization and Informatics at the University of Zagreb (Croatia) in 2006. Two of its most important goals were: to test the applicability of wiki technology in teaching ESP (English for Special Purposes) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) at the university level; and to innovatively deploy a wiki by engaging students in different types of individual and collaborative e-tivities (electronic activities). The project yielded, inter alia, the following pedagogical spin-offs: multiple perspectives were supported with a diversity of representations of concepts; and cooperative and collaborative peer-to-peer (P2P) learning was achieved in order to expose students to alternative viewpoints (Kovacic, Bubas & Zlatovic, 2008). The second instance concerns wikiMechanica which is an experimental project for solid mechanics involving six United States (US) universities: Harvard University; University

45

E-Learning 2.0

of Texas at Austin; University of California at Berkeley; University of Houston; University of Wyoming; and Columbia University. wikiMechanica is used in conjunction with the iMechanica blogging platform and allows all concerned to subscribe to RSS feeds (Li & Suo, 2007). These are two instances of educational wiki practices exemplifying the harnessing of CI and CK in the higher education (HE) sector.

•

•

Semantic Wikis Semantic wikis enhance traditional wikis by adding to the latter semantic technologies such as RDF, OWL, conceptual graphs, or topic maps. One of the main purposes behind these technologies is to make the inherent structure of traditional wikis accessible to machines (agents, services) beyond mere navigation. In this case, semantic wikis allow for the encoding of semantic data - e.g., metadata together with their relations - concerning knowledge described in their pages. Moreover, they offer semantics-on-demand by making semantics accessible to ordinary users in the same way as ordinary wikis make hypertext accessible to users. Classic examples of semantic wikis are Semantic MediaWiki (SMW), Platypus Wiki, IkeWiki, KawaWiki, Makna, OntoWiki, Rhizome, WikiSar, AceWiki and SweetWiki. It is worth commenting briefly about each of these semantic wikis: •

46

Semantic MediaWiki (SMW): It is the extension of MediaWiki (the system which powers Wikipedia), enabling the latter to become a semantic wiki. It enhances MediaWiki annotations and conceptualises pages as concepts. Moreover, it places semantic markups directly within the text to ensure that machine-readable data agrees with the human-readable data. Some of its benefits are presenting the semantic annotations of each page at the bottom, giving a summary and an improved browsing.

•

•

•

•

•

Platypus Wiki: It is one of the older semantic wikis, having originated in late December 2003. With its Java-based implementation, this wiki conceptualises pages as resources, stores semantic statements in RDF, and keeps them separate from the main content of the wiki. It requires users to have technical knowledge for manipulating it. IkeWiki: This is a complete rewrite of MediaWiki in Java, with powerful semantic features. It is aimed at knowledge engineers and advanced users, and has multiple editing functionalities. KawaWiki: This semantic wiki aims to offer a complete formal structure of the data with proper use of RDF and RDFS (RDF Schema). Its architecture is divided into three main layers: RDF templates, RDFS and wiki content. Makna: This is an extension of the JSPWiki adding semantic functionalities to it. Each of its pages is an ontology-controlled concept. It uses the JENA reasoning engine which allows the execution of complex queries, and rejects any changes to a page which are likely to cause inconsistencies to its semantic model. OntoWiki: This is a community-editable knowledge base which is more of a collaborative ontology editor than a semantic wiki. While it does not have the usual wiki interface to represent concepts, it however, supports various collaborative features and allows the installation of plug-ins. Rhizome: This semantic wiki uses a set of Rx technologies that provide alternatives to traditional standards used by wikis and the Semantic Web. In it, RDF is used to express the wiki information: its main focus is on management of knowledge rather than on advanced reasoning. WikiSar: This wiki combines the notions of both a wiki system and the Semantic Web while adding features to integrate the

E-Learning 2.0

•

•

semantic wiki into users’ desktops. It better functions as a PIM (Personal Information Management) system. In this regard, it allows the wiki to be integrated with users’ desktops and provides for a link to the local machine (similar to Google Desktop). One of its features is query chaining which allows one query to be fed to another query, thereby facilitating the creation of more interesting and useful queries. AceWiki: AceWiki is a convergent semantic wiki which tries to integrate ontology, rules and query language into one. Its editor allows users to either directly type in the statements or use a guided form of selecting from the existing ontology. It conceptualises each wiki page as a concept and produces an OWL output of the underlying ontology. SweetWiki: It identifies itself as a system which uses an ontology for the wiki and not a wiki for the ontology. As a result, it can describe more than one resource on the same page. However, it does not version knowledge structures alongside the wiki content. It makes use of two ontologies: one for the wiki structure and the other for the content. One of its distinguishing features is that many of its concepts are annotated on the same page (Kousetti, Millard & Howard, 2008; Millard, Bailey, Boulain, Chennupati, Davis, Howard et al., n.d.).

All these types of semantic wikis differ in terms of both the knowledge required to use them and the expressivity they have. The former dimension – which refers to how much technical skill a user needs to have to use a wiki and its ontology - consists of four categories: everyday user; power user; professional user; and ontologist (ontology expert). And the latter dimension – which refers to how much expressive the final ontology is - comprises four levels of expressivity and formalism: simple taxonomy; relations between

concepts; OWL Lite level (better formality than simple relations with some restrictions similar to the functionality offered by OWL Lite); and OWL DL and OWL Full levels (high formality of a rich ontology which has a functionality similar to that of OWL DL and OWL Full, allowing for more restrictions and expressive relations with property characteristics such as transitive, functional, disjoint, etc). Figure 3 indicates how the ten semantic wikis, together with MediaWiki, compare in terms of these two dimensions when represented in a graph. For example, wikis such as SMW, IkeWiki, WikiSAR and SweetWiki in the middle of the graph, balance out expressivity and required knowledge. On the one hand, the wikis on the right-hand side of the graph (Platypus Wiki, Rhizome, and to some degree OntoWiki) - even though quite expressive - are difficult to use by non-expert users, as they require knowledge of SW technologies or elaborate special syntax. On the other hand, wikis on the left-hand side of the graph (AceWiki and KawaWiki) restrict user input and require little user knowledge. However, they require users with ontology expertise to setup, monitor and help grow the wiki. To this end, there are many e-learning 2.0 affordances offered by semantic wikis for HEIs. These include: •

•

Semantic navigation: relational information added to the viewed content facilitates orientation; information about certain persons could be enriched with information about user affiliations or connections to other people; and links such as works in or knows would contain this information Semantic search and querying: semantic search means that one cannot only search for knowledge elements but also for links or combinations of elements; and when searching for works in institution a, the system would display all the stakeholders belonging to that institution

47

E-Learning 2.0

Figure 3. A graph representing the ten semantic wikis and MediaWiki and showing how they compare in terms of required knowledge and expressivity (Source Kousetti, Millard & Howard, 2008)

•

•

•

•

•

48

Reasoning support: the ability to employ reasoning engines to infer additional knowledge from explicit annotations made by users; and since links relate knowledge elements to each other, additional information can be deduced (e.g., when it is specified that a person works in an institution, it can be deduced that she/he is an academic, an employee, a manager, or a student) Typing and annotating links: knowledge elements can be connected through annotated links that state the type of association existing between the elements - such annotated links could be works in, connecting persons and institutions Improved user experience through WYSIWYG editing (e.g., IkeWiki and SweetWiki) A standardised Web service interface and data exchange format for automated clients and distributed systems Integration with other social software applications (e.g., SnipSnap integrates the wiki and blogging functionalities with semantic features)

•

•

Context-aware presentation: since both links and knowledge elements are annotated, semantically related pages embed the content into a context. This means that content is semantically enriched. For instance, pages about a city in a certain country might be enriched with other cities located in that country. Semantic Desktop computing (Granitzer, Stocker, Hoefler & Tochtermann, 2008; Kiesel & Sauermann, 2005; Schaffert, Bischof, Bürger, Gruber, Hilzensauer & Schaffert, 2006).

The instances cited above indicate that semantic wikis have a lot to offer regarding harnessing the CK and CI - through the human-machine synergy - of HE users in an e-learning 2.0 scenario. For example, through a Firefox add-on such as Zotero, students and researchers can collect, manage, and cite research material (especially bibliographic resources). They can even edit the data saved by Zotero and attach additional data such as notes, tags, and related files so as to share them with other users. In addition, they can integrate their

E-Learning 2.0

Zotero data with applications like WordPress and Microsoft Word. Alternatively, they may search and browse the captured data both online and offline. Moreover, using a Firefox add-on like Piggy Bank - which turns a browser into a mash-up platform - users can capture metadata for online resources and mix them together. They then can locally store, tag, search and browse their collected data (Dobrzański, 2007; Dobrzański, Nagle, Curry, Gzella & Kruk, 2007). Other SW applications - e.g., Semantic MediaWiki and Semantic Desktop - also lend themselves well to leveraging the P2P CK and CI for HE semantic wiki users. Semantic MediaWiki, for example, enables semantic data to be encoded within wiki pages. The encoded data can be used for semantic searches and aggregating pages, and exported via RDF. Key benefits for end-users are that: they can search for, organise, browse, evaluate and share the wiki content; and they can create content faster (Cuel et al., 2008). Furthermore, Schaffert et al. (2006) maintain that semantic wikis can facilitate cognitive apprenticeship, cooperative learning, project-based learning, interdisciplinary and intercultural learning and CoPs (communities of practice). They also argue that they can serve as e-portfolios. For its part, a Semantic Desktop is about deploying SW technologies to desktop computing. It is a virtual device allowing users to store personal or academic digital information such as messages, documents and multimedia that can be interpreted and accessed as SW resources. It facilitates the integration of various data sources. That is, all available data sources can be first integrated into a Semantic Desktop data integration framework, and then be accessed from it by users through semantic wikis. Data sources can be either treated as virtual RDF graphs or buffered completely in RDF databases. In this sense, users can also leverage a Social Semantic Desktop. Thus, a Semantic Desktop is a truly enlarged supplement to users’ collective memory (Kiesel & Sauermann, 2005; Wahlster & Dengel, 2006).

There are documented cases of semantic wiki practices involving the sourcing of CK and CI in varying degrees. One of these cases is the Centre for Biosecurity and Public Health Informatics Research (University of Texas Health Science Centre at Houston). As an illustration, the Centre has developed SAPPHIRE (Situation Awareness and Preparedness for Public Health Incidents using Reasoning Engines) for users. Key benefits of this system for end-users are: •

•

•

Distributed collaboration and interoperability (diverse and heterogeneous data can be integrated, exchanged and utilised dynamically and seamlessly P2P) Multidisciplinary reuse of information (users can re-purpose the available data in the system to address unprecedented use cases) Human-machine interaction (human users interact intelligently with systems, allowing for easier and more effective and intuitive communication) (Cuel et al., 2008).

Social Networking, the Power of the Groundswell and the Network Effect Social networks are virtual or online networks of people. Depending on the purposes they serve, they can be classified as follows: leisure-oriented, or entertainment and personal socialising sites (e.g., MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, Mixi, Cyworld, Bebo, Orkut, or Windows Live Space); and professional networking sites focusing on business networking (e.g., LinkedIn, Ecademy, Xing, or Visible Path) (Brock, 2007). Within an e-learning 2.0 framework, social networks help educational users both harness the power of the groundswell (PoG) - in the form of swarm intelligence - and leverage the network effect. In either case, the resultant interactions lead to P2P and peopleto-people learning networks, opening access to content, branding, expertise, innovation and global connections (see Siemens, 2008). Moreover, social

49

E-Learning 2.0

networks enable users to leverage social capital, relationship capital and the long tail economics. All of this dovetails with the ethos of the network economy - the more connections are made, the more value is added to the network and to the other members of the network.

Social Networks and Their Educational Uses In the arena of e-learning 2.0, social networks may have diverse uses. For instance, they may serve as a platform for: • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

•

Establishing professional and private contacts Connectivity and social rapport CoPs, CoLs, and communities of interests (CoIs) Learning networks and connections Networked and connected peer learning Distributed and socialised learning Networking with members and experts Developing collaborative culture Announcing commonly shared (online) activities (e.g., conferences, webinars, paper/ chapter/book writing, etc) and participating in them Sharing knowledge, views, or opinions Increasing brand awareness of HEIs Promoting issues of social concern or related to institutional social responsibility Profiling the institution and enhancing its institutional image, reputation and identity Marketing, advertising and promoting institutional products and services (e.g., programme, course or module offerings) Recruiting and screening/reviewing potential candidates, students, or partners (Marketing Leadership Council [MLC], 2008).

Some of the documented instances of social networking practices leveraging the PoG and the network effect in the HE sector are: University

50

of Westminster; Keele University; University of Bath; Oxford University; University of London; Montpellier 3 University; William Paterson University; Harvard University; Pennsylvania State University; University of Washington; and Stanford University. In this regard, the University of Westminster launched a closed social networking platform, Connect, in September 2007 for use by both students and staff. By January 2008 this project had 3 048 registered users. Since its inception the project has integrated Web 2.0 features such as personal and community blogs, tagging, personal and community file storage, private and public communities, social networking capability and syndication support. Leveraging this social networking site, both students and staff can create their profiles, form and join discussion groups, upload photographs and documents, send messages, and publish blogs and presentations (Oradini & Saunders, 2008). Thus, not only are students and staff able to mix the social with the academic - thereby synergising their collective social and intellectual capital - but they can also harness the PoG and the network effect. Similarly, Stanford University’s practice of using Facebook for classroom purposes does not only enable students to leverage the PoG, but also has the element of the viral network effect built into it. Here a course, Create Engaging Web Applications Using Metrics and Learning on Facebook, is offered to computer science students. It is intended to help these students, and others in the business school, to learn how to develop and market user-friendly software using Facebook as a platform. Students are required to build applications for Facebook, garner and analyse information concerning how Facebook users employ them. They then have to use detailed numerical measurements to guide software loopings just as developers do with existing Facebook applications. Working in groups of three, students first develop an application likely to appeal to most Facebook users. Based on this, they develop a second application, focusing more closely on us-

E-Learning 2.0

ing Facebook for educational purposes, such as sharing class notes with each other. In this course students are graded according to the number of the active Facebook users they can get to use their applications (Eldon, 2007). Herein, lies a recipe for engaging students in collaborative learning and grading them by leveraging the PoG and the network economics offered by Facebook. Another classic instance of an organisation tapping into the PoG, the network effect, social and relationship capital, and the long tail economics is Amazon. Amazon is an online shop selling books (particularly academic books for HEIs), DVDs or software whose content is driven primarily by users. It encourages users to review, rate and recommend books or films sold through its platform. This practice enables potential customers to have a basic idea of the usability, quality and suitability of the products. The site is populated by user content (product previews, reviews, ratings and recommendations) (Tandefelt, 2008). All the company does, is provide a social networking platform for its users by harnessing their collective groundswell, network effect, and social capital and by applying the long tail approach to selling its products.

Semantic Social Networking As far as HEIs are concerned, semantic social networking (SSN) combines the strengths of social computing with SW technologies. SW technologies enable SSN applications to mount concept-based search instead of language-based search and navigation (Davis, 2007-2008). On this score, SSN can help HEIs better leverage the PoG, the wisdom of the crowd and the network economy through: • •

Semantically interlinked online communities or multiplex social networking Network computing - distributed computing entailing P2P networks and exploiting diverse connectivity between participants

•

• •

•

•

in a network and a cumulative bandwidth of networked participants Semantic Grid - networking together large communities with decentralised infrastructures for data and computation sharing and enabling users and applications to link and cooperate with the data available and stored within a grid (like finding videos related to photos of a subject searched for) Semantic interoperability across HEIs and academic disciplines Allowing people and groups to search for and exchange social information (information describing people, their attributes, their relationships with others, etc) based on the FOAF ontology Enabling people and groups to read, publish and exchange information and knowledge, thereby enhancing interoperability, cooperation and service-oriented architectures Networked Semantic Desktop - enabling people and groups to collaborate directly with their peers while extensively reducing the time spent filing and filtering information (Decker & Frank, n.d).

Virtual Worlds and the Collective Power of Simulation Virtual worlds (VWs) are digital simulated environments exhibiting real or imaginary spaces through the use of 3D (three-dimensional) computer graphics. They comprise various forms of emerging universes: metaverses; intraverses; paraverses; MMORPGs (massively multi-player online role-playing games); and MOLES (multiple online learning environments) (Kish, 2007). These 3D VWs borrow much from gaming concepts, real world physics simulators, and existing streaming audio/video/data technologies. They do so in order to offer opportunities for real time simulation, experiential learning and collaboration in virtual spaces that transcend physical and geographical barriers. Users or residents of VWs may explore

51

E-Learning 2.0

or inhabit them by assuming digital personalities called avatars. Depending on the composition of the VWs or the physics programmed into them, users can walk, swim, fly or teleport through embodied avatars. Typical examples of VWs are: Second Life (SL); Active Worlds; Habbo Hotel; The Sims Online; There; Cybertown; and Disney’s Toontown (Hargis, 2008; Jennings & Collins, 2007; Siozos & Palaigeorgiou, 2008). VWs - such as SL - enable residents to meet other residents, socialise, form social networks, and participate in individual and group activities. They also allow residents to create items and services and trade them with one another. As such, they attract a lot of users. For example, by mid-May 2007, more than 6.4 million people had joined SL and created accounts in it (Joly, 2007). Given this, it follows that VWs are ideal spaces for leveraging the collective power of simulation (CPoS) in e-learning 2.0 scenarios.

Educational Affordances of VWs VWs offer many educational affordances. To this effect, they operate as ideal platforms for: • • •

• •

• •

52

Multiple online learning environments (MOLEs) Simulated, scenario-based, experiential and experimental distance learning Embedding learning in complex, interactive 3D environments that allow environmental manipulation (e.g., wind, sun, rain, etc) Collaborative, networked, immersive, and community-based learning Blended and convergent learning (e.g., converging and synergising different Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wikis, social networks, instant messaging (IM), mashups, etc) for learning purposes Promoting role playing and project-based assessment Synchronous/ asynchronous in-world

• •

• •

teaching and learning Educational and learning islands Academic research and test beds (e.g., design, computer science, literacy, media, sociology, psychology, education, etc) Exhibitions (showcasing what HEIs can offer prospective students) Networking, meeting and communicating (Bennett & Peachey, 2007; Joly, 2007).

In this context, there are several documented instances of HEIs tapping into the affordances and the CPoS offered by VWs. Among them are: INSEAD (Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires); Ohio University; Stanford University; Ball State University; Harvard University; Indiana University; University of Florida; Open University; Oxford University; Staffordshire University; University of London; and Sheffield University (Hargis, 2008; Joly, 2007). Three of the cases cited above, INSEAD, Ohio University (OU) and the Open University, warrant a closer scrutiny. INSEAD - a leader in graduate business education - has two campuses in France and Singapore and offers a flexible learning environment which brings together people, ideas and cultures from around the globe. This ethos and INSEAD’s institutional commitment to the entrepreneurial spirit is embodied in its campus in SL. In this regard, INSEAD’s SL campus is an operative virtual campus environment in which learning, research and communication occur completely virtually. That is, it maintains its mission, creates its location, and executes its educational operations virtually without replicating them in the real life form. In contrast, OU provides an example of a reflective virtual campus environment: it reproduces its institutional spirit and its physical campus in the virtual world, and connects the virtual campus to the physical real world. It offers a strong liberal studies education to over 16 000 undergraduate students and rigorous graduate programmes in its major academic divisions. Its SL campus com-

E-Learning 2.0

bines the old and new traditions into the virtual environment. This virtual campus has Stocker Centre, Welcome Centre, Art and Music Centre, Classroom and Meeting Centre, Learning Centre, Student Centre, Featured Game, and a Sandbox (Jennings & Collins, 2007). These two cases represent scenarios where residents or avatars are able to meet, socialise, learn and form social networks. All this makes it possible for INSEAD and OU residents to leverage the CPoS and the affordances offered by SL for educational purposes. Finally, the Open University deploys the SL platform as a learning support facility (to support courses or modules) for its geographically dispersed students. For example, it has purchased several islands in SL dedicated to offering various modules or courses and intended for teaching and learning opportunities within the multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs). One such island is Cetlment island – shown in Figure 4 - which is available for tutors to use on a range of courses (e.g., mathematics, science, computing and technology). On Cetlment island learners interact as avatars, using text chat in conjunction with audio, animations and gestures. The university also employs the Sloodle (Second Life Object Oriented Distributed Learning Environment) mashup for hybrid learning purposes within the MUVE (Bennett & Peachey, 2007).

VWs and the SW WVs - for HE purposes - have much to benefit from the SW in many respects. This is particularly so concerning their leveraging the CPoS which is one of their core affordances. Some of the benefits the SW can add to VWs are: •

•

Avatar-and multi-user-driven in-world learning, meeting, conferencing, workshopping and training spaces (with animated 3D avatars that can talk, e.g., Avatalk) for users or residents Increased and enhanced virtual 3D trading,

•

• • •

marketing, advertising and payment Enhancing, leveraging and synergising the rich immersive and experiential affordances associated with the 3D Web (e.g. MMORPGs, MOLES, MUVEs, etc) that are impossible to replicate in real life. Data interoperability and convergence of platforms and applications Intelligent and autonomic queries and searches Automatic and intelligent collating and harvesting of the data and information from multiple sources

THE OUTLOOK FOR SEMANTIC WEB-BASED E-LEARNING 2.0 Six trends are likely to emerge as some of the critical drivers determining the future of a SWbased e-learning 2.0. These are: cloud computing; Networked Semantic Desktop (NSD) computing; distributed collective knowledge systems; collective computing; value-added SW navigation; and semantic reality. Cloud computing is likely to benefit from SW technologies. For instance, P2P grid storage, database and generic computing capabilities will be semantically enhanced enabling various applications to have more storage or computational power for a better return on educational investment (Murugesan, 2007). Cloud computing will be enriched further by the personalisation and widgetisation of Web applications and by lightweight computing deriving from lightweight applications. Related to cloud computing is NSD computing. The latter will enable group data (messages, documents, multimedia, artefacts, etc) to be accessed by users via their Semantic Desktop. NSD will also facilitate collaboration through P2P end-user applications to maintain shared and evolving views aggregated from disparate sources. As a collaboration user platform, NSD will be peer-based in two senses: socially (by allowing peer reviewing) and technically (by being deployed through

53

E-Learning 2.0

Figure 4. Cetlment Island (Source Bennett & Peachey, 2007)

P2P technology). It will connect participants to a global P2P network thereby operating as a truly Social Semantic Desktop (Decker & Frank, n.d.; Wahlster & Dengel, 2006). Additionally, it will engender distributed collective intelligence and the wisdom of the crowd (WoC) both in the human and technical senses. A further future critical driver of a SW-based e-learning 2.0 is value-added SW navigation. Two such instances are value-added search or federated searching and virtual semantic browsing. The former relates to intelligent searches that yield more precise and relevant results displayed on customised pages. Reportlinker and ZoomInfo are classic examples of value-added SW search engines (Murugesan, 2007). The latter has to do with avatar-based browsing that will allow avatars and their properties to move between VWs. Tied to this trend, is the idea of travatars: avatars that will travel between disparate VWs. This will add to 3D virtual innovating and transform VWs into platforms of choice so HEIs can better leverage their CPoS for research and academic purposes. Lastly is semantic reality. This is, on the one hand, an all-encompassing semantically driven convergent information space integrating disparate

54

domains (e.g., ambient intelligence, artificial intelligence, embedded systems, distributed systems, software engineering, social networking, the SW, etc) on a large scale (Hauswirth & Decker, 2007). On the other hand, it refers to the transformation of the current Web versionings into the ultimate SW (ultimate semantic reality). This twin process – and the notion of semantic reality - will result in semantic e-learning 2.0: e-learning 2.0 powered by the SW.

CONCLUSION This chapter has made two related arguments: that both Web 2.0 and the SW are the key enablers of e-learning 2.0; and that these two hybrid technologies help leverage collective intelligence (CI), collective knowledge (CK), the power of the groundswell (PoG), the network effect, and the collective power of simulation (CPoS). To substantiate these arguments the chapter has explored two sets of technologies - blogs/semantic blogs, wikis/semantic wikis, social networks/semantic social networks (SSNs), and VWs/semantic VWs as classic examples of Web 2.0 and the

E-Learning 2.0

SW respectively. It has located these two sets of social software technologies within the HE sector drawing on relevant and specific documented instances of their actual and potential applications. For example, it has, on the one hand, highlighted that blogs/semantic blogs and wikis/semantic wikis help leverage CI and CK in the HE arena respectively. To illustrate the notion of semantic wiki system, in particular, ten examples of semantic wikis have been provided and briefly outlined. On the other hand, the chapter has characterised how social networks such as Connect and Facebook and SSNs are able to harness the PoG and the network effect, and how VWs and semantic VWs can tap into the CPoS. It has mounted three short case studies of Second Life (SL) - deployed at HEIs - as possible instances of VWs exploiting the CPoS. Finally, the chapter has mapped out the future scenario for a SW-based e-learning 2.0. A salient feature of this future scenario is semantic reality which, as the chapter argues, will lead to semantic e-learning 2.0. Once that happens, the ultimate SW will have been realised.

Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. MBC Medical Education, 6(41). Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41 Brock, V. (2007). An introduction to online social networks: What are they and why do they matter to business? Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.highland businessresearch.com/ downloads/introtoonlinesocialnetworks.pdf Calvani, A., Bonaiuti, G., & Fini, A. (2008). Lifelong learning: What role for e-learning 2.0? Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www. je-lks.it/en/08_01/06Metcalv_ en1.pdf Cayzer, S. (2004). Semantic blogging and decentralized knowledge management. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/ subjects/ims2603/ resources/Assignment2Papers/ p47-cayzer.pdf

REFERENCES

Cayzer, S. (2006). What next for semantic blogging? Retrieved November 13, 2008, from http:// www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2006/HPL-2006149.pdf

Barsky, E., & Giustini, D. (2007). Introducing Web 2.0: Wikis for health librarians. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ jchla/jchla28/c07-036.pdf

Cobb, J. T. (2008). Learning 2.0 for associations. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://blog.missiontolearn.com/files/Learning_20_for_Associations_eBook-v1.pdf

Bennett, J., & Peachey, A. (2007). Mashing the MUVE: A mashup model for collaborative learning in multi-user virtual environments. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://hal.archives-ouvertes. fr/docs/00/19/72/62/PDF/125_Final_Paper.pdf

Coghlan, E., Crawford, J., Little, J., Lomas, C., Lombardi, M., Oblinger, D., et al. (2007). ELI discovery tool: Guide to blogging. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ ir/library/pdf/ELI8006.pdf

Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., Costa, E., & Mizoguchi, R. (2008). Research directions on semantic web and education. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://www.ei.sanken. osaka-u.ac.jp/pub/ isotani/semanticweb.pdf

Cuel, R., Louis, V., Delteil, A., Jack, K., Leger, A., Rizzi, C., et al. (2008). D1.4.1v4 technology roadmap. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http:// knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/semanticportal/ deliverables/D1.4.1v4.pdf

55

E-Learning 2.0

Davis, M. (2007-2008). Semantic wave2008report: Industry roadmap to Web 3.0 & multibillion dollar market opportunities. Retrieved December 14, 2007, from http://www.project10x.com/misc/ SW2008.pdf

Granitzer, G., Stocker, A., Hoefler, P., & Tochtermann, K. (2008). Informal learning with semantic wikis in enterprises. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://hoefler.st/ wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/2008_informal.pdf

Decker, S., & Frank, M. R. (n.d.). The networked semantic desktop. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-105.DeckerFrank.pdf

Gruber, T. (2007). Collective knowledge systems: Where the social web meets the semantic web. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://tomgruber. org/writing/ CollectiveKnowledgeSystems.pdf

Dobrzański, J. (2007). Social semantic information sources for elearning. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://dobrzanski.net/up-content/ uploads/2008/06/masterthesis.pdf

Haase, P., Broekstra, J., Ehrig, M., Menken, M., Mika, P., Plechawski, M., et al. (2004). Bibster – A semantics-based bibliographic peer-to-peer system. Retrieved November 03, 2008, from http://bibster.semanticweb.org/publications/ haase_04_bibster.pdf

Dobrzański, J., Nagle, T., Curry, E., Gzella, A., & Kruk, S. R. (2007). IKHarvester – Informal elearning with semantic web harvesting. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://dobrzanski.net/wp-content/ uploads/2007/05/ikharvester_iswc2007.pdf Downes, S. (2004). E-learning 2.0. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://www.elearnmag.org/ subpage.cfm? section=articles&article=29-1 Eldon, E. (2007). Facebook to take over Stanford classroom. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http:// venturebeat.com/2007/09/10/facebook-to-takeover-stanford-classroom/ Farmer, B., Yue, A., & Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university teaching: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 123136. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www. ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/farmer.html Franklin, T., & Van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/ documents/ programmes/digital_repositories/web2-contentlearning-and-teaching.pdf

56

Hargis, J. (2008). A Second Life for distance learning. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://tojde. anadolu.edu.tr/tojde30/articles/article_1.htm Hasan, H., & Pfaff, C. (2006). Emergent conversational technologies that are democratising information systems in organisations: The case of the corporate wiki. Retrieved August 24, 2008, from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar ticle=1297&content=commpapers Hauswirth, M., & Decker, S. (2007). Semantic reality – Connecting the real and the virtual world. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://research. microsoft.com/workshops/ SemGrail2007/Papers/ManfredH_Position.pdf Ivanova, M. (2007). eLearning 1.0 ecosystem and eLearning 2.0 ecosystem. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://mivanova.blogspot.com/2007/11/ elearning-10-ecosystem-and-elearning-20.html Jennings, N., & Collins, C. (2007). Virtual or virtually u: Educational institutions in Second Life. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://www. waset.org/ijss/v2/v2-3-28.pdf

E-Learning 2.0

Joly. K. (2007). A Second Life for higher education? Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http:// www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticlepf. aspx?articleid=797 Kiesel, M., & Sauermann, L. (2005). Towards desktop wikis. UPGRADE, 6(6), 30-34. Retrieved August 01, 2008, from http://www.upgrade-cepis. org/issues/2005/6/up6-Kiesel.pdf Kish, S. (2007). Second Life: Virtual worlds and the enterprise. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://skish.typepad.com/susan_kish/secondlife/ Skish_VW-SL_sept07.pdf Kousetti, C., Millard, D. E., & Howard, Y. (2008). A study of ontology convergence in a semantic wiki. Retrieved December 02, 2008, from http://www. wikisys.org/ws2008/ proceedings/research%20 papers/18500135.pdf Kovacic, A., Bubas, G., & Zlatovic, M. (2008). Etivities with a wiki: Innovative teaching of English as a foreign language. Retrieved August 01, 2008, from http://eunis.dk/papers/p87.pdf Li, T., & Suo, Z. (2007). Engineering education in the age of Web 2.0. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.imechanica.org/files/Engineering%20Education%20in%20the%20age%20 of%20Web%202.0%20%20Li%20and%20 Suo%20(2007).pdf Mackey, T. P. (2007). The social informatics of blog and wiki communities: Authoring communities of practice (CoPs). Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2007/ mackey_2007.pdf Metz, C. (2007). Web 3.0. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.pcmag.com/ article2/0,1759,2102852,00.asp Mietz, E. (n.d.). Wikis as an education based collaborative and learning tool. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://web.syr.edu/~ejmietz/Documents/654%20final%20paper.pdf

Millard, D. E., Bailey, C. P., Boulain, P., Chennupati, S., Davis, H. C., Howard, Y., et al. (n.d.). Semantics on demand: Can a semantic wiki replace a knowledge base? Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15981/1/ frema-sem-wiki_NRH.pdf MLC. (2008). Leveraging social networking sites in marketing communications. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://www.ittoolbox.com/advertising/pdf/Leveraging-Social-Media-Networking-Sites-in-Marketing-Communications.pdf Möller, K. (2006). Demo: Publishing desktop data with semiBlog. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://www.eswc2006.org/demo-papers/ FD46-Moeller.pdf Murugesan, S. (2007). Get ready to embrace Web 3.0. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http:// www.cutter.com/bia/fulltext/reports/2007/08/ index.html Oradini, F., & Saunders, G. (2008. The use of social networking by students and staff in higher education. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http:// www.eife-l.org/publications/ proceedings/ilf08/contributions/improving-quality-of-learning-with-tech-Oradini_Saunders.pdf Schaffert, S., Bischof, D., Bürger, T., Gruber, A., Hilzensauer, W., & Schaffert, S. (2006). Learning with semantic wikis. Retrieved August 01, 2008, from http://www.schaffert.eu/download/paper/ Schaffert06_SemWikiLearning.pdf Shakya, A., Takeda, H., Ohmukai, I., & Wuwongse, V. (2006). A publication aggregation system using semantic blogging. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://www-kasm.nii.ac.jp/papers/ takeda/06/shakya06swc-ws.pdf Shakya, A., Takeda, H., Wuwongse, V., & Ohmukai, I. (2007). SocioBiblog: A decentralized platform for sharing bibliographic information. Retrieved December 03, 2008, from http://wwwkasm.nil.ac.jp/papers/takeda/07/shakya07iswcp. pdf 57

E-Learning 2.0

Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from http:// it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf Siozos, P. D., & Palaigeorgiou, G. E. (2008). Educational technologies and the emergence of e-learning 2.0. Retrieved May 07, 2008, from http://www.igi-global.com/downloads/excerpts/ IGR6089_A56f1MJP8R.df

Aroyo, L., & Dicheva, D. (2004). The new challenges for e-learning: The educational Semantic Web. Educational Technology & Society, 7 (4), 59-69. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from http://www. ifets.info/journals/7_4/8.pdf Breslin, J. (2006). Semantic Web 2.0: Creating social semantic information spaces. Retrieved May, 06, 2008, from http://sw.deri.org/~jbreslin/ presentations/20061130a.pdf

Spadavecchia, E. (2008). E-learning 2.0 for supplementary teaching. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.je-lks.it/wp/wp-content/ uploads/2008/10/ap_spadavecchia.pdf

Cheney, A. (2007). Web 2.0 – Must be an upgrade… Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://austincheney.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_ archive.html

Tandefelt, M. (2008). Web 2.0 and network society - PR and communication: The challenge of online social network. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/ getDocument?urn_nbn_se_uu_diva-9187-2_fulltext.pdf

Deitel, P J., Deitel, A.S., Deitel, H. M., & Frodholm, J. B. (2007). Dive into® Web 2.0:

TechnologyRadar2006web30.pdf Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. (2008). Why Web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http:// www2008.org/papers/pdf/p705-ullrichA.pdf Wahlster, W., & Dengel, A. (2006). Web 3.0: Convergence of Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Retrieved May 08, 2008, from http://www.dfki. uni-kl.de/~sauermann/papers/

ADDITIONAL READINGS An introduction to the principles, applications, technologies, companies, business models and monetization strategies of Web 2.0. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://www.deitel.com/ Web2eBook/tabid/2478/Default.aspx

58

ElectrosmartNet. (2007). Collaborating using Web 3.0. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http:// www.electrosmart.net/web/Web-3.php Evans, M. (2006) The evolution of the Web – From Web 1.0 twork-research-group.org/ presentations/08-11-06-MikeEvans-Web.pdfto Web 4.0. retrieved May 08, 2008, from http:// www.ne Karp, S. (2006). The long tail of Revenue 2.0. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://publishing2. com/2006/05/29/the-long-tail-of-revenue-20/ Karrer, T. (n.d.) What is elearning 2.0? Retrieved May 05, 2008, from http://www.sweetfamily. co.kr/blog/attachment/1055434540.pdf Khor, Z., & Marsh, P. (2006). Life online. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.sirc.org/ publik/web2020.pdf Lange, C. (2007a). SWiM – A semantic wiki for mathematical knowledge management. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://kwarc.info/projects/ swim/pubs/mathui07-slides.pdf

E-Learning 2.0

Lange, C. (2007b). Towards a semantic wiki for science. Retrieved August 01, 2008, from http:// kwarc.eecs.iu-bremen.de/projects/swim/pubs/ swimplus-resprop.pdf

Shakya, A. (2006). A semantic blogging framework for better utilization. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://amanshakya.files.wordpress. com/2006/10/thesis_report.pdf

Matsuo, Y., Hamasaki, M., Nakamura, Y., Nishimura, T., Hasida, K., Takeda, H., et al. (2006). Spinning multiple social networks for Semantic Web. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://ymatsuo.com/papers/aaai06.pdf

Skiba, B., Tamas, A., & Robinson, K. (2006). Web 2.0: Hyper or reality… and how will it play out? A strategic analysis. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.armapartners.com/files/ admin/uploads/W17_F_1873_8699.pdf

Moore, T. M. (2006). Social computing in the enterprise. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http:// www.michelle-moore.com/portfolio/671/671_ SocialComputing_ThelmaMichelleMoore.pdf

Spivack, N. (2007). Web 3.0 – The best official definition imaginable. Retrieved November20, 2007, from http://novaspivack.typepad.com/ nova_spivacks_weblog/2007/10/web-30----thea.html

Parameswaran, M., & Whinston, A. B. (2007). Social computing: An overview. Retrieved August 08, 2008, from http://crec.mccombs.utexas. edu/works/articles/Parameswaran_Social%20 Computing_CAIS07.pdf Passant, A. (2008). Case study: Enhancement and integration of corporate social software using the Semantic Web. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/ UseCases/EDF/ Pater, J. (2007). Wikis, blogs, and social networking in the classroom. Retrieved August 08, 2008, from http://www.marietta-city.k12.ga.us/publications/educatorsconference/GTRI%20Blogs%20 Wikis%20Social%20Networking_082507.pdf Publications/EUR-WS/Vol-175/18_sauermann_ overviewsemdesk_final.pdf Reeve, L., & Han, H. (2005). Semantic annotation for semantic social networks: Using community resources. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download/10.1.1.60.5986.pdf Sauermann, L., Bernardi, A., & Dengel, A. (2005). Overview and outlook on the semantic desktop. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://ftp.informatik.rwt-aachen.de/

Vickery, G., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2007). Participative Web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis and social networking. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/ browseit/9307031E.pdf

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS BuRST (Bibliography Management using RSS Technology): This is a lightweight specification for publishing bibliographic information using RSS 1.0 and bibliography-related metadata standards. Facebook: Interactive social networking site (started at Harvard University) allowing users to create networks of friends, personal profiles, blogs, music, photos and videos Intraverses: Intraverses are VWs operating within corporate firewalls. Metaverses: These are VWs (such as SL) that are essentially socially inclined as opposed to being game oriented. MMORPGs (Massively multi-player online role-playing games): These are Web-based simulated computer games (such as World of Warcraft) involving multiple players simultaneously.

59

E-Learning 2.0

Networked Semantic Desktop: This is a global desktop network which can connect people and communities to directly collaborate with their peers while reducing the amount of time spent filing and filtering information. Ontologies (Ontology): Ontologies consist of a set of knowledge terms, including the vocabulary, the semantic interconnections and some simple rules of inference and logic for a particular topic. Technically, an ontology is a text-based piece of reference-knowledge, stored somewhere on the Web (for agents to consult it when necessary) and

60

is represented and accessed through the syntax of an ontology representation language Paraverses: Also known as mirror worlds, paraverses are VWs such as Google Earth that operate beyond metaverses Second Life (SL): SL is a synthetic 3D online world (simulation) where users or their avatars can virtually walk, fly, swim, teleport, etc Semantic Desktop: This is a SW based virtual desktop allowing users to file and store personal data like messages, documents, multimedia, etc. It is an instance of desktop and cloud computing

61

Chapter 4

The Key Elements of Online Learning Communities Jianxia Du Mississippi State University, USA Yunyan Liu Southwest University, China Robert L. Brown Mississippi State University, USA

ABSTRACT An online learning community can be a place for vibrant discussions and the sharing of new ideas in a medium where content constantly changes. This chapter will first examine the different definitions that researchers have provided for online learning communities. It will then illuminate several key elements that are integral to online learning communities: interactivity, in both its task-driven and socio-emotional forms; collaboration, which both builds and nurtures online communities; trusting relationships, which are developed primarily through social interaction and consist of shared goals and a sense of belonging or connectedness; and communication media choices, which impact the other three elements. This chapter also provides suggestions for the practical application of these elements in the online classroom.

INTRODUCTION Since the turn of the century, the subject of the online learning community (OLC) has become a hot topic in the field of learning research. The most influential and developmental points and contributions are overviewed as follows. Why has the OLC become more and more attractive to policy makers and researchers? Rovai (2002) suggests that the physical separation of distance DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch004

education students may be one of the contributors to high dropout rates in distance education. Hill, Raven, and Han (2002) imply that the existence of community may actually decrease dropout rates by increasing a student’s sense of belonging. Community may, therefore, directly impact a student’s successful completion of coursework (Brown, 2001). An OLC can maintain many of the supportive attributes of traditional instruction at a distance. Collaboration in an OLC can provide deeper understanding of content, increased overall achievement, improved self-esteem, and higher motivation


The Key Elements of Online Learning Communities

to remain on task (Looi & Ang, 2000). For their flexibility and convenience, online courses appeal to both traditional and nontraditional students. However, many students are wary or skeptical of online courses due to factors such as isolation and lack of immediate attention. Technology in an online course is another reason community is important. Technology can cause opportunity for areas of new learning (Powers & Mitchell, 1997), and community can develop around the solving of problems or the seeking of other solutions. Additionally, quality is a concern for distance educators, and some argue that online courses do not offer the personal connections available in the regular classroom (Lowell & Persichitte, 2000). Enhanced community can provide that connection and interaction that inevitably increases quality. Essentially, the majority of the literature in the field of distance education provides support for the idea that an increased sense of community will enable meaningful learning. Educational institutions of varying levels have undergone rapid and massive transitions in the area of distance learning (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). What began as a response to the needs of non-traditional (as well as traditional) students has proven to be an extremely desirable alternative to the regular classroom for students and an exceptionally lucrative business venture for academic institutions (Palloff and Pratt, 1999). As the number of students and instructors involved with this method of teaching and learning increase, the number of online communities to support such learning will experience dramatic growth. Therefore, it is crucial that both the online instructor and the online student are aware of the characteristics associated with an OLC. The encouragement (or requirement) of interaction among the participants in an online community is based upon many of the tenets associated with the theory of Constructivism. This chapter reviews definitions for OLC and looks closely at the literature associated with several key elements that comprise the OLC as recognized by the authors. Key elements such as

62

interactivity, collaboration, trusting relationships (shared goals and belonging), and communication media in the online learning community are discussed in detail.

DEFINING THE ONLINE LEARNING COMMUNITY The term community is used very broadly and partly also with more or less different meanings. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines community as “a unified body of individuals” (Merriam-Webster, 2004). However, Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton (1985) define community specifically as “a group of people who are socially interdependent, who participate together in discussion and decision making, and who share certain practices that both define the community and are nurtured by it” (p.4). Conversely, McMillan and Chavis (1986) offer this description of community: “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together” (p. 9). Still other aspects of community are addressed by Westheimer and Kahne’s (1993) explanation, which describes community as “a process marked by interaction and deliberation among individuals who share interests and commitment to common goals” (p.325). Tu and Corry (2002) address the academic and social-learning component of communities and define a learning community as “a common place where people learn using group activity to define problems affecting them, to decide upon solutions, and to act together to achieve these solutions” (p. 207). However, when examining online learning communities additional criteria must be considered. Fernback (1997) describes community as “a term which seems readily definable to the general public but is infinitely complex and amorphous in academic discourse” (p. 35). This explanation seems especially accurate when referring to the


online learning community because of the many purposes for which these communities exist, the variance in the ages of the participants, and the frequency and type of communication that exists within these communities. Stepich and Ertmer (2003) consider the development of a supportive learning community crucial to the learning process in an online environment (p.35). Palloff and Pratt (1999) also report the critical nature of the online learning community and describe it as “one vehicle through which learning occurs online” (p. 29). Essentially, the authors maintain that the absence of an authentic community of learners will result in the absence of an online course (Palloff & Pratt, p. 29). For this literature review, an online learning community is defined as a group of diverse individuals united by communication media who develop a sense of trust and connectedness through online interaction and collaboration.

ELEMENTS OF ONLINE LEARNING COMMUNITIES Compared to other learning communities, the OLC has some special characteristics in terms of interactivity, collaboration, trusting relationships, and communication media.

Interactivity Several factors play a role in the development and duration of online learning communities. Possibly the most notable factor is that of interaction or interactivity. Interactivity is widely accepted as a vital element needed to foster a sense of community in an online learning environment (Bannan-Ritland, 2002). The idea that interactivity is key to creating a sense of community among online learners, begs the question what exactly is interactivity, and how can instructors secure its role in the development and duration of an online learning community? Research has provided

an overwhelming number of interpretations for interactivity. This review encompasses a variety of research including definitions of interactivity, and methods for promoting interactivity for the purpose of establishing a sense of community among online learners.

Interactivity Defined Interactivity is defined numerous ways by many different researchers. As noted by Berge (2002), “Interaction is two-way communication among two or more persons with the purposes of completing the learning goals (tasks) and building the necessary social relationships” (p. 183). Berge’s comments regarding student-to-content interaction give way to the idea that through “engagement, reflection, or study by the student [aids] in the self-construction of competency of the learning goals” (Berge, 2002, p. 183). He later presents the notion that learners can mold and cultivate future interaction through the process of “reflection on learning,” a process in which students review interactions from a social stand-point (Berge, 2002). Bills defines interactivity as “...an instructional strategy that provides the student the means of being actively involved in the learning activity” (Bills, 1997, p. 4). Vrasidas & McIsaac (1999) cite their interpretation of interactivity as the “reciprocal actions of two or more actors within a given context” (p. 25). Through research on interactivity, BannanRitland provides an “explanatory synthesis of the literature related to the construct of interactivity” in the hope of promoting the use of a universal definition with regard to interactivity and distance education. Bannan-Ritland’s review revealed characteristics common among interactivity. “Interaction can be viewed as a function of; (a) learners’ participation or active involvement, (b) specific patterns and amounts of communication, (c) instructor activities and feedback, (d) social exchange or collaboration, or (e) instructional activities and affordances of the technology”

63


(Bannan-Ritland, 2002, p.167). Rovai (2002) notes that Du & Sun, 2007) provide two categories of interaction, “task-driven,” which is “directed toward the completion of assigned tasks” and “socio-emotional” which is purely focused on “relationships among learners” (p. 5). For the purpose of this review the focus will be on the socio-emotional interaction interpretation of interactivity. Referring to the definition of community stated previously in this review, it should be noted that at the heart of a learning community is the social aspect which bonds learners together. Socio-emotional interactions are almost entirely “self-generated” (Rovai, 2002). It is this “selfgenerated” interaction that promotes relationships among learners. Cutler notes the impact selfdisclosure has on relationships and community formation stating “the more one discloses personal information, the more others will reciprocate, and the more individuals know about each other, the more likely they are to establish trust, seek support, and thus find satisfaction” (Cutler, 1995, p.17). Therefore, it can be inferred that as self-disclosure occurs among online learners the more likely it is that there will be a strong formation of an online community (Rovai, 2002).

Promoting Interactivity The research examined for this review reinforces the belief that interactivity helps foster a sense of community. Acceptance of the idea that interactivity intensifies and aids the creation of online learning communities leads to the examination of criteria for promoting a sense of community among online learners (Rovai, 2001). Many different aspects of interaction have been researched such as learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content (Hirumi, 2002, Du, Durrington, & Mathews, 2007). Nonetheless, there has been little research concerning the practical applications of interactivity. The following section seeks to organize various works of research highlighting elements that are

64

essential to promoting and creating interactivity in an online learning community. When considering interactivity incorporation methods in an online learning environment, small group activities and group facilitation should be addressed (Rovai, 2002). Rovai (2002) suggests dividing students into small groups, in order to provide an individual aspect to the course. Within each group, meaningful discussions and collaborative learning can take place without learners feeling as if they are getting lost in the crowd (Rovai, 2002). Rovai also emphasizes the importance of group facilitation through channels like dialogue. He states “dialogue is an essential component of an online course and facilitation efforts are meant to inspire learners to interact” (Rovai, 2002, p. 9). By facilitating an online discussion or chat, instructors can pique students’ interest in particular topics and in turn spark interaction among learners. Stepich and Ertmer also provide suggestions for fostering a sense of community through interactivity in online learning environments. Like Rovai, Stepich and Ertmer suggest the addition of “collaborative group activities that give students an active voice in the development and definition of the community” (Stepich & Ertmer, 2003, p.41). Another recommendation by Stepich and Ertmer is to monitor participation. Monitoring participation and providing individual feedback can give learners a feeling of belonging. Through feedback instructors can add a sense of value to student participation. Feedback can also illustrate the positive impact student participation can have on the entire class (Stepich & Ertmer, 2003). Not only is participation important in an online learning environment, but introductory activities carry weight as well. Ciardulli highlights the importance of using an “ice breaker” in a distance learning environment. Icebreakers can be used as a tool to introduce the instructor as well as the students. This also sustains and familiarizes students with the online learning community. Ciardulli provides three reasons in support of the use of icebreakers. First, icebreakers enable every


student to become acquainted with one another. Secondly, these activities present an opportunity for students to become familiar with how chats or discussions work in an online environment. Lastly, implementing exercises such as these enable students to feel relaxed in a new setting (Ciardulli, 1998). Including icebreakers at the beginning of an online course can help to lay the groundwork for future interactivity as well as a sense of community. One common form of icebreaker is the student introduction, wherein each student composes a post that introduces that student to the other students. While this type of icebreaker allows the students in the OLC to become acquainted with each other, it doesn’t allow for much interaction between participants. Once read, the introductions often go ignored, with few or no follow-up remarks from other students. One alternative to the student introduction is for the instructor to create a short questionnaire directed to all students in the OLC. Since the primary goals of the icebreaker are to allow the students to both get to know each other and how discussions work, the items on the questionnaire should highlight student interests. Some possible questions that can be included are “What is your favorite television show?” and “What song gets the most play on your iPod?”. Student and instructor responses to the questionnaire should either be posted to a central location in the online environment to which all members of the OLC have access, or the responses can be emailed to all the members of the OLC. After the completed questionnaires have been posted, replies to students regarding their answers to specific items should be encouraged among the entire OLC membership. Perhaps the most encompassing guide to incorporating interactivity into an online learning environment is that of Hirumi (2002). Hirumi sets forth a proposed framework which consists of three interrelated levels of interaction, and is followed by six steps for “designing and sequencing eLearning interactions” (p.148). Level I deals

with “Learner-Self Interactions”, interactions that transpire within each learner (p.143). “Level II interactions occur between the learner and human and non-human resources” (Hirumi, 2002, p.143). Level II includes the following sublevels of interaction: learner-learner, learner-other human, learner-interface, learner content, and learner-environment. Level III involves “LearnerInstruction interactions” (Hirumi, 2002, p.143). Hirumi provides three applications designed to bring life to his proposed framework. Perhaps the single application instructors will find most useful is “Designing and Sequencing eLearning Interactions” (Hirumi, 2002, p.148). Hirumi (2002) supplies a six step process for “Designing and Sequencing eLearning Interactions” the six steps are as follows: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Identify essential experiences that are necessary for learner to achieve specified goals and objectives (optional); Select a grounded instructional strategy (Level III interaction) based on specified objectives, learner characteristics, context and epistemological beliefs; Operationalize each event, embedding experiences identified in Step 1 and describing how the selected strategy will be applied during instruction; Define the type of Level II interaction(s) that will be used to facilitate each event and analyze the quantity and quality of planned interactions; Select the telecommunication tool(s) (e.g. chat, email, bulletin board system) that will be used to facilitate each event based on the nature of the interaction Analyze materials to determine frequency and quality of planned eLearning interactions and revise as necessary (p. 151).

Hirumi’s proposed framework along with the six steps for “Designing and Sequencing eLearning Interactions” account for numerous levels of

65


interaction (p.148). The four authors mentioned above (Stepich & Ertmer, Ciardulli, and Hirumi) all provide original approaches for promoting interactivity, but it should be noted that each of these three approaches overlaps another at least once. While this review of literature regarding interactivity is not exhaustive, it may prove useful to instructors who wish to enhance the sense of community in online learning environments.

Collaboration Another element of the Online Learning Community is collaborative or cooperative learning. Collaborate means “to work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992). “Collaborative and cooperative” mean working together jointly, intellectually, and socially to reach a common goal. Harasim, Calvert, and Groeneboer (1997) provide a simple definition of collaborative or group learning that refers to instructional methods whereby students are encouraged or required to work together on academic tasks. Note that in this section the words “collaborate” and “cooperate” will be used interchangeably. In this section, collaboration is defined within an online learning community as a collaborative group of people who have a common goal and desire to pursue and achieve that goal. These online learners could be students, educators, or any other individual in the community. Fisher & Coleman call this complex mixture “the community of practicing within the group” (Fisher & Coleman, 2001). It is considered a foundation to the successful learning community. Studies reveal how collaborative learning in the online environment provide success in the classroom or workplace. A useful strategy for learning communities in the virtual environment is a real-time dialogue or discussion (Fisher & Coleman, 2001; Du, Durrington, & Mathews, 2007). These authors believe that method of dialogue strategy can enable instructors to initi-

66

ate and facilitate successful communication and collaboration between members of the learning community. The literature supports that discussion environments produce richness in collaboration, communication, and practical application. The substance and meaning of online activities is determined by the specific individuals who work together online. One of the tools that Wang, Poole, Harris, and Wangemann (2001) used to collaborate in problem-based learning was 27 teenagers in the Expeditions project on the Internet. The participants were children of Motorola employees who volunteered to participate in the project. This study revealed the value of collaborative problem solving in an online environment. The study further described that the participants grew significantly in their confidence in collaborating online and competence in using the online communication tools in problem solving (Wang et al., 2001). Collaborative learning encourages the community to develop by becoming more active and constructive in helping each other (Dolezalek, 2003), thus taking ownership of learning and improving their skills. Individuals united in the Internet virtual classroom are bound together by shared interests and background, and therefore, seek new areas of growth in this collaborative environment (Powers & Mitchell, 1997). Learning may best be achieved through the social constructions of knowledge in a community where teachers and students are members of both the learning community and are agents of the learning environment (Fisher & Coleman, 2001). Online collaboration seems to encourage the participants’ creativity and spontaneity in generating ideas (Wang et al., 2001). People come together to construct knowledge and negotiate meaning that is consistent with the goals of the learning community (Looi & Ang, 2000). Fisher and Coleman (2001) conducted a study of the structure and interactive design of learning communities in virtual discussions. When interaction among community members is


encouraged, collaboration and mutual accountability will increase (Fisher & Coleman, 200; Du, Durrington, & Olinzock, 2006). Literature suggests that cooperative and collaborative learning brings positive results. Looi & Ang (2000) did a pilot study focusing on the collaboration of a small group of students in Singapore and Hong Kong secondary school using a multiUser Dimensions (MUD) and Object Oriented (MOO or WOO) called SpaceALIVE! Students from different schools formed a science project and published the findings as a virtual science exhibit. This finding evidenced that collaboration online was successful in meeting student needs. The research also shows that using the collaborative tool ScienceALIVE! facilitated cooperation among students. ScienceALIVE! tools supported student’s collaborative work by allowing them to share and compare their experiments. With proper facilitation, students in online communities, can have collaborative discussions, solve problems, and meet the needs the community. Another study by Riel & Fulton (2001), examined how technology can support learning communities. This report asserts that when students are given the necessary resources, they can engage in work that has personal and community value. Another study conveyed that using collaboration in an online environment created international coalitions of faculty and students, which produced communities of learners across boundaries (McIsaac, 2002). In addition, the study revealed that benefits of online collaboration have gradually developed an individual voice in the establishment of an academic community. Collaborative learning nurtures the community. Romanoff (2003) examined a case study on how technology-based distance learning can foster a broader sense of community by using Multi Object Oriented Collaboratory Walden3 (MOO). What began as conversation in cyberspace between two teacher-administrators grew into a learning community that considered their distance collaborators as colleagues.

Literature also shows that collaborative online learning is successful because people with the same goals benefit from each other rather than from competition with each other. Yu (2001) did a study on the effects and implications of embedding the elements of inter-group competition and non-inter-group competition with an online environment. His findings yielded that collaboration without competition engendered better attitudes with students.

Trusting Relationship This element is intrinsic including shared goals, a feeling of a sense of belonging or connectedness within the community, or just the general feeling of a sense of community among fellow learners. The literature suggests that this element is present within communities in differing degrees and is needed for a successful community of online learners (Wang, Sierra, & Folger, 2003).

The Importance of Trust Building Aubert & Kelsey (2003) define trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability or control that other party.” (p. 98). Trust must be the basic foundation for interaction and the relationship formed among an online collaborative team. Stanley (2005) states, “Trusting relationships stimulate innovative thinking and lead to organizational improvements.” Boehlje (1995) states, “Shared decision-making must be established as an evolutionary approach that fosters trust and confidence among all participants.” Aubert & Kelsey provide three antecedent conditions that are important in building trust. The antecedent conditions are “the trustee’s perceived ability, benevolence and integrity.” As time progresses and group members work together, the dynamics of the group evolve. Team members

67


must “deal with project task allocation, decision making, conflict, team maintenance tasks (e.g. esprit de corps, cohesion)-all of which can have a positive or negative effect on trust.” Being able to effectively deal with these factors will help to foster a productive working environment for the entire group (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003). Du, Zhang, Olinzock, & Adams (2008) emphasize that trust is essential for online groups because of the lack of everyday interaction. They highlight the difficulties in developing trust without having everyday, face-to-face interaction. Rovai called “Spirit” the “feelings of friendship, cohesion, and bonding that develop among learners as they enjoy one another and look forward to time spent together” (2002, p.4). The notion that social discussions strengthen the development of community among learners is also supported by the literature (Maor, 2003). Community learning is a social process and in order to create familiarity and trust the social dimension has to be emphasized (Tu & Corry, 2002). Maor’s (2003) study shows that students posted messages that were a “blend” of the academic and the social and indicates that this facilitated the formation of an online community of learners. Wang, et al. (2003) went so far as to suggest that the “social network is the foundation for trust building among team members” (p. 57). There appears to be no doubt that the social aspect of online learning is almost always present and is important if an instructor wants to build community. Is trust just an insignificant “extra” that occurs within some communities? Preece (2000) states if “there is trust among people, relationships flourish; without it, they wither” (p. 191). She also indicates that with most interactions among people or organizations there is some level of trust. Trust serves to channel the energy of the group to help community members reach goals and also motivates “group processes and performance” (Wang et al., 2003, p. 57). Poole (2000) puts much on the shoulders of trust by saying that the “development

68

of online communities is based largely on trust” (p. 175). He believes that students need a safe environment where they are free to make mistakes and learn from them without feeling intimidated. Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker (2000) concurred as one of their subjects commented that their online learning community was a safe environment to say something, where no one would ridicule. Further interviews with students revealed students’ “balanced reciprocity” (p. 7) of sharing ideas, providing moral support, and giving friendship throughout the course studied. The researchers state that this demonstrates the “trust present in communal relations” and that trust is a “key attribute of community” (p. 7). Powers and Mitchell (1997) collected data from a graduate course which revealed “a true community of learners who were committed to providing encouragement and support to each other throughout the course” (p. 10). Because of the perceived anonymity of electronic communication, students felt safe and were comfortable sharing information with their peers. Brown’s (2001) three levels of community mentioned previously included “camaraderie” as the last level. Brown considered this the highest level of community “generally” achieved after long-term and/or intense association with others and was “primarily found among students who had taken multiple classes together, e-mailed outside the class forum, spoken on the telephone, or even met face-to-face” (p. 13). This camaraderie was developed as they worked together for a common goal and could not have formed without an element of trust. This camaraderie among learners occurred virtually unnoticed (Brown, 2001).

Shared Goals A goal is something that an individual or individuals strive to accomplish. In online learning communities common or shared goals are present. Learning communities provide a means for obtaining knowledge within an environment of


shared goals, and respect for diversity (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1998). Learning communities are unified by a common cause of mutual support and learning, and by shared values and experiences (Lock, 2002). These goals are typically the desire to obtain more knowledge of the subject content, obtain academic success, and meet course requirements. Individuals in online learning communities often have common goals. Individuals strive toward a shared goal that carries a mutual investment (Misanchuk & Anderson, 2000). This mutual investment often includes time, finances, and other personal contributions. To sustain an online learning community, the vision, goals, and interests of the community must be articulated and accepted by the members (Lock, 2002). Students are likely to buy-in to the goals and visions, if they have input. Bonding among students can be facilitated by common interests, vision, and goals (Preece, 2003). Students in online learning communities can be united through building trust, understanding, and reciprocity. Instructors play an active role in creating an online learning environment that is conducive to learning and student academic growth. The instructor should assign group projects and other activities that require combined efforts to accomplish given tasks. Common goals are present in a learning community, and completing an instructional task is considered a mutual goal (Moller, 1998). According to Moller, in the design stage students are encouraged to work collaboratively toward a shared goal. These collaborative activities should be intertwined in order for members to find mutual interests. Collaborative activities encourage interdependence, networking, and ongoing communication among individuals to accomplish a task. Brown (2001) identified three levels of community: making friends on-line, community conferment, and camaraderie. Making friends or acquaintances is necessary for collaborative efforts on group projects or assignments. Brown feels that camaraderie is accomplished after long-term involvement with classmates. This involvement

is typically from email, chats, discussion boards, and telephone conversations. According to Tu and Corry (2002), “The community of collaborative learning, the grouping and pairing of learners for the purpose of achieving an academic goal has been widely examined and is advocated throughout the professional literature” (p. 213).

Sense of Belonging or Connectedness The literature reveals that it is not the quantity of student postings, e-mail, or other interactions that leads to a sense of connection, but rather the quality of those interactions (Lock, 2002). Students who spend time reading each other’s in-depth postings or e-mail and responding in kind are interacting at a deeper level and will form that sense of connection, thus building community (Lowell & Persichitte, 2000). Interviews with 17 students over a year period revealed that a sense of isolation was overcome by exchanges with other students (Haythornthwaite et al., 2000). Students felt that their classmates experienced the same challenges and obstacles and had similar questions. Speaking from personal experience, Conceicao (2002) said, “I felt I had a voice that was recognized and validated when others made comments reflecting on my postings” (p. 43). Common sense dictates that participation is paramount for feeling a sense of belonging in the online learning community. As previously mentioned, communication is crucial in an online learning community (Lock, 2002). Students must maintain ongoing bi-directional communication with peers, and the vast amount of technology now available allows students to communicate through a variety of means. Communication between students facilitates the formation of relationships and commonalities, thus “without effective communication, it is not possible to generate interaction, engagement, or alignment” (Lock, 2002, p. 397). Given the establishment of relationships, intimacy, and trust through effective pedagogical strategies, technology can be used to create an environment where people

69


can engage in learning experiences that foster the development of community (Lock, 2002, p. 401). To foster an environment of trust, friendship, and respect, communication barriers associated with the academic, social, and technological elements need to be eliminated (Lock, 2002, p. 401). Some of the barriers to communication are infrequency of communication due to technological resources, response time for feedback, and lack of response to email or postings. Online instructors and/or mediators can help ensure better response rates to postings by OLC members by designing openended questions that emphasize student opinions and beliefs concerning the material being taught, rather than asking for the direct repetition of instructional material.

Communication Media Choices and Media Behaviors Another important element of the online learning community is communication media choices and media behaviors. As online collaboration and interactivity proceeds, learners face many challenges due to the lack of face-to-face communications. The fading or blurry physical, temporal and psychological boundaries make it difficult for online learning. Appropriate selection and utilization of communication media may help learners better overcome some of the difficulties. It is very important, yet challenging to select and utilize appropriate media for collaborative, interactive learning and team development. Thus media research provides another lens to look into the dynamics of online learning community. Media richness and social presence theories are well-accepted rational theories that explain media choices and media behaviors. Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984) measures the richness of media in terms of the capacity for immediate feedback, multiple cues, natural language and personal focus on voice tone and inflection. Media have varied capacities to reduce ambiguity and thus facilitate mutual understanding (Daft &

70

Lengel, 1984). Richer medium facilitates more accurate and meaningful transmission and exchange of ideas. However, tasks of different types and complexity have different requirements for information richness in order to achieve maximal group performance. Some tasks require more information and richer medium than others for the best team performance. Social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) measures media in terms of the degree to which they are perceived to convey the presence of an individual. The quantity of social presence is how much one believes another party is present. In communication, the psychological distance among communicating parties is referred to as immediacy (Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968). Thus there are two forms of immediacy: technological immediacy, and social immediacy. Technological immediacy is inherent while social immediacy can be changed (Heilbronn & Libby, 1973). Heilbronn and Libby (1973) write the maximum amount of exchanged information ensures technological immediacy, and social immediacy is conveyed through communications with verbal or non-verbal cues. Walther (1996, 1997) suggests that information and communications technology (ICT) is also able to convey social information, just as face-to-face communications, but with lower transfer rate. Walther (1995, 1996, 1997) has also found that ICT mediated groups have greater social discussion, depth, and intimacy than in face-to-face groups. In a review of social presence theory and studies on ICT-mediated communication, Gunawardena (1995) concludes that immediacy enhances social presence, which in turn enhances interactions. As related to online collaborative learning, it indicates that online teams, with assistance from the instructor or an external moderator, should promote the use of media that better convey the notion of social presence in order to increase interactions among the members. As an example, the authors have noted that Facebook, an online social networking site, is one of the media applications that online group members often use to


facilitate social interaction. Instructors may wish to propose that online group members use this and/or other utilities with which most students are already familiar to further social interaction and enhance trusting relationships.

CONCLUSION A learning community is actually a special learning environment, and an online learning community is a community based on a network through which members’ learning can be enhanced successfully. Technology is rapidly changing, and online learning communities are evolving as well. Inarguably online learning communities should maintain some level of the elements discussed in this review. Interactivity can be introduced through icebreakers and cultivated through the use of small student groups. Collaboration can be encouraged among students through both small group projects and real-time, chat-based discussions. Trusting relationships need to be forged between students, and the literature strongly suggests that trust in an online learning community is developed through social interaction. The ability to promote social interaction is also a major factor when choosing which types of communication media should be used within the online learning community. Those types of media that have higher levels of social immediacy will provide more opportunities for interaction among learners, thus enabling students to form a more cohesive community. Based on the literature, online learning provides community members an opportunity to collaborate and cooperate towards the community’s goal.

REFERENCES American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (1992). American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. Aubert, B. and Kelsey, B. (2003). Further Understanding of Trust and Performance in Virtual Teams. Small Group Research, 34(5). Retrieved May 30, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication, elearning, and interactivity: A review of the research. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 161–179. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective elearning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 181–190. Bills, C. G. (1997). Effects of structure and interactivity on Internet-based instruction. Paper presented at the Interservice/Industry Training Simulation and Education Conference, Orlando, FL (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416317). Boehlje, B. (1995). Share the Decision-Making. Education Digest, 60(7). Retrieved May 30, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of communitybuilding in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2). Retrieved May 31, 2002, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/ journal/vol5_issue2/Brown/Brown.htm Ciardulli, L. (1998). Increasing student interaction in the distance learning classroom (or any other classroom). Technology Connection, 4(8), 8–10.

71


Conceicao, S. (2002). The sociocultural implications of learning and teaching in cyberspace. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 96, 37–45. doi:10.1002/ace.77

Fisher, M., & Colman, B. (2001-2002). Collaborative online learning in virtual discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 3–17. doi:10.2190/CRDK-VNR8-43DX-V4DB

Cutler, R. H. (1995). Distributed presence and community in cyberspace, Interpersonal Computing and Technology: A Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 3(2), 12-32. Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1995/ n2/cutler.txt

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial information processing and organization design. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour 6 (pp. 191-233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press. Dolezak, H. (2003). Collaborating in cyberspace. Training (New York, N.Y.), 40(4), 32–37. Du, J., & Sun, L. (2007). Vygotsky’s theory of social interaction: Learning tasks, peer interaction, and cognition process. Journal of Open Education Research, 10(4), 17–23. Du, J., Zhang, K., Olinzock, A., & Adams, J. (2008). Graduate Students’ Perspectives on the Meaningful Nature of Online Discussions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 21–36. Du, J. X., Durrington, V. A., & Mathews, J. G. (2007). Collaborative discussion: Myth or valuable learning tool. [JOLT]. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 94–104. Du, J. X., Durrington, V. A., & Olinzock, A. A. (2006). Dynamic online learning environment: Task-oriented interaction for deep learning. Open Education Research, 12(4), 75–79. Fernback, J. (1997). The individual within the collective: Virtual ideology and the realization of collective principles. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture (pp. 36-54). London: Sage.

72

Harasim, L., Calvert, T., & Groeneboer, C. (1997). Virtual-U: A web-based system to support collaborative learning, In. B.H. Kah (Ed.), Web-Based instruction (pp.149-158). Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc. Haythornthwaite, C., Kazer, M. M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distance learners: temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6 (1). Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/ haythornthwaite.html Heilbronn, M., & Libby, W. L. (1973). Comparative effects of technological and social immediacy upon performance and perceptions during a two-person game. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada. Hill, J. R., Raven, A., & Han, S. (2002). Connections in web-based learning environments: a research-based model for community building. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 383–393. Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned elearning interactions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141–160. Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1998). Creating technology-supported learning communities (On-line). Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http:// carbon.cudenver.edu/_bwilson/learncomm.html


Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for the development of learning communities within online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 395–408.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Looi, C.-K., & Ang, D. (2000). A multimediaenhanced collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 2–13. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00111.x

Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: a case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 162–177.

Lowell, N. O., & Persichitte, K. A. (2000). A virtual ropes course: creating online community. Asynchronous Learning Networks Magazine, 4(1). Retrieved July 23, 2004, from http://www.sloan-c. org/publications/magazine/v4n1/lowell.asp

Powers, S. M., & Mitchell, J. (1997). Student perceptions and performance in a virtual classroom environment. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409005).

Maor, D. (2003). The teacher’s role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Educational Media International, 40, 127–137. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092170

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, support sociability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, LTC.

McIsaac, M. S. (2002). Online learning from an international perspective. Educational Media International, 39(1), 18–21. doi:10.1080/09523980210131196 McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:13.0.CO;2-I

Preece, J. (2003). Tacit knowledge and social capital: Supporting sociability in online communities of practice. In Proceedings of I-KNOW’03, 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Management, Graz, Austria, July 2-4. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/ Papers/Graz_KM_I_KNIW%2003.pdf Riel, M., & Fulton, K. (2001). The role of technology in supporting learning communities. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 518.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2004). Retrieved on July 22, 2004, from http://www.m-w. com/dictionary.htm

Romanoff, J. S. (2003). A case study: linking students across geographical and cultural distances. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 94.

Misanchuk, M., & Anderson, T. (2000). Building community in an online learning environment: Communication, cooperation and collaboration (On-line). Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http:// www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/19.html

Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33–48. doi:10.1007/BF02504946

Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 115–122. doi:10.1007/BF02299678

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1–16. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

73


Stepich, D. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2003). Building community as a critical element of online course design. Educational Technology, 43(5), 33–43.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (1993). Building school communities: an experienced-based model. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 324–328.

Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2002). eLearning communities. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 207–218.

Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: ApEpleton-CenturyCrofts.

Vrasidas, C., & McIssac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 22–36. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communications: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186–203. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.186 Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342–369. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997. tb00400.x Wang, M., Poole, M., Harris, B., & Wangemann, P. (2001). Educational technology, promoting online collaborative Learning experiences for teenagers . Educational Media International, 203–215. doi:10.1080/09523980110105079 Wang, M., Sierra, C., & Folger, T. (2003). Building a dynamic online learning community among adult learners. Educational Media International, 40, 49–61. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092116

74

Yu, F. (2001). Competition within computerassisted cooperative learning environments: cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(2), 99–117. doi:10.2190/3U7R-DCD5-F6T1-QKRJ

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Collaboration: Cooperation among members of a learning community who have a desire to pursue and achieve a common goal. Communication Media: A collective term for all channels or systems through which information is conveyed. Interactivity: Reciprocal communication between two or more people, the goal of which is to foster active learning and strengthen social bonds. Learning Community: A group of diverse individuals who develop a sense of trust and connectedness through interaction and collaboration. Trusting Relationship: A feeling between two or more individuals of reciprocal confidence.

Section 2

E-Learners

76

Chapter 5

Generational Learners & E-Learning Technologies Ke Zhang Wayne State University, USA Curtis J. Bonk Indiana University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter reviews the characteristics of learners of different generations. In particular, it compares their differences in terms of learning preferences as well as their typical skills and attitudes towards technology in e-learning. In addition, it discusses the impacts of these shared and varied learner characteristics on e-learning and provides suggestions and recommendations on how to address generational learning diversity in e-learning design and delivery. In responding to the emerging learning technologies, this chapter specifically analyzes generational learners’ preferences and characteristics regarding learning technologies, and the practical implications for designers and educators working on e-learning for highly diversified audiences representing various generations.

INTRODUCTION The frenzied pace in which e-learning courses and programs have increased in K-12 and higher education settings as well as in training environments has attracted a seemingly endless stream of enrollments from a huge, diverse population of younger as well as more mature learners into the e-learning phenomenon. In many e-learning events today, it is common to see a wide range of diversity among the participants, such as, background, lifestyle, learning DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch005

preferences, and social and political inclinations. Of course, they also differ in terms of gender, ethnicity, nationality, and personality traits. While such differences were also true in traditional, face-to-face settings, they are perhaps more noticeable when teaching online; especially the age differences in higher education settings. It is quite evident from the enrollment rosters that the learner base in higher education is no longer the highly homogenous 18-24-year-olds. Unfortunately, however, e-learning designers and educators have yet to respond proactively to the changing learner demographics and their rapidly increasing diversity.


Generational Learners & E-Learning Technologies

In addition to the differences in students’ preferred learning styles (e.g., Bonk & Zhang, 2006, 2008; Santo, 2006; Zhang & Bonk, 2008), generational differences in the workplace as well as in education are increasingly apparent and are receiving increasing attention from researchers, educators, and managers (e.g., Appel, 2003; Dede, 2005; Dieterle, Dede, & Schrier, 2007; Kruse, 2004; Lippincott, 2006; Reins, 2002). Focusing on e-learning in particular, this chapter reviews prevailing generational differences with a special focus on their lifestyles and technology preferences. Such distinctiveness in how different generations of learners were taught or tend to learn, creates unique opportunities for the online trainer or instructor while simultaneously adding to the overall complexity of the encounter.

GENERATIONAL LIFESTYLES With the increasing diversity apparent among online learners, it is crucial to understand their differences from a generational perspective; in particular, how they learn, how they prefer to learn, and how they would learn better (e.g., Appel, 2003; Dede, 2005; Oblinger, 2003). Current generations are typically placed into the following categories: (1) those born before 1946 are known as the mature or silent generation; (2) those born between 1946-1964 (or 1961) are labeled as Baby Boomers; (3) those born from 1965-1981 or 1961-1980 are known as Generation X, or the Xers; and (4) those born in 1980 (or 1982) and later are referred to as the Millennial Generation, Generation Y, the Net Generation, Nexters, or the Internet Generation. However, such attempts to classify generations of people are never that simple. For instance, more recently, there is news about the Zippie or Generation Z (McKay, 2004). Zippies, or upwardly mobile youth (i.e., ages 15-25) of India who walk with a “zip in their stride” (Friedman, 2005, p. 184), were extensively spotlighted in Thomas Fried-

man’s (2005) highly popular book, “The World is Flat. With more than half of the population in India being under age 25, the Zippies are certainly a huge cohort group that deserve close attention in India, as well as in countries or regions with similar populations. The Zippie phenomenon in India (McKay, 2004), however, is more than a local occurrence, as it reflects to a certain degree the global trends regarding technology and mobility. In addition, with the ease of travel and immigration, such groups can be found anywhere globally, thereby impacting the design and delivery of e-learning throughout the world. Instead of only impacting younger audiences, this flatter world, now filled with myriad Web 2.0 technologies, has been drastically altering the means for learning, sharing, and communicating across generations. Not too surprisingly, even the baby boomers have their own social networking site, the Zoomers (http://network.zoomers.ca/). One such zoomer, Moses Znaimer, a media innovator and broadcasting visionary in Canada, created this online multimedia community for the 50 plus with a vision of “aging with zip” (Cravit, 2008). In this community, Zoomers may share photos, videos, life style tips, post blogs, organize social events, form groups, chat, play games, and participate in forum discussions established there. Lifelong learning is evident in social networking sites like this, and actively among online communities of practice on social networks such as Ning (http://ning.com). These communities of learning and practice are powerful in informal learning, lifelong learning, and professional development, benefiting all users across ages and generations. Gen Xer, Gen Nexter, Zippie, Zoomer, or millennial, each of these generational labels, to a certain degree, provide indicators of the most influential or representative characteristics or phenomena of that particular generation. Accordingly, such defining social events have shaped people with a set of shared characteristics, many of which relate to how we learn and gain experiences in the world at large. In effect, such events define who

77


we are, how we view this world, how we interact with our surroundings, and how we prefer to learn or be taught. For instance, do we prefer collaborative or individual learning pursuits? Do we like instructor-led or more personalized learning? Do we trust experts, peers, or our own explorations for our knowledge?

The Silent Generation In the United States, the mature or silent generation has grown up in the aftermath of the Great Depression, World War II, and the Korean War (more than likely, those in other countries experienced similar phenomena). This generation typically values law and order, shows respect for authority, and tends to be conservative as well as silent (hence the name). Given their respect for authority as well as their tendencies toward conformity, those of the “Silent Generation” typically expect to be told what to do and how to do it in both their work environments as well as in their learning-related ones. Now in the twenty-first century, those in their 60s, 70s, and 80s are increasing in numbers in the educational settings, especially online ones, due to job requirements, extended life-spans, and personal interests such as a desire to keep up with a fast-changing world. Given such trends, do not be too shocked to soon find centenarians appearing in your online classes. Instead of being surprised, use such individuals as mentors, moderators, and expert witnesses. Their rich store of experiences can excite younger learners into areas of learning they never previously dreamed of. As they increasingly appear online, the mentoring roles and possibilities of those approaching or past their one-hundredth birthday will likely explode. Myriad social, political, cultural, economic, and heath-related factors have emerged during the past few decades to place us in the midst of an explosion of more mature learners, which is not likely to ever subside; unless, of course, the definition of mature learner changes. These mature learners are

78

simply catching up with their technology-rich and ever changing surroundings. And higher education institutions as well as museums, parks, and other informal learning centers are tapping into as well as fueling such interests with free and open access online courses, downloadable podcasts, videostreamed lectures, community-built wiki resources, and many other educational products and outlets (Bonk & Kim, 1998). While this generation did not grow up with computers or Web-based instruction, such skills are definitely being acquired by many of them, though this is not universal. Some in the Silent Generation may now use e-Bay for buying and selling products online. They might also seek out CNN.com or Yahoo News to read much of their news in a digital format, use online mapping services like Mapquest or Google Map to calculate routes for their next trip, and even go online to electronically order their tickets for that trip. Interestingly, at the same time that e-learning is inching down to younger age learners, it is also creeping up to this Silent Generation who are just beginning to grasp how to take advantage of various online technologies for their lifelong learning pursuits. They may be silent or less vocal as well as hesitant to learn new technologies, but they will likely be among the hardest workers in the online courses and training sessions. Once they gain confidence and time for reflecting on their thoughts and ideas, they tend to speak up and pose weighty questions or contribute dazzling stories and other relevant experiences.

Baby Boomers Just behind this silent generation are the baby boomers who are between early 40s and early 60s. In the United States, such individuals have experienced prosperity, the Vietnam War and its associated anti-war actions, the Cold War with then Communist Soviet Union, women’s liberation, and the space race. These defining events have shaped this generation with optimism, teamwork,


and a love-hate relationship with authority. Baby boomers are now playing important roles in the workforce at executive, managerial, administrative, technical, and other levels, with many of them being in charge in the workplace. As a recent study by Capella University uncovered, most baby boomers are seeking, or would seek if time allowed, additional education aimed at a career change, professional development, better opportunities, and self fulfillment (Mbilinyi, 2006). As a result, baby boomers are commonly found in online Webinars, online degree courses and programs, non-degree programs, professional certificates programs, and other online learningrelated events. The rich life experiences they bring to online learning courses are highly valuable; yet, at the same time, they may feel overwhelmed and/or challenged by the fast-paced turnaround required online given the time-related constraints of their family responsibilities and careers.

Generation X Positioned behind the Boomers are those from Generation X. At the present time, the X-Generation, or Xers are between their early 20s to early 40s. Their life experiences include the explosion of single-parent families, AIDS, the invention of computers, the end of Cold War with the associated tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and various highly publicized Wall Street adventures. They tend to be more willing to take risks and question authority as well as prevailing ritual and traditions. In addition, they are family-oriented, self-reliant, open-minded, and want to have fun. Gen Xers currently represent the most prominent group in many online learning situations, especially in training and development settings and post-baccalaureate educational programs. Compared to older generations, they are more into fun, family, creativity, and self fulfillment. And, their openness to diversity makes them more prepared for cross-cultural online learning collaborations and interactions. As the first gen-

eration to extensively use computer technology at work, home, and school, they are the technology literate, digital natives who come to training and education events with relatively high technological expectations (Prensky, 2001).

Generation Y or the Millennials The millennials (or Generation Y, or the Nexters, or the Internet Generation) now include preteenagers, teenagers, and those in their early 20s who are just beginning to populate the workforce. Such individuals have grown up with computers, the Internet, PlayStations, iPods, Wii, and a plethora of other consumer technologies; many of which have fortunately found extensive use in educational settings. For Generation Y, technology is naturally part of their daily life. With “Father Google” and “Mother IM” (Windhem, 2005), such young learners bring fresh, emerging ideas, views, and expectations to the online learning world. They are widely open to and more acquainted with multiculturalism and are connected to the world dynamically via the Internet. Additionally, they are confident, social, optimistic, and seemingly ever changing individuals. As the first generation of digital natives, the millennials distinguish themselves from older generations in many ways. For instance, in terms of technology options, they make friends and connections with the world through the Internet and interactive communication technologies, such as Instant Messengers (IM), Google, Skype, MySpace, Facebook, and more. In their daily lives, online chat tools, blogging sites, social networking software, iPods, PDAs, and cellphones with Internet services and multimedia functions are essential. Their world or life space exists on many dimensions and within myriad communities thanks to the Internet. They may not go to the library very often, but they blog, wiki, Google, and IM everyday. Their lives are fast-paced, multi-faceted, and highly intense. This generation is known for its ability to intuitively

79


integrate the latest consumer technologies into their daily lives. In effect, their defining expertise may be in “fingertip knowledge” or finding the right information or learning resource when needed. Therefore, skills in critical reading and evaluation of such fingertip knowledge are critical for this generation. For Baby Boomer or Gen X online instructors, these young students may appear to be the most demanding, challenging, or hard-to-please consumers in the online learning business. In effect, they have extremely different expectations for their learning activities, whether it be online or face-to-face or some blend of the two. Given that this particular generation of learners is fast becoming the major consumer group for online learning, understanding their approach to learning is no longer an option. Millennial learners are inherently different. Instead of searching for books in a library, millennial learners may start their research with Google and Wikipedia. It is not surprising to hear such learners say that “I respect myself more as a self-teacher,” “Learning that takes place in the classroom isn’t as important as time studying on your own,” or “Online gives me something to do when I’m bored with the professor” (Dziuban, Moskal, & Hartman, 2005). As Dziuban and his colleagues found out, millennials spent more time pursuing their own learning paths, whether it be reading articles online, reviewing personal progress, or exploring a simulation, rather than waiting for an instructor or tutor to tell them how they are doing or what to do next.

…neomillennial learning styles can be acquired by someone of any age, since they depend on current media usage rather than what one grew up with. I believe that to be true of all media-based learning styles. So when neomillennial learners were born is meaningless. The idea of how technology might impact learning styles is apparent in the proliferation of mobile technologies and smart objects in mobile learning or ubiquitous learning (Zhang, 2008). The concept of neomillennial learning is a media-based learning style, and thus it is cross-generational and may address a wide range of ages. In addition, Professor Dede points out that international collaborations and mentoring via our desktops or laptops will bring learners to communities of practice which can better apprentice their learning than traditional schools. Third, massive multiuser virtual environments engage young learners in simulated worlds where they can quickly make decisions, solve problems, and share results with others sitting next to them as well as those they touch in their cyberworlds from other locales. Dede predicts that such technologies will nurture a generation of learners more used to knowledge sharing and co-designing their learning environments. According to him, such learners will prefer nonlinear learning pursuits, multitasking among disparate experiences, peer evaluation and feedback, and constant reflection on one’s shared experiences. More specifically, the so-called neomillennial learning style (Dede, 2005; Dieterle et al., 2007) is highlighted with the following characteristics:

Neomillenials In his writings, Chris Dede (2005) from Harvard’s Graduate School of Education has painted a picture of how technologies that might impact the development of neomillennial learning styles. According to Dede (personal communication, November 22, 2006),

80

•

•

•

Fluency in multiple media and appreciation of the communications, activities, and experiences these media empower; Preference for collaborative, collective, and discovery learning through multiple channels; Active learning that involves both real and simulated experiences and reflections


•

•

The use of hypermedia resources and associational webs of learning rather than linear or predefined paths or stories; Active seeking of information and ability to synthesize across it, rather than rely on or absorb a single best answer.

Neomillennials differ quite noticeably from the other generations. Part of the reason for their uniqueness, according to Dede and his colleagues, is that the neomilliennial style is cross-generational. In effect, they can actually cross generations with a distinct media or technology preference. Whether a high school student, newspaper columnist, or corporate trainer, neo-millennials have keen interests in emerging communication media, nonlinear learning, and collaboration. They are adapt in using wireless and mobile technologies (Dieterle et al., 2007); thereby enabling them to be learners (as well as consumers) wherever they happen to be on the planet. Based on the characteristics of Generation Y learners, Dede points out that the emerging technologies, especially wireless handheld devices with Internet access, have great potential for promoting collaboration, authenticity, mobility, and learner-controlled learning. In a research study conducted during the 2004-2005 academic year, Schrier (2006) investigated the use of wireless handheld devices with augmented reality games to teach higher-order thinking skills at school, such as collaboration, decision making, and critical thinking. She found that wireless handheld devices are vital cognitive tools. Their benefits as cognitive tools include: (a) increased opportunities for peer collaboration and reflection; (b) broadened access to real-world contexts; such tools further facilitate problem solving with task authenticity and enhanced contextual information; (c) improved participant engagement in the learning process as well as interactions and explorations between virtual and “real” worlds; (d) learner control over the navigation of games and discovery learning at one’s own pace; and (e) engaging role playing among participants.

The “neomillemnnial learning style” exhibits preferences for collaboration, appreciation for the authenticity of learning tasks and environments, learning mobility, and fluency in multimedia. In addition to traditional sensory-based learning styles such as the VARK model (Fleming & Mills, 1992), as well as personality style measures such as the often-used Myers-Briggs inventory (Pittenger, 1993) and aptitude-based styles such as Gardner’s multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), some scholars take into account experience including that with emerging media. For instance, as alluded to earlier, Dede (2005) proposes a learning styles approach or framework he calls “media-based learning.” He argues that media-based learning is a cross-age learning style. It is often agreed that the millennials are more comfortable with teamwork, multitasking, and collaborations and are accustomed to negotiating meanings through various media resources, especially the Internet (Oblinger, 2004). However, Dede and his colleagues (Dieterle et al., 2007) further propose that these characteristics are highly present in those who extensively use modern digital, interactive media, and thus represent a cross-age media-based learning style. Dede and his colleagues point out that this new age of learners want to be involved in codesigning their own learning experiences. They understand the technological capabilities as well as their own learning needs; hence, some argue that they should have a hand in designing their own learning experiences. Neomillennials prefer more personalized and active learning experiences which are customized for their particular needs (Kruse, 2004) rather than generic tasks meant to appeal to the widest set of learners possible. And when complete, they want some sense of accomplishment and collective reflection on such successes.

81


GENERATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PREFERENCES With the tremendous differences in generational lifestyles, generational learners bring varied expectations and technology preferences to their online learning experiences. As online instructors begin to understand the pedagogical variety that is possible online, learners who are quite savvy with multi-tasking and experimenting with the latest technology are entering college classrooms today and expecting their courses to contain more handson and interactive tasks as well as opportunities to stay connected electronically to the class, their peers, and their instructors. Given such backgrounds and expectations, there is much concern within the course development community that courses address the learning preferences of these more technologically sophisticated learners. For the younger generations, especially the millennials, computers are not technology, they are simply part of one’s life. These “digital natives” that Marc Prensky (2001) spoke about are so technologically savvy, they prefer typing to handwriting (Oblinger, 2003). They use email, instant messaging, and the Internet on a daily basis for life and research (Oblinger, 2003; Windhem, 2005). They surf the Internet all the time; they write and read blogs; they create, publish and download podcasts; and they communicate with friends online in several, if not a dozen or more, simultaneous IM conversations. Much of this is possible since they find ways to obtain the latest consumer technologies and then quickly experiment with new ways to communicate with the world. How do universities and corporations attract such digitally talented individuals to their campuses? Well, places such as Duke University and Drexel University have offered them free iPods to use in their classes. Duke’s highly publicized initiative, announced August 19, 2004, entailed giving all entering freshman 20 gigabyte iPods (Calhoun, 2005; Dean, 2004). A year or two later,

82

they decided to loan out such technology, rather than give it away. Of course, Duke and Drexel have by no means cornered the market on technologyrelated giveaways. The University of Maryland, for example, entices students to their MBA program with Blackberry handheld devices so that students can learn how to organize and prioritize their time, save and index valuable knowledge, and be responsive to requests; all skills needed by business executives. Some universities offer the iPhone or iTouch or MacBook Air laptop to incoming students. Still other colleges and universities have offered free or reduced price laptop computers and cell phones for needy students as well as wireless Internet access in their dormitories, academic buildings, and classrooms. Table 1 details the key differences of current generations of learners, including their birth years, common characteristics, learning and technology preferences, and defining events in their lives(Appel, 2003; Hartman, Moskal, & Dziuban, 2003; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). For instance, the millennial learner prefers teamwork, experiential activities, some structure, and the use of technology for learning (Dede, 2005; Oblinger, 2003). In contrast, the baby boomers are used to working alone and simply following whatever directions the instructor may provide on what to learn and how to learn it. In terms of technology, boomers consider computers as “nice to have” tools, and often have to ask “what would I do with a computer?”, though this is becoming less of an issue with each passing year. Generation X and Y learners, on the other hand, consider computers as a “need to have” (Darling, n.d.).

Boomers Versus X and Y Generations There are interesting contrasts between the baby boomer generation and Generation X and Y in terms of how they prefer to learn. Boomers are used to lecture-based approaches and being directly taught, while younger generations grew up in an


Table 1. Summary of generational differences Generation

Birth years

Defining events

Characteristics

Learning preferences

Technology preferences

Silent/ mature

1946 or before

Great Depression WWII Korean War

Value law and order Self-sacrifice Respect authority Conservative Silent

Being used to be told what to do and how to do things at work and in the learning process

Catching up with popular consumer technologies

Baby boomers

19461964 (or 1961)

Vietnam War Anti-war actions Cold War Women’s liberation Space race

Optimism Teamwork Love-hate relationship with authority Workaholic

Listening to authorities lecture Individual work

Computer is a nice thing to have

Generation X, the Xers

19651981 or 19611980

Single-parent families AIDS Invention of computers End of Cold War Wall Street Fall of Berlin Wall

Risk-taking Question authority and traditions Family-oriented Self-reliant Open-minded Want to have fun Can-do attitude

Fun Creativity Open to diversity

Technology literate Technology as a tool

Millennial, Neomillennial, Generation Y, New Learners, the Net Generation, Nexters, or the Internet Generation

1980 (or 1982) or later

Internet Wikipedia The dotcom bubble and bust Iraq War Terrorism

Confident social Diverse Optimistic and hopeful Multitasking Fast-paced Determined

Open to multiculturalism Dynamically connected to the world via technologies Teamwork Experiential learning

Father Google Mother IM Technology as a natural part of life Digital natives

age filled with pedagogical experimentations such as cooperative learning, problem-based learning, and student-centered curricular ideas. Boomers have been brought up in a culture where they depended on instructors or someone in authority to predefine their learning and provide supports for such learning (Darling, n.d.). Another difference is that Gen X and Y perceive gaming is an essential part of there lives and their learning (Tapscott, 2009). In contrast, for Boomers, games and simulations can be seen as less serious forms of learning, and, in many cases, distracting from that learning. Xers grew up in a climate of immediate gratification—fast food, remote controls, automatic bank machines, climate controlled cars, and digital cameras; such trends were even more pervasive for Gen Y learners. In their learning worlds, they crave stimulation and come to expect immediate answers to their questions, so Ask Jeeves, Wiki-

pedia, Dictionary.com, and rapid fire searching in Google are tasks and technologies that they are immediately comfortable with. Instead of being directly taught or force-fed information, they look to be more involved, try things out for themselves, and control their learning destinies. Along these same lines, therefore, they want to see the end result of their learning tasks or assignments as well as understand the rationale or meaning for what they are assigned. With both parents often working, unlike most in the baby boomer generation, Gen X and Y are highly used to getting things done on their own (Brown, 1997). Such experiences lead to skills in independent problem solving and becoming self-starters of their own learning. They certainly appreciate external supports and aids, but, for the most part, they want to try things out on their own (Bresnathan, n.d., 2000). There is some research that indicates that older people (i.e., Boomers) prefer less interac-

83


tion in distance education than younger learners (Kearsley, 1995). In addition, they may prefer private learning activities (e.g., reflective journals and personal explorations) over more public ones with others (e.g., small group discussions, role play, simulations, ice breakers, skits, etc.) (Vampola, 2001). However, in contrast to Gen X and Y learners, when they do not know something, they ask questions. In terms of technology, Boomers are less comfortable with it, whereas Gen X and Y see it as part of who they are. Boomers are used to replying to prompts and following directions one task at a time. Gen Xers, on the other hand, attempt to handle multiple tasks at once. While much maligned as having short attention spans, in actuality, Gen Xers are perhaps simply coping with the vast amounts of information inundating each of our daily lives while utilizing the many forms of communication at their disposal to discuss them. As Douglas Rushkoff (1996) points out, the skill of the twenty-first century is no longer equated with the length of one’s attention span or the ability to sit and listen to an expert pontificate; instead, it is the ability to cope with many tasks simultaneously as well as rapidly process the assortment of text and visual information that bombard us each day. As an example, one might envision a secondary student talking on a mobile phone, using a desktop computer as a foot rest, chatting with friends online in MSN, peering down on the book she has open for homework, playing music from her iPod or stereo, and watching a show on television located somewhere in the background. Amazingly, she can effectively managing all these activities simultaneously! A recent survey report from the Student Monitor’s Lifestyle and Media Study revealed that iPods were the number one “in thing” on college campuses in the United States as indicated by 73% of those surveyed (Snider, 2006). For the first time in nearly a decade the top item in the list was not drinking beer, though it ran a close second at 71

84

percent. Other items rounding out the top five included the use of the social networking software, Facebook.com (71%), drinking other forms of alcohol besides beer (67%), and text messaging (66%). Perhaps some students might temporarily multitask many or even all such acts (Bonk, 2009). Other popular things on college campuses in 2006 were downloading music (66%), instant messaging (65%), going to clubs (63%), working out (62%), and drinking coffee (60%). While some might incorrectly contend that the cognitive processing of humans has somehow been reprogrammed or rewired within a single generation, there is no doubt that productive living at the early moments of this century are at times overwhelming and at other times extremely exhilarating. The latter is much more realizable when one has technology-related savvy as well as a high degree of confidence in such skills. And many Generation X and Y learners do indeed have both. Some of these same traits or characteristics apply when Generation X and Y individuals transition to the workplace. Unlike many in previous generations who might have worked for the same company or organization for life and patiently waited for a turn to climb up the food chain, Generation X and Y individuals will not typically grow old working at the first or second place that they land a job. Instead, they view their current work environment as a place for personal growth. In terms of learning and training, they believe that the right job is an ongoing learning process. They love opportunities to continue their education and make themselves more marketable. Instead of old models of consistency and control of some predetermined learning event (i.e., the “tell me” what I need to learn approach), Generation X and Y want control, they want more open-ended learning paths, and they want options (Tapscott, 2009). While Gen X and Y learners truly appreciate learning-related support and assistance, they beg for options. They are motivated by variety and control over their learning pursuits.


Fortunately, the Internet is situated to provide that. If the learner needs videoconferencing or finds synchronous training sessions to be valuable, they can be offered via Internet technologies. If the learning material is best offered on CDs or DVDs, or some other emerging technology, it can be manufactured. If self-paced materials are preferable, that too is possible. If radio programming or podcasts will be helpful, they can be designed. Instead of traditional lecture formats, podcasts are a form of lecturing at the learner’s convenience—they are a part of the mobile learning resources of a Gen X or Y learner. As Weinsten (2006) insightfully notes, this is an age where learning on demand, is in demand. The point is that younger generations of learners have increasingly wanted more flexible and open learning forms. Such technology-based learning options often found today might be best referred to as “learning at the back door” (Wedemeyer, 1981) or flexible learning. Nontraditional learning, in fact, may soon be traditional. In flexible learning, the learner is provided with the type of learning materials, resources, and strategies that best fits her needs. And, as a result, the instructional designers and support personnel helping pave their learning paths are called “flexible learning consultants.” In effect, the goal is to have the learning environment address diverse learner needs so that they can lead highly successful and productive lives in a global work and learn environment. For example, Hung and Zhang (2008) applied data mining techniques to analyze various patterns of online learning behaviors, and to make predictions on the learning outcomes. They were able to scientifically identify students’ behavioral patterns and preferences in the online learning process, differentiate active and passive learners, and found important parameters for performance prediction in online learning. With such types of technologies built in the e-learning environment, flexible learning would become more manageable for instructors or trainers. In effect, the e-learning system would be able

to monitor, identify, and detect the various learning progresses and needs of different learners. As this happens, those learners are empowered to provide more personalized, flexible learning experiences. On a much larger scale, we must now begin to ask what resources, materials, tools, networks, people, policies, and other infrastructure can make the personalization of learning happen? We believe that online learning frameworks or models like the Read, Reflect, Display, and Do (R2D2) model (Bonk & Zhang, 2006, 2008), can be a part of such a personalization of learning initiative. Such models offer insight into the types of online activities and associated technologies can empower learners and maximize their learning experiences.

TODAY’S LEARNER Today’s student is increasing wired or unwired— elated when finding a connection to the Web in a café, bookstore, hallway, or empty room, and just as jubilant in getting a response from someone located far away (Bonk, 2009). Once done at a café, he might be text messaging his peers while listening to his iPod during a brisk walking across campus (Seligman, 2006). Entering an unfamiliar building on campus, he immediately begins searching for hot spots to connect to the Internet. As is evident, we are living in an age when learners are always online or at least attempting to be. In addition to communicating with family and friends, he might be ordering concert or movie tickets, checking the weather or sports scores, downloading instructor lecture notes or podcasts for the day, updating their e-portfolios, or finding out if a particular class is canceled. One’s personal and professional lives, therefore, are seamlessly intertwined with mobile and wireless technology access. While someone from the Baby Boomer generation might consider computers and technologies, in

85


general, as ’nice-to-haves,” someone from Generation X or Y views technology as a key part of who a twenty-first century learner is (Jayson, 2006). Technology is something that is required within their lives; a needed commodity, not a luxury or an option (Darling, n.d.). And, not surprisingly, the amount of money being spent on technology purchases is drastically rising. In fact, when a parent shows up on a college campus in the United States today to help move a son or daughter into a dormitory, if he does not have a laptop in hand, then something seems awry. Freshmen often arrive on campuses with better technology than their colleges have. Many first-year students moving into their dorms unpack brand-new laptops or desktop computers. Laptops, in fact, are more popular than desktops. In addition to powerful laptop technology, their cellphones have the latest features. And they don’t just have an iPod, they have video iPods and iPhones or some other types of MP3 players and smartphones. Students continue to spend more on electronic purchases each year, according to a report on the National Retail Federation’s annual Back-toCollege Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey. That’s $10.46-billion, in a category that includes flat-panel TV’s, video-game consoles, laptops, and, of course, digital music players (Chronicle of Higher Education, September 22, 2006). And, these technologies go out of date quickly; today email is for older adults (i.e., Boomers), whereas social networking software is the province of Generation Y (Carnevale, 2006). Gen Y learners also dominate in the areas of text messaging, instant messaging, blogging, and Internet surfing. Universities such as Montclair State University, Carnegie Mellon University, Boston College, MIT, George Washington University, Stanford University, and Pennsylvania State University realize this. In response, they are providing their students with services as mobile phone alerts (e.g., campus related emergencies and sports information), capabilities for students to check on available

86

laundry machines in their dorms, ability to order late night snacks electronically, university wikis that students can contribute to, mobile access to grades, instructor lectures, bus schedules, and a host of other personally relevant information (Bonk, 2009; Lombardi, 2006; Sideman, 2006). And, as the quote below indicates, local vendors now are getting in on the action. At DCsnack.com, students at George Washington University and Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., can order Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, DVDs, condoms or any other late-night needs with the click of a mouse. The items are delivered to their doorsteps in 30 to 45 minutes (Sideman, 2006). The United States is not the only place catering to Gen Y learners. For instance, in Korea, students can download their lecture notes, college test preparation programs, music, pictures, and videos to their portable multimedia players (PMPs) (Cho, 2006). Recently, the Educational Broadcasting System (EBS) in Korea announced that it is providing free high quality broadcasting of its college entrance preparation TV programs to learner PMPs. Given the highly competitiveness nature of getting into the highest tier colleges and universities in Korea, this initiative has massive implications. Imagine when such services extend to other types of contents as well as to other countries around the planet. Learning will definitely move in a more mobile, and hopefully, more equitable direction. It may not eliminate the digital divide, but it will definitely change the discussion surrounding it. In this chapter, we have discussed many positive aspects of this trend toward connectivity and mobility. At the same time, there are many highly publicized negative impacts as well. For instance, there is the increased chance of Internet addiction and corresponding anxiety when one cannot get connected (Reuters, 2006). With the increasingly popular social networking phenomena via Web


2.0 technologies, some argue that problems associated with the Internet technologies include social isolation, potential depression, missed commitments, and missing out on a social life. Given the assorted positive and negative learning possibilities, it is vital to plan for online learning no matter how small or brief the learning event or course might be.

Fluency in Multiple Media As reported by Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout (2005), over half of 7th-12th graders in the United States access at least one additional medium some or most of the time while watching TV (53%), reading (58%), listening to music (63%), or using a computer (65%). Lenhart and colleagues (Lenhart & Madden, 2005; Lenhart, Madden, & Hitlin, 2005) investigated teenagers’ use of technologies such as IM, email, and cell/mobile phones. They discovered many interesting aspects of technology use among teenagers; including those with obvious connections to online learning. For instance, (a) 87% of those aged 12 to 17 now use the Internet for some purpose, which represents 21 million youth in the USA; (b) 51% of US teenage Internet users reportedly go online on a daily basis; (c) 81% of teen Internet users play games online, representing approximately 17 million people; and (d) 76% (16 million people) get their news online. Perhaps more importantly, such tech-savvy users are not just consumers of the abundant resources available on the Internet, they are also contributors to the content on the Internet. In effect, they are becoming savvy Web 2.0 users who display their life to others in open online windows. According to Lenhart and Madden (2005, p.i): Some 57% of online teens create content for the Internet. That amounts to half of all teens ages 12-17, or about 12 million youth. These Content Creators report having done one or more of the following activities: create a blog; create or work on a personal webpage; create or work on a

webpage for school, a friend, or an organization; share original content such as artwork, photos, stories, or videos online; or remix content found online into a new creation. Such individuals are using readily available content authoring tools to share self-authored content about themselves and others. Lenhart and Madden also reported that more than a third of them share their content online including personal stories, photos, artwork, and videos. A similar percentage indicated that they had created or worked on webpages or blogs for others including those developed for friends, school tasks, or workplace settings. More than one in five had a personal homepage and a similar number had designed an online journal or blog or had gained experience remixing or redesigning content found on the Internet for their own creative expressions. Clearly this is an age of student creative expressions with technology. In effect, the Web is a resource for creative expressive and knowledge production instead of passive reception of knowledge. Given these skills and experiences, it is important to ponder how to leverage such skills in online teaching and learning environments. Just how does technology awareness and use make them prime candidates for online learning? Various online learning frameworks (Bonk & Zhang, 2006, 2008) can play right into the cards of such generations of learners who desire flexibility, options, and personally empowered learning.

IMPLICATIONS FOR E-LEARNING As tech-savvy young millennial and neo-millennial learners flood into online offerings, they not only expect the use of multiple media for intensive learning interactions but they want to simultaneously and dynamically feed resources back to the Internet. With the emergence of read/write technologies of the Web 2.0, they are authors of content on the Web.

87


With many online instructors being more technology-limited compared to some tech-savvy students, at least at the present time, online teaching is highly challenging and, at times, stressprovoking. With younger learners enrolling in online courses, course designers must consider how to design their courses for greater interactivity, visualization, collaboration, captivation, and technology-sophistication, thereby motivating learners and promoting more effective learning. As people become increasingly comfortable using communication technologies in their daily lives and work settings, the cross-age media-based or media-driven learning, mentioned earlier, may become more prevailing in online environments. While this chapter includes many examples for those in higher education, there is also a symphony of implications for training employees in workplace settings. For instance, Appel (2003) contends that Gen Xers in the workplace want to be involved and have their opinions asked. They also desire a focus on developing their skills since they are always gearing up for that next job or position (Tapscott, 2009). Other needs include flexibility in tasks since they want to have a life outside of work. They might also want a teamlike atmosphere to be developed to give them the family they might not have had at home. And, as with most others in the human race, they want to be appreciated or shown that someone cares about them. They long for feedback, meaningfulness, sincerity, fun, and the celebration of success (Bresnathan, n.d.; McClure, 1997). Unfortunately, corporate training departments tend not to focus on such motivational principles. Given the status of online training in the corporate world and the high attrition rates often experienced, there are vast implications for training departments in terms of the interactivity of the e-learning contents, the types of learning preferences that are emphasized, how the learning assets are made available for trainees, and how to recognize successful completion of an online experience or course.

88

Online learning design frameworks such as R2D2 (Bonk & Zhang, 2006, 2008) introduce ideas to integrate emerging technologies to e-learning experiences for more engaging and effective learning for the diverse generational learners. Bonk and Zhang (2008) provide over 100 e-learning activities together with selection indices of each activity for instructors and instructional designers to help with their decision making in the design and implementation of e-learning. The key selection indices include risk level, time, activity duration, cost, and degree of learner-centeredness. With generational learner differences in mind, one may strategically choose one or more e-learning activities that would fit learners’ different technology skills and other preferences, There is no doubt that online technologies and associated learning opportunities will continue to proliferate. New generations of learners will appear with their own learning preferences and expectations. They will have experienced many types of learning formats and instructional strategies. Equally important, they will have learning-ready technology attached to their bodies. And they will want to engage in highly exciting and entertaining learning opportunities. Given such reality, online instructors and instructional designers who create online courses need to respond to the pressing needs for online interactivity, collaboration, and authenticity and purposefully integrate available media and technologies into their online teaching and learning activities. In addition to the various learning style inventories and instruments currently available (Santo, 2006; Zhang & Bonk, in review), there are scores of lists, matrices, and comparison charts related to how currently living generations of learners differ on a whole host of factors. In fact, it is difficult picking up any magazine or newspaper today without some mention, explicit or implicit, of how Generation X, Generation Y, and neo-millennials are different or how their technology adoption usage varies. While much of that data is collected for corporate marketing purposes, there are also


many learning-related implications and issues. These labels of Gen X, Gen Y, and baby boomers are simply descriptions that provide us with learning guideposts (Dede, 2005), and may serve as reminders for today’s educators to seek out and design the variety, flexibility, and personalization of learning that such diverse learners require.

REFERENCES

Carnevale, D. (2006, October 5). Email is for old people: As students ignore their campus accounts, colleges try new ways of communicating. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(7), A27, Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/ free/v53/i07/07a02701.htm Cho, J. S. (2006, July 17). U-learning in palm of hand. The Korea Times. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/ biz/200607/kt2006071718464311910.htm

Appel, N. B. (2003). Generations: Dealing with boomers, gen-x, and beyond. American Institute of Architects (AIA) Practice Management Digest Website. Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.aia.org/pm_a_20030801_genx

Chronicle of Higher Education. (2006, September 22). Freshman arrive bearing gadgets and great expectations. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(5), A30. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http:// chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i05/05a03001.htm

Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How Web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cravit, C. R. (2008). Zoomers create a new vision of aging. Retrieved December 27, 2008, from http://www.50plus.com/Lifestyle/BrowseAllArticles/index.cfm?documentID=21250

Bonk, C. J., & King, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), 249–264. doi:10.1080/01587910600789670 Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2008). Empowering online learning: 100+ activities for reading, reflecting, displaying, and doing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bresnathan, M. (n.d.). Generation Xers: Who are these people? The Bresnathan Group, Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.bresnahangroup.com/articles/generation_x.htm Calhoun, T. (2005, June 23). Bravo for the Duke iPod experiment. Campus Technology, Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://campustechnology.com/news_issue. asp?id=153&IssueDate=6/23/2005

Darling, L. (n.d.). Learning: Generation does matter! Training Advice, Element K. Retrieved August 1, 2005, from http://www.elementk.com/ training_advice/htm/05-02[INSERT FIGURE 001]-learninggen.asp Dean, K. (2004). Duke gives iPods to freshman. Wired News, Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,64282,00.html Dede, C. (1996b). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4–36. Dede, C. (2004). Enabling distributed learning communities via emerging technologies. THE Journal, Part One in 32(2), September, 12–22 . Part Two in, 32(3), 16–26.

89


Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from: http://www.educause. edu/content.asp?page_id=6069&bhcp=1

Hartman, J., Moskal, P., & Dziuban, C. (2003). Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (eds.), Educating the net generation. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from: http://www.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf

Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Schrier, K. (2007). “Neomillennial” learning styles propagated by wireless handheld devices. In M. Lytras & A. Naeve (Eds.), Ubiquitous and pervasive knowledge and learning management: Semantics, social networking and new media to their full potential, (pp. 35-66). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. Retrieved on September 28, 2008, from http://www.fas.org/programs/ ltp/emerging_technologies/humanities/_Media/ dieterle_schrier_chapter_02.pdf

Hung, J., & Zhang, K. (2008). Analyzing online learning behaviors and activity patterns and making predictions with data mining techniques in online teaching. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 426–437.

Dziuban, C., Hartmann, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs (pp. 195-208). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Dziuban, C. D., Moskal, P. D., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning, and the generations: Knowledge is power: No more. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). VARK a guide to learning styles. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.vark-learn.com/English/ index.asp Friedman, T. (2005). The World Is Flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic.

90

Jayson, S. (2006, October 3). Totally wireless on campus. USA Today. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/life/2006-10-02gennext-tech_x.htm Kearsley, G. (1995, May). The nature and value of interaction in distance learning. Paper presented at the Third Distance Education Research Symposium, The American Center for the Study of Distance Education. University Park, PA. Kruse, K. (2004, March). Buckle up: Generation Y is here. Chief Learning Officer. Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_col_elearning. asp?articleid=410&zoneid=46 Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2005). Teens content creators and consumers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Report. Retrieved on November 19, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Content_Creation.pdf Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Report. Retrieved on November 3rd, 2006 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf


Lombardi, C. (2006). Belatedly, Britannica lambastes Wikipedia findings. CNET News. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from http://news.com.com/ Belatedly,+Britannica+lambastes+Wikipedia+fin dings/2100-1025_3-6053754.html Mbilinyi, L. (2006, August). Degrees of opportunity: Adults’ views on the value and feasibility of returning to school. Minneapolis, MN: Capella University. Retrieved October 4, 2006, from http:// www.degreesofopportunity.org/ McClure, K. (1997). Can generation Xers be trained? Training & Development, March. McKay, J. (2004). For the ‘zippies,’ life is good: High-tech workers forge lifestyles very different from their parents. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Series: Outsourcing the Future? (March 21, 2004 Sunday). Oblinger, D. (2003, July/August). Boomers, GenXers, and Millennials: Understanding the “new students.” EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 37-47. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf Oblinger, D. (2004). The next genearation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (8): 1–18. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net Generation. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (eds.), Educating the net generation. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.educause. edu/IsItAgeorIT%3AFirstStepsTowardUndersta ndingtheNetGeneration/6058

Reuters (2006, October 18). Study shows Internet addicts cover up habit. eWeek.com. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.eweek. com/article2/0,1895,2033323,00.asp Rushkoff, D. (1996). Playing the future how kids’ culture can teach us to thrive in an age of chaos. New York: HarperCollins. Santo, S. (2006). Relationships between learning styles and online learning: Myth or reality? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(3), 73–88. Schrier, K. (2006). Using augmented reality games to teach 21st century skills. International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniqies, ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Educators Program. Boston, MA. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from: http://delivery.acm. org/10.1145/1180000/1179311/p15-schrier.pd f?key1=1179311&key2=5193514611&coll=A CM&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKE N=6184618 Seligman, K. (2006, May 14). Young and wired. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/CMGGKIACOL75.DTL Sideman, J. (2006, August 27). Wired for safety, late-night snacks. USA Today. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/ products/gear/2006-08-27-campus-tech_x.htm Snider, M. (2006, June 8). iPods knock over beer mugs. USA Today, 9D. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/ news/2006-06-07-ipod-tops-beer_x.htm

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of Myers-Briggs type indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63, 467–488.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Net Generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vampola, K. A. (2001). Adult learner preferences for various corporate training activities. Dissertation, University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

91


Wedemeyer, C. A. (1981). Learning at the back door: Reflections on non-traditional learning in the lifespan. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Windham, C. (2005). Father Google and mother IM: Confessions of a net gen learner. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 42-59. Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/ erm05/erm0552.asp?bhcp=1 Zhang, K. (2008). Ubiquitous technology for language learning: The U-Japan movement in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 81–91. doi:10.1007/s12528008-9009-9 Zhang, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2008). Addressing diverse learner preferences and intelligences with emerging technologies: Matching models to online opportunities. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2), 309–332.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Generational Learner: Learners of different generations with different characteristics in terms of lifestyle, learning preference and technology use, and more E-Learning: The use of online technologies to deliver content at a distance sometimes used

92

interchangeably with online learning or Web-based instruction. May include e-training, online learning, knowledge management Learning Technology: Technology that’s used in teaching and learning. Often refers to computer technologies like Internet technology, web resources, mobile devices, hardware and software for design, delivery, evaluating, management, facilitating of teaching and learning. Emerging Technology: new, evolving technology. Ning: one of the web2.0 technologies for users to create their own online communities free of charge. Zippie: Also known as Generation Z, similar to Neo-Millennial students. Originally refers to the young people in India with mobile zip drives, and includes young people on the go with computer technologies in general. Neomillennial Learning: A cross-generational learning style highlighted with multimedia fluency and technology competency. VARK Model: A widely applied learning style model that emphasizes primarily four types of learners and learning preferences; visual, aural, read/write and kinesthetic. Nontraditional Learning: May include informal learning, innovative approaches to teaching, learning and training.

93

Chapter 6

The Digital Generation and Web 2.0:

E-Learning Concern or Media Myth? Robin M. Roberts University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA

ABSTRACT The relationship between the Digital or Millennium Generation and Web 2.0 is investigated focusing on how post-secondary students just entering American colleges and universities use the interactive or read-write web popularly known as “Web 2.0” and what implications their use of those web sites has for E-learning. Central to the investigation is addressing the question of whether the Digital Generation and Web 2.0 concepts describe actual realities or exist merely as popular media constructions. The basic thrust of the chapter will be the position that the Digital Generation does not function as a monolithic group, but that the use of Web 2.0 technologies is related to developmental stages and life situation.

INTRODUCTION Among the many dimensions of the burgeoning web-based distance education movement in American education is the concept of a digital generation comprised of students who have grown-up exposed to and using digital computing technologies (Carlson, 2006; Hird, 2000; Johnson, 1997; Livingstone & Bovill, 1999; Rushkoff, 1998). By virtue of this experiential background, members of this generation are said to have developed a level of comfort

with and expertise in using those technologies that prior generations do not have (Gibbons, 2007; Gros, 2003; Oblinger, 2003; 2006; Snyder, 1998; Tapscott, 1998; Turkle, 1995). Dubbed “digital natives” by Prensky, these students are contrasted with their teachers and with prior generations whom are often designated “digital immigrants” (2001b, 2001c). A number of common characteristics are ascribed to these digital natives who comprise the digital generation (Frand, 2000; Gros, 2003; Tapscott; 1998; Prensky, 2001a; 2006). Among these are:

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch006


The Digital Generation and Web 2.0

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Tech savvy: Digital natives grow-up with a computer mouse in their hand and learn to use and gain expertise with digital computing technologies with ease. New literacy: They are more comfortable with screen-based learning than traditional 19th/20th century, text-based educational methodologies. Multi-taskers: They thrive in situations having many simultaneous multimedia inputs. Learner control: Digital natives want to be “in charge” of their own learning rather than follow a universal, “one-size fits all” curriculum. Information rich: They are accustomed to having a multitude of information at their fingertips. Digital consumers: Digital natives are pervasive consumers of digital media and portable electronic devices are essential to their lives. Connected: Digital natives are constantly in contact with and draw support from others, and are more comfortable working in groups than alone.

. . a more measured and disinterested approach is now required to investigate ‘digital natives’ and their implications for education (p. 1).” In addition to the threat of a having to cope with a generation of students for whom established educational practice may be inadequate, educators also have to cope with the advent of a new trend in technology—Web 2.0. For many in higher education, learning to cope with the old Internet is still posing a challenge and the specter of a new Internet looming over them is disconcerting. What is even more disturbing is the idea that the two are linked, forming a post-modern double-whammy that threatens to knock higher education out for the count. Before mass panic sets in, however, it would be prudent to examine each of these claims to see whether there is, indeed, cause for concern and, if concern is called for, to begin the process of adjusting instructional practice to address those concerns. Accordingly,this chapter examines the twin concepts of the digital generation and Web 2.0 and the relationship each has with the other to form some preliminary hypotheses concerning those concepts. Specifically, this chapter seeks to do three things: •

Though much has been said about these digital natives in popular literature and the press, the concept has also received attention from serious scholars as well (Holloway & Valentine, 2000; Negroponte, 1995; Papert, 1996; Valentine & Holloway, 2002). The American Library Association (2007), in an editorial in an official publication, has gone as far as saying “people born after 1980 are very different from those of us who were born earlier. . . . There is some evidence that they actually think and process information differently as a result (p. 28).” Other writers question the claims made about digital natives and analyze the nature of the debate itself. For instance, Bennett, Maton, and Kervin, (2007) argue that “rather than being empirically and theoretically informed, the debate can be likened to an academic form of a ‘moral panic’ .

94

•

•

Critically examine the idea of a digital generation to derive a better understanding of its ontological base and identify those characteristics that may inform E-learning practices; Identify the Internet technologies and functional characteristics that comprise Web 2.0; and Compare the notions of the digital generation and Web 2.0 using multiple data sources to determine whether there are any usage patterns that indicate a relationship between the two that can inform E-learning educational strategies.

Integral to this examination is a report on the results of preliminary research by the author directly addressing the use of Web 2.0 technologies


by recent higher education students (Roberts & Strudler, 2008).

BACKGROUND The central component in an E-learning environment is the learner for whose benefit the environment is provided. Understanding the characteristics of learners who participate in an online learning environment, particularly in respect to how those characteristics may affect the teaching– learning process in the online environment, is an important part of designing effective instruction for an on-line, E-learning environment. Numerous writers have theorized that the approaching generation of students, variously identified as the digital generation, the N-gen or other similar designations (Hird 2000; Johnson 1997; Rushkoff 1998; Smith & Curtin 1998; Tapscott 1998), exhibit different characteristics than prior generations of higher education students. While that assertion has just begun to be tested, the students in question have begun entering colleges and universities within the past two or three years. If these students are, in fact, different than previous generations of students, it seems likely that one of the ways they might be different lies in their comfort level and facility with digital computing technologies and online environments.

Defining “Digital Generation” What is meant by the term “digital generation”—or any of the other synonyms by which the current generation of young people is often identified? As with any emerging concept, consensus regarding who or what exactly is meant by the term “digital generation” has yet to be reached (Buckingham, 2006). There may be good reasons why this is so, as the following analyses will suggest. Buckingham (2006) defines the digital generation as “a generation defined in and through its experience of digital computer technology

(p. 1).” It is an extension of the generation gap: “The idea of a digital generation merely connects these fears and anxieties to technology: It suggests that something has fundamentally and irrevocably changed, and that this change is somehow produced by technology (p. 2).” Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) prefer the term “Net Generation.” For them, the Net generation is “digitally literate, always connected, desiring an immediate response, experiential, social, visual, and craving interactivity (p. 3).” According to Tapscott (1998), “the term Net Generation refers to the generation of children who, in 1999, will be between the ages of two and twenty-two, not just those who are active on the Internet. Most of these children do not yet have access to the Net, but most have some degree of fluency with the digital media (p. 3).” The salient commonality in each of these examples is the assumption of a close relationship between the humans comprising the generation and digital computing technologies. Various dates have been mentioned as defining the borders of the generational location (see below) for the digital generation: From early- to mid-1980s birth dates (Anderson, 2000-2001; Gardener & Eng, 2005; Gronbach, 2000; Tsui, 2000; and Weiss, 2000) to ending dates ranging from 1994 (Allerton, 2001; Darko, 2000; and Pekala, 2001) to those still being born today (Gardener & Eng, 2005; Tsui, 2000; and Weiss, 2000). A number of authors define the digital generation location as 1989 to 1996 (Alch, 2000; Chordas, 2001; Gronbach, 2000; and Strauss & Howe, 1997), while Sweeney places it from 1979 to 1994. He also notes that the single largest birth year is 1990—those students will begin attending college in 2008 (Sweeney, 2006, p. 1). Howe and Strauss (2003) locate it between the years 1982 and 2003; Tapscott (1998) prefers the years 1977 to 1997. The earliest suggested date for the beginning of the digital generation is 1976 (Cui, Trent, Sullivan & Matira, 2003; Duff, 1999)—the year the personal computer (PC) was born. As can be seen, there is con-

95


siderable disagreement about the generational location for the digital generation. Aside from the simple differences of opinion regarding what criteria to use for determining the generational borders of the digital generation, there is also a lack of agreement on what actually constitutes a generation per se.

What Constitutes a Generation? The most complete treatment of generation— and perhaps the most influential—was by Karl Mannheim in 1928. In his seminal work The Problem of Generations (1952), Mannheim wrote that generations are formed when members of a particular age-group share the same historical and social experiences during the years of their youth and interpret them as being significant to themselves. The last is extremely important for any discussion of a digital generation: For Mannheim, who introduced the concept of “generation” into sociological thought, a generation must define itself to truly be a generation. More recently, Edmunds and Turner (2002) have defined “generation” as “an age cohort that comes to have social significance by virtue of constituting itself as a cultural identity (p. 7).” Demographer Brad Edmonson (1995) agrees that “a generation exists mostly in the minds of the people who belong to it (p. 1).” Fromme, Kommer, Mansel and Treumann (1999) identify socialization as something that young people intentionally work to achieve. These writers all support Mannheim’s original thinking that a generation must define itself—others cannot do it for them. Defining itself is something that may take place within a generation at a younger age than might be obvious. Mannheim (1952) believed that youth was the key period for forging a generation, though some sociologists today argue that children and adults can construct generational differences and identities as well (Alanen, 2001). According to Mannheim, a “generational location” defines a potential generation and exists only in

96

the mind of the researcher. It is composed merely of dates that bracket the birth years of potential members of the generation. A generation is not actually formed—or “actualized” to use Mannheim’s term—until the members of a given generational location share experiences that they interpret as meaningful to them. Differentiation within an actualized generation can occur when face-to-face interaction among some members of the generation leads them to react in similar ways to common issues they encounter. Mannheim termed these differentiated groups “generational units” (1952, pp. 290; 302-312). Strauss and Howe (1997) stress the idea that in order to be an actualized member of a particular generation, individuals must be at the same developmental stage-of-life when a critical moment for that generation occurs (p. 66). This is an important distinction in the present case because the digital divide (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1999) prevents a large percentage of the individuals born within the same generational location (i.e., during the digital computing era) from becoming actualized members of the digital generation because they have not actually used digital computing technologies extensively. From a purely logical standpoint, it is much easier to defend the idea of a digital generation if one is speaking only of an actualized digital generation—one composed solely of those individuals who actually used digital computing technologies starting at an early age. Thus, the concept of a digital generation with a purported technological expertise requires that members of that generation be both approximately the same age and have shared the same experiences vis á vis digital computing technology while at the same age. Those three requirements considerably compound the idea of a monolithic digital generation comprised of all individuals within any particular suggested generational location. The digital divide—or divides, as some have suggested(e.g., DiMaggio & Hargitti, 2001)—argues against the formation of such a monolithic generation. More-


over, the defining characteristics for membership in a particular generation specify that it is shared life experience rather than accident of birth that determines membership in that generation. If experience with computer technology is used as a criterion for membership in a mobilized or actualized digital generation, then another difficulty emerges: To have experience with digital computing technologies, individual members must have access to it first. DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) identified five types of access in which differences may take place: technical means (access to the necessary hardware, software and connectivity), autonomy of use (location of access and the freedom to use the medium in an unfettered manner), use patterns (the way in which the user actually uses the technology), social support networks (availability of usable technical support and connection to suitably sized networks), and skill (one’s ability to use the medium effectively). Absence of any one of these constitutes lack of true access (Wilson, 2000), meaning that all of these access issues must be resolved favorably in order for successful development of expertise in using digital computing technologies to take place. Examining just the first type of access— technical means—starts with determining when computers became accessible to children who are potential members of the digital generation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2005) only 8.2 percent of American households had computers in 1984, 15.0 percent in 1989 and 22.8 percent in 1993. The number of households with computers did not exceed fifty-percent of the population until the year 2000. The problem of generational access to computers is immediately evident from these statistics: Insufficient numbers of individuals born within the digital generational location had access to the technical means to develop the expertise said to be “native” to that generation. According to Rogers’ diffusion of innovation model (1995), the first 16% of adopters of any given innovation are innovators and early adopters. Innovators (the first 2.5%) are a fairly

visionary and elite segment of the population whose characteristics include being risk takers and cosmopolites with a venturesome streak who have substantial financial resources, are able understand and apply complex technical knowledge and can cope with a high degree of uncertainty. Early adopters (the next 13.5%) are more educated than the general population, with higher-than-average socio-economic status and are respected change agents that provide the role models whose influence others follow. These are the trend setters. Those who follow—the early majority (the next 34%)—are individuals with the financial resources necessary to follow the lead of the early adopters. Together, these individuals account for the first fifty percent of adopters—in the case of digital computing technologies, a percentage not reached in the United States until the year 2000. This is important for understanding much of the rhetoric surrounding the capabilities and potential of the digital generation. When Tapscott (1998), for instance, described members of the digital generation in 1996, he was largely describing innovators and early adopters—because they accounted for most of those who were using computers at the time. If use of the Internet—as Tapscott described—is considered an integral part of the digital generation milieu, then the numbers become even more problematic. The U. S. Census Bureau (2005) figures indicate that 18% of American households had computers with Internet access in 1997, reflecting the very earliest of the early majority of adopters who obtained access. Tapscott could only have been observing innovators and early adopters in preparation for his book. Internet access in American homes first exceeded 50% in 2001—a year after the number of PCs in homes exceeded 50%. Even granting that limited access became available to some children at school earlier than at home, a relative minority of children enjoyed Internet access prior to 2000. Taken together, these issues suggest one of three possibilities: First, that the digital generation as defined by Tapscott and others may be limited

97


to a relatively small segment of the population of students who are entering colleges and universities today; or, second, that there are several different digital generations lined-up and following the earliest which has already passed through college, each of which is defined by a different experience with technology (which, it must be admitted, has progressed rapidly enough over the past decades that youths and children even five years apart in age have experienced significantly different technologies and media); or, third, that a single monolithic generation does exist, defined by a general commonality with a world of digital computing technologies, but differentiated into many generational units defined by unique local experiences with technology (or lack thereof in the case of those on the wrong side of the digital divide). Such differentiations would center as much around the lack of exposure to obsolete technologies as by experience with new technologies. Certainly there is a difference in experience for those born in 1976 and who entered college in 1994 without ever having had Internet access and those who entered in 2008 with Internet access available to them as early as five years of age. More recently, writers have observed that media plays an important part in defining generational differences and identities (Arnett, 1995; Buckingham, 2002; Johansson, 2004). Wark (1993) takes it a step farther: “Generations are not defined by war or depression any more. They are defined by media culture (p. 75).” Perhaps the first such generation was the Baby Boom generation which was defined as much by television as by sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll and Vietnam. McLuhan’s (1984) generationally defining assertion that the “medium is the message” is still influential today (p. 7). It should not be lost on anyone that the Digital Generation is comprised of the children of the Baby Boomers—the latest media generation is thus the direct biological descendent of the original media generation. Media plays an important part in the generational identity of both generations.

98

In fact, generational differences themselves may largely be media inventions—as a way to categorize (or stereotype) groups for convenience in news reporting or marketing (Buckingham, 2006, p. 5). By creating a labeled category, journalists can avoid lengthy descriptions of people by merely using the label. In an occupation characterized by deadlines, anything that saves time is valued. Likewise, in an era of targeted advertizing, it is difficult to hit a target you cannot see. Buckingham argues that such media-driven views “run the risk of essentializing” generational differences and wonders how “we actually identify the boundaries—or even the shared consciousness—of a generation (2006, p. 3-4).” This, of course, begs the question: To what extent is the digital generation a media invention rather than an actualized generation? How inclusive, then, is the term “digital generation?” The word “generation” itself implies that all—or at least a substantial portion of that particular age-grouping—exhibit the qualities or characteristic of that generation. Past attempts to define to define the digital generation have centered on birth years determined in reference to the development of digital computing technologies. Is this, however, a sound basis for defining a generation? Recent social theorists such as Ziehe (2005) argue that chronological age is no longer a sound basis for assuming similarity of life experiences and that generational identity can no longer be tied to a series of common experiences. One must also question the extent to which the identification “digital generation” is a construct willingly adopted its members as opposed to one thrust upon them by the media. The answer to this may lie in their view of technology itself:Facer, Furlong, Furlong and Sutherland (2003), Holloway and Valentine (2003), Buckingham (2006), Tapscott (1998) and Livingstone and Bober (2005) all agree that children don’t view technology as technology, they view it something that allows them to do things and as a natural part of their environment. As Nicoletti and Merriman (2007) put it, “millennials don’t think in terms of technology, they think in terms of


the activity that technology enables (p. 31).” This suggests that today’s children and teens would not easily see themselves as a digital generation, indeed, many of their purported characteristics would argue against their willingly adopting a label created by adults—even adults in the media. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that the idea of a digital generation may be an intentional construction fostered by vestigial Baby Boomer politics and marketers sensing a lucrative new market.

The Digital Generation and the Baby Boomers Buckingham (2006) sees the appellation “digital generation” as being less a description of what today’s children are as a “a set of imperatives about what they should be or what they need to become” (p. 11). Donnison (2007) points out that Baby Boomers have largely been involved in trying to define the new generation and much of the disagreement over the boundaries of the generational location and the inability to agree on a common name for the generation stem from Baby Boomers’ own conflicting philosophies and technological experiences. For example, Negroponte (1995) suggested that the Internet was going to “flatten organizations, globablize society, decentralize control, and help harmonize people (p. 182).” Ted Nelson, who coined the word hypertext, echoes Negroponte’s vision of a world-changing technological movement. Referring to his Xanadu project, Nelson says that “ours has been the only proper objective [of the use of the Internet]: to make a new world . . . open hypertext publishing is the manifest destiny of free society. It is fair, it is powerful, and it is coming (1992, pp. 56-7).” Such fanciful, visionary rhetoric is reminiscent of that of Sixties campus radicals, whose connection with the modern Dotcom era may not be as farfetched as one might think. Fred Turner (2006) argued convincingly for that very idea, tracing the influence of a major

Sixties icon, Stewart Brand, from his 1968 Whole Earth Catalog through the Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link (WELL) in 1985, to the Global Business Network in 1989 and to Wired Magazine in 1993. As he puts it: Since the late 1960s, Stewart Brand and others associated with various Whole Earth publications had been linking information technologies to a New Communalist politics of personal and collective liberation. . . . In the 1990s, however, the editors and writers of Wired transformed the long-standing Whole Earth synthesis of cybernetics and New Communist social theory into a means of embracing figures such as Gilder and Gingrich (Turner, 2006, p. 216). More than that, Turner was equally convincing in detailing a concerted business effort to create a new market centered on digital computing technologies and a youth market: As Nigel Thrift has shown, however, by the end of the 1990s an entire circuit of stock analysts, journalists, publicists, and pundits had also emerged. They spun out a series of self-reinforcing prognostications, and as they did, analysts and investors appeared to come to a consensus: computers were bringing about a New Economy and perhaps even a long economic boom. (Turner, 2006, p. 214) In his book, Turner shows how Brand created a network of influential people and media publications that linked “bohemian San Francisco” to the emerging technology hub of Silicon Valley” (2006, p. 3). That he was successful can be gleaned from observations made during a study of dotcom entrepreneurs by Kanter (2001) for the Harvard Business School: “I found striking similarities in rhetoric and style to youth movements of the 1960s in North America and Europe” (p. 56). Kanter commented that the dotcom movement had the “quality of a social movement, not just a

99


business change (p. 56)” and that many youthful dotcom entrepreneurs were “convinced that they will change the world and that no one over thirty can be trusted” (Kanter, 2001, p. 65). Again, this sounds suspiciously familiar to those familiar with the rhetoric of the Sixties youth movements. In The Cluetrain Manifesto, Weinberger (1999)—himself a participant in the dotcom movement—says: We embrace the Web not knowing what it is, but hoping that it will burn the org chart—if not the organization—down to the ground. Released from the gray-flannel handcuffs, we say anything, curse like sailors, rhyme like bad poets, flame against our own values, just for the pure delight of having a voice. And when the thrill of hearing ourselves speak again wears off, we will begin to build a new world. That is what the Web is for (p. 39). Louis Rossetto, editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, echoed Weinberger’s sentiments in his editorial for the inaugural issue of Wired: Wired is about the most powerful people on the planet today—the Digital Generation. These are the people who not only foresaw how the merger of computer, tele-communications and the media as transforming life at the cusp of the new millennium, they are making it happen (Rossetto, 1993). The Internet is seen by many Boomers as providing the tools for social change that were lacking during the Sixties and their children—biological and spiritual—share that opinion (Gilbert, 1994). Joshua Quitter (1994) of the Electronic Freedom Foundation articulated it this way: “The Net . . . is merely a means to an end. The end is to reverseengineer government, to hack politics down to its component parts and fix it (p. 79).” These comments were published in 1994—a year prior to the National Science Foundation relinquishing control of the Internet to commercial use and before home Internet access became available

100

through commercial providers. That these sentiments are more than just rhetoric may be seen in the role played by Web-based technologies in national elections, a trend that first gained notice in 2000 and rose to prominence during the 2008 Presidential race. Each of these individuals is, in their own way, influential and each can also be easily identified as an innovator under Roger’s diffusion of innovations model. Thus, the digital generation may be seen as an invented, rather than a discovered concept. That is, rather than discovering an existing characteristic of a particular generation, specific characteristics were imparted to the children and youths occupying the generational location occupied by Baby Boomer offspring by opinionmakers striving to perpetuate a political agenda and create a new market. Their final encouragement was to provide vast amounts of venture capital to the best and brightest of that constructed generation, encouragement that resulted in the Dotcom boom and bust and, eventually, the development of Web 2.0.

What is Web 2.0? The latest iteration of the dotcom movement is the concept of Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 is essentially a business term that has crossed-over into popular usage and tends to be used, somewhat inaccurately, as a synonym for the newest version of the Web. It is not to be confused with Internet 2.0, the high speed backbone and associated protocols for a second generation Internet (Internet2, 1996). The term itself was coined by Dale Dougherty of O’Reilly Media in 2003 as the name for a web conference to be sponsored by O’Reilly, Incorporated. At the conference, Tim O’Reilly used the term during his opening remarks and the term stuck (O’Reilly, 2005). The term refers less to the composition or technology of the web than it does to how the Web is used. The central tenet of Web 2.0 is to use the World Wide Web as a platform for deliver-


ing services to customers (O’Reilly, 2005). Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web, is not a proponent of the term Web 2.0 because it does not denote a technical change. In this sense, he is correct: The technologies used to deliver the web-based services associated with Web 2.0 existed long before they were actually used to deliver those services (O’Reilly, 2005). Dario de Judicibus of IBM (O’Reilly, 2005) sees Web 2.0 more as a change in social interactions that use the particular architecture of the Web to facilitate those interactions. O’Reilly and fellow Web 2.0 conference speaker John Battelle (a co-founder of Wired magazine) called Web 2.0 an “architecture of participation” (Battelle, 2005; O’Reilly, 2005) that leverages the power of the “long tail”—a reference to the long tail emblematic of the power law curve, referring to many small web services receiving a few users each (Anderson, 2006). In essence, Web 2.0 embodies the idea that yesterday content was king, but today participation is key. Web 2.0 includes the following characteristics: 1.

Web 2.0 services typically, though not always, use AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) and similar technologies. The first public use of the term AJAX in relation to Web 2.0 was by Jesse James Garrett in February 2005 (Garrett, 2005). Garrett thought of the term when he realized the need for a shorthand term to represent the suite of technologies he was proposing to a client. Although the term AJAX was coined in 2005, most of the technologies that enable AJAX started a decade earlier with Microsoft’s initiatives in developing Remote Scripting. Web services that do not use AJAX technologies employ a variety of older server-based technologies or newer proprietary technologies. Central to these new technologies was the development of

2.

3.

4.

the XMLHttpRequest object. AJAX uses a combination of (Roberts & Strudler, 2008): ◦ XHTML and CSS (Cascading Style Sheets), for marking up and styling information. ◦ The DOM (Document Object Model) accessed with a client-side scripting language, especially ECMAScript implementations such as JavaScript and JScript, to dynamically display and interact with the information presented. ◦ The XMLHttpRequest object is used to exchange data asynchronously with the web server. In some AJAX frameworks and in certain situations, an IFrame object is used instead of the XMLHttpRequest object to exchange data with the web server, and in other implementations, dynamically added <script> tags may be used. ◦ XML (eXensible Mark-up Language) is sometimes used as the format for transferring data between the server and client, although any format will work, including preformatted HTML, plain text and JSON. These files may be created dynamically by some form of server-side scripting. With Web 2.0 services, the customer/user adds value to the product (value-added). This reverses the normal supply-demand economic scenario. In a customer-valueadded situation, value increases the more people participate (O’Reilly, 2005; Tapscott & Williams, 2006). It is not receptive, it is participatory. Content is partnered with connection (Tapscott & Williams, 2006). It connects users with each other rather than connecting users with information (Tapscott & Williams, 2006).

101


Seidensticker (2006) points out that many technologies are dependent upon the prior existence of appropriate infrastructure for success. Innovations that need little in the way of new infrastructure will flourish; those that require substantial new infrastructure have a difficult time becoming successful. The Web is an example. The infrastructure of the Web—the Internet—was established over a period of almost 25 years before the Web was invented and made accessible to the public. Likewise, Web 2.0 technologies leverage existing technological infrastructure and require almost no additional cost to consumers to adopt. However, that is true only because of the recent convergence of several independent factors, the absence of any one of which would have prevented Web 2.0 from having the impact that it has: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

102

Technical maturity: The individual AJAX and associated technologies were refined and tested over a period of over ten years before being deployed (O’Reilly, 2005). Infrastructure development: Lack of sufficient bandwidth was a primary hold-up in the deployment of AJAX technologies on a large scale; they consume immense amounts of bandwidth in both directions. Along with bandwidth, individual consumer PCs and corporate servers needed to increase in computing power. Sociological fit: The convenience and communicative abilities of these technologies fit easily into the normal life stage needs and social practices of teens and other groups. Cultural construction: The digital generation’s identity as technologically inclined legitimized their use of Web 2.0 technologies in many adult minds. Economic climate: Marketing to niche markets (such as digitally hip teens) and the selling of services rather than goods both matured after the lessons of the dotcom era (Anderson, 2006).

Web 2.0 technologies exhibit several advantages that attract innovators and early adopters and help assure its success: They provide a relative advantage over existing technologies, are compatible with existing technologies and complement them, offer users the chance to try them at little or no risk, and are readily observable by others (Rogers, 1995). It is important to remember, too, that Web 2.0 technologies did not invent themselves, nor did they spontaneously arise from social practice—they were deliberately created by businesses for profit, power or influence.

The Digital Generation’s Use of Web 2.0 Technologies If both Web 2.0 and the digital generation are inventions of the business/political world, one must question whether educators should give them serious credence. However, its creation by business interests does not automatically rule out the possibility that Web 2.0 technologies may prove useful for instructional purposes, especially if those being instructed have a particular affinity for it. Finding that out is the purpose of the following study. There is little empirical research linking the digital generation to specific Web 2.0 behaviors (see Holloway & Valentine, 2003, p. 2-3; Kitchin, 1998a, 1998b). This is surprising given the amount of attention that both the digital generation and Web 2.0 have garnered in educational, library science, computer science and popular literature. The following section of this chapter will present the results and preliminary analysis of a survey of recent on-line learners in an effort to identify some of the emerging attributes salient to success in the on-line environment.

Methodology and Data Sources The study presented in this section is a preliminary attempt to discern whether any age-related differences in the use of Web 2.0 technologies exist that might have implications for the design and


conduct of on-line courses in teacher education. It is based partially on an earlier pilot studies by Roberts and Strudler (2008; 2009). Roberts and Strudler (2008; 2009) hypothesized that the digital generation will be more likely to use Web 2.0 services than students from prior generations. Recent articles suggest that there is a connection between Web 2.0 and the Digital Generation. Yoffee (2007) noted the difference in the numbers of participants in Facebook between recent and past graduating classes at her high school. Nussbaum (2007) found that 60% of American youth had personal profiles on social networking sites. Based on these earlier efforts, the following research question guided the data collection and analysis of the present study: Is there any difference in behavior between younger, undergraduate university students and graduate or professional students in their use of Web 2.0 technologies? Data was collected from teacher education students in three on-line classes (N= 59) and one blended class (N= 22) at a large mid-western university from 2006 to 2008; all classes were taught by the same instructor. As part of their class assignments, three questions were asked about their computer and Internet use: Q1) What are the top 10 things you use a computer for? Q2) How often do you or have you used/done any of the following Internet/Internet-related cell phone activities? Q3) How often do you or have you visited any of the following Websites? All four classes were asked Q1 and Q2 (total n = 81); the 2006 class was not asked Q3 (total n = 59). Survey respondents were divided into undergraduates and graduates and the aggregate scores for each group were averaged for each item included on the survey. A five-point scale was used for questions 2 and 3: I use it a lot, every day; I use it regularly, but not every day; I’ve used it once or twice; I’ve heard of it, but never used it; I’ve never heard of it. Those responses were converted to numerical values, with 5 representing the most frequent use

and 1 representing no use at all and a mean value for each group on each item was calculated. The study is necessarily limited by the use of a convenience sample, a small sample size and the use of self-report procedures. Generalization is not the goal of this study, however; its purpose is to generate hypotheses for further study.

Analysis and Results Survey respondents’ ranking of the ways in which they used the Internet was compared with PEW national data (PEW, 2005) to ascertain how representative of the larger population the local sample might be. That comparison appears in Table 1 below. The local sample matched the national sample for the top three uses of the Internet, but differed after that. This suggests that, with some exceptions (see below), the general pattern of Internet use by the local sample was similar to that of the American population as a whole. This was important to the hypothesis generating process, because the similarity suggested that hypotheses applying to the local sample might also apply to the larger population. The relatively high local participation in on-line banking and downloading music can be explained by the more narrow sample drawn from college-attending students rather than from a cross-section of the national Table 1. Comparison between PEW data and local data Activity Sending and receiving e-mail Surfing the Web*

Pew Rank

Local Rank

1

1

3/4/5

2

Using a search engine

2

3

Banking on-line

13

4

Downloading Music

31

5

*The survey category is less differentiating than PEWs and is likely to include at least the three browsing activities such as getting news, researching hobby or interest and fun, included here. If those PEW categories were combined, then Surfing the Web would be second behind e-mail in the PEW results, dropping use of a search engine to the third position. Source: PEW, 2005.

103


population; in other words, college students seem to differ in some ways—apparently on-line banking and music downloading are among those differences—from the larger population. This is hardly surprising; college students of all ages constantly need money and on-line banking is a very convenient way for parents to supply that need. Thus, the high ranking for on-line banking most likely reflects the college demographics of the sample. Music downloading may be associated with young people and the local sample reflected a higher percentage of young people than in the national population—in other words, the higher percentage of young people in the local sample may have skewed the downloading of music higher than would be the case if the local sample had reflected the same percentage of young people as the general population. Other than those explainable differences, the local sample reasonably resembled the national sample. That suggests that, for the purposes of this study, the local sample can be assumed to approximate the behaviors of the general population. The main results of the study, based upon comparison of means for each group on each of the survey items are reported below 1.

2.

104

There seems to be no significant difference in the use of e-mail, surfing the web or online banking between undergraduates and graduates in the local sample. While e-mail and surfing as the two most frequent on-line activities parallels the national PEW data, on-line banking is considerably more important to our students than the population as a whole, perhaps because college students away from home have found on-line banking to be considerably more efficient at getting funds from Mom and Dad than previous methods (see discussion above). Surprisingly, there is also no significant difference in on-line gaming or participation in on-line virtual environments between graduates and undergraduates, either. Given

3.

4.

5.

that the average age of on-line gamers is 35 (Entertainment Software Association, 2008), this means the local sample parallels the national population in this respect as well. The popular notion that on-line gaming is solely a youth activity contrasts with the empirical data that suggests otherwise. There is also no significant difference in the use of MapQuest, Expedia, Weather. com or SourceForge between graduates and undergraduates. In the case of SourceForge, only two respondents had ever heard of it and no one had used it. This is not surprising because SourceForge is aimed at highlevel technical users and IT professionals. Students in teacher education courses are not likely to possess the technical skills to use it—regardless of age or class standing. In the case of the others, it is not surprising that navigational, weather and travel information is used equally by students of all ages—they address common informational needs. There is a significant difference in the use of texting between graduates and undergraduates, with a trend toward increasing use as the students get younger (i.e., all freshmen reported texting every day, with sophomores, juniors and seniors progressively texting less than the class before them, and graduates least of all). Thus, undergraduates use texting more frequently than do graduates in this sample. Likewise, instant messaging (IM) use is higher among undergraduates than graduates, substantially so. Both IM and texting are synchronous communication methods requiring the simultaneous participation of the communicating parties and both methods provide for a greater measure of privacy than talking on a cell phone or even face-to-face. It is quite possible, if not probable, that the popularity of texting and IM among teens stems as much from the inherent privacy of the conversation as from the sense of


6.

7.

connectivity provided by synchronous communications. In synchronous communications there is an immediacy that is not present in asynchronous communications mediums like e-mail or blogs that are considerably less popular among teens; this brings us to the next point. Not surprisingly, undergraduates also download music more than graduates, but not by as great a margin as might be expected from popular media reports. Students of any age are economically challenged and music costs money. Unlike many lifestyle choices, music seems to be almost a need for most people and that need seems to be stronger in young people than in older people (Levin, 2006). Downloaded music, even the legal kind, is considerably cheaper than music purchased in more conventional forms. In addition, there is an element of choice involved in choosing only the songs one wants—without also having to buy songs one does not want— that makes downloaded music popular. It is possible that the gap between teens and adults on downloaded music might be much higher if mpeg3 players were more affordable. Undergraduates are also somewhat more likely to access the Internet on a cell phone than graduates, but the averages for both groups suggest only that undergraduates are more familiar with the concept than graduates. A look at the data shows that undergraduates are far more likely to have accessed the Internet on a cell phone once or twice than graduates—over twice as many have accessed the Internet on a cell phone once or twice. One does not pay for Internet service on a cell phone and then use it only once or twice and cell companies do not provide free samples of access. Accessing the Internet on a cell phone once or twice can only happen by doing it on someone else’s phone—most likely that of a friend. Younger students may be more likely to

allow their friends to access the Internet on their cell phone than adults, who may also be less likely to even ask to do so. 8. Finally, undergraduates use MySpace, YouTube and Facebook considerably more frequently than do graduates. Graduates, on the other hand, use classmates.com and eHarmony more than do undergraduates. All are types of social networking sites, but classmates and eHarmony are more focused in their purposes and audience, whereas the others are open to all interested parties. Undergraduates use social networking sites where the emphasis is on “hanging out”— digital party sites, if you will. Graduates may be more interested in classmates.com because they are farther removed in time from their graduating classmates and more likely to have lost track of them. Graduates may use eHarmony because they are less likely to be socially involved at school than undergraduates—and are more likely to be able to afford the fees. 9. On the other hand, graduates frequent on-line news sites such as CNN and MSNBC more frequently than undergraduates. It is equally likely that graduates also watch TV news and read the newspaper more frequently than undergraduates. Their interest in the news is likely tied to their slightly larger stake in what is happening beyond the campus walls. 10. Surprisingly, graduates use blogs and wikis significantly more than undergraduates. Both are asynchronous communications methods that emphasize convenience over immediacy and facilitate communications among individuals or groups that find it difficult to arrange simultaneous communications. Voice mail and e-mail—as well as blogs and wikis—provide for the asynchronous communication that is efficient for adults for whom the contact is less important than the information. With teens—as anyone who

105


has listened to a group of teens “converse” knows—it seems to be less about content than it is about contact. The overriding concern with teens is to be with their friends, not to communicate with them. Adults have more compartmentalized lives, living a good portion of each day in a world where they are not with friends, but with workers for whom content is more important that contact. It is possible that the preference of adults for asynchronous communications mediums and the preference of teens for synchronous communications mediums stems from the different relationships they have with whom they are communicating. Teens communicate to forge and maintain relationships, adults communicate to accomplish goals and get work done and it may be those differences, rather than any generational affinity for a particular technology, that creates the tendencies suggested by both the local data and the PEW data. In summary, the local survey sample parallels the national population in many respects, with differences that are easily attributable to the life situation particular to college students. The local sample showed no significant difference between graduates and undergraduates in their use of e-mail, surfing the web, on-line banking, participation in on-line games or simulations, or use of MapQuest, Expedia, or SourceForge. Undergraduates used text messaging, IM, downloaded music, accessed the Internet on a cell phone and visited MySpace, YouTube and Facebook more than do graduates. Graduates, on the other hand, visit eHarmony, classmates.com, and CNN and MSNBC and use blogs and wikis more than do undergraduates. Applying the more general definition of Web 2.0 as a platform for delivering services, virtually all of the activities mentioned above can be classes as Web 2.0 activities—even those where user interactivity is not part of the service. The more narrow, but somewhat inaccurate view of

106

Web 2.0 as participatory only, describes a particular sub-set of Web 2.0 services. Nonetheless, what stands out from the survey results is that younger students (undergraduates)—ostensibly members of the digital generation--do not exclusively use Web 2.0 services and that older students (Graduates)—presumably not members of the digital generation—use some Web 2.0 participatory services more than do younger students and more often than not, there is no significant difference between younger and older students in use of either Web 1.0 or Web 2.0 technologies— regardless of how they are defined.

Conclusions These preliminary results suggest that students in the survey courses, all of whom were either pre-service or early in-service teachers and who represented multiple age-groups/generations, use digital computing technologies similarly when the purposes for their use are similar. Graduates and undergraduates use Web 2.0 technologies quantitatively similarly, but qualitatively differently. The difference is related to age, but may be explained as much by the convergence of the different purposes of the technologies and lifestage purposes as by any generational differences. In other words, youths appear to use Web 2.0 technologies for purposes youths have always used similar technologies, such as telephones, cars, transistor radios and the like. If so, it follows that their usage patterns will converge with adult patterns as they move on to later stages of life and younger users move in to take their place.

DISCUSSION Summary The common premises regarding the digital generation that may affect education are these: First, the digital generation exists and is here now.


Second, they are tech savvy and highly connected (more so than prior generations). Third, they are multi-taskers that learn from different methods than the traditional (i.e., 19th and 20th Century) instructional techniques that have sufficed in the past. Fourth, they need to be prepared for a career path that is quite different than that which has existed in the past. Lastly, educators are not currently prepared or equipped to adequately meet the needs of this new generation of student (Doherty, 2005; Frand, 2000; Oblinger, 2003; Prensky, 2001a; Rodley, 2005). Based on the results presented above, these premises appear to be nothing more than unsubstantiated surmises without any empirical data to support them. The reasons for this conclusion follow. First, students appear to use the web in quite predictable ways: for school and communicating with friends and entertainment, most often to access and play music. This is no different behavior than prior generations exhibited except for one very important difference: The instructional technology used in schools (computers/Internet) today is, for the first time, also available to students outside of school. For instance, very few schools used transistor radios for instructional purposes, nor did they use phonographs to a great extent, though many classrooms had them. In contrast, these were very common household items and associated with high teen use. Relatively few families possessed or used movie projectors until the late 1960s when 8mm projectors and cameras became common. Movies,typically the more expensive 16mm variety, were used instructionally, but on relatively rare occasions and students almost never were involved in filming a movie—though it certainly would have been possible. What is different in education today is the emphasis on constructivist instructional practices wherein the student is more active than in the past (Papert, 1980) and the computer has been identified as a particularly useful tool for active student participation (Jonassen, 2000), most useful when used as a collaborative tool to construct knowledge (Roberts, 2002; 2007).

Second, the image of the digital generation seems to be largely an image created by businesses based upon observation of how early educational innovators were using both constructivism and computers in the classroom (for example, ACOT). Computers came into the hands of children and youths in the early days largely because parents were sold on the idea that PCs were educational tools (Papert, 1980; 1993). Thus, the impetus for the digital generation concept arose in the schools, among early innovators, and later became articulated as a general consumer category by market researchers. Likewise, the Internet movement was derived from schools. Almost from the beginning of the original ARPANET, institutions of higher education were involved in the formation and use of what eventually became the Internet. Many individuals in higher education, particularly library science professionals had been routinely using e-mail, gopher and ftp for years before the Web was even invented and long before the general population gained access. Accordingly, educational researchers began paying attention to the Internet quite early, with many jockeying to establish academic positions and reputations by envisioning and forecasting a future educational world that revolved around PCs and the Internet. Businesses did not gain access to the Web until 1995 and it is probably not a coincidence that Tapscott and others associated with the business world began writing about the digital generation shortly thereafter. The idea of a digital generation has made incredible inroads into education in just over ten years. Educators like Papet and Negroponte, on the other hand, were writing about the educational effect of computers on students long before that and promoting the benefits of constructivist teaching tactics before the majority of the digital generation was born. What began as legitimate research into new instructional technology possibilities soon turned into a self-fulfilling prophesy, ably aided by businesses—especially Apple Computer and

107


the Whole Earth consortium—who recognized a lucrative new market when they saw one. The predictions soon became actuality as educators, parents, politicians, the media and even the students themselves first believed and then bought into the idea of a new generation of digitally capable students. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this except that all concerned might have been mislead concerning the capabilities and characteristics of the digital generation who were thereby ill-served by the very people and institutions trying to benefit them (See Kanter, 2001).

Implications for Teaching The most important implication suggested by this study is that educators cannot assume that the students entering university classrooms possess the technological skills often attributed to the digital generation. Certainly, there will be students who do possess a high level of technological skill, but most are likely to be at differing skill levels. Instruction based on an assumed (presumed) technological expertise will probably be of little benefit to students who do not, in fact, possess those skills. Such instruction may in fact be detrimental, predooming certain students to failure. This does not imply that neither digital computing technologies nor the Internet (Web 2.0 or otherwise) can be useful instructional tools, only that expertise in their use should not be assumed to be distributed equally—or even similarly— among students of any age in the higher education classroom. Rather, it suggests that educators should treat technological skills as an important part of the context of instruction. There are at least two ways in which this can be approached: First, technological skills should be viewed as an important part of the background knowledge students bring with them into the classroom—much as reading level and mathematics knowledge are treated now. Second, technological preferences can be leveraged, like preferred learning styles (DeVita, 2001; Hackman & Walker, 1990; Moal-

108

lem, 2007; Rasmussen, 1998; Riding & Grimly, 1999)—to better meet the individual learning needs of students. Just as all students do not write or read equally well, neither do they use computers equally well. There are no doubt other lessons to be learned from this line of inquiry, but the preliminary nature of the current study dictates that conservatism in this area is the best policy.

CONCLUSION As suggested at the beginning of this chapter, the Internet behavior of the digital generation can be explained more by reference to the typical teenage behavior of any generation, rather than by some intrinsic difference between this particular generation and previous generations. Sociologically and historically, each generation has questioned the behavior of the youth that comprise the next generation. What is somewhat different about this particular generational “gap” is the availability and affordability of new technology that children can use while they are children—that has rarely, if ever, occurred in the past. Moreover, most new technologies in the past have been formally restricted at some point to certain age groups, to persons with certain skills or tightly controlled by adults. Computer technology has, instead, practically been thrust upon some segments the young population almost from the time they were born. In the end, the digital generation may be as much a result of deliberate marketing as anything else; certainly Apple Computer has always aimed its marketing at the youth market. Apple’s most successful product ever, the iPod, has been marketed directly at young people. If there is a digital generation, it may be because adults have created it, not because today’s young people are some different kind of human as Donald Tapscott has suggested (1998). Significantly, Tapscott is a business man; so is Tim O’Reilly who coined the term Web 2.0. Might it not be significant that both the idea of a


digital generation and a Web 2.0 come not from educators, but from businessmen? A monolithic digital generation has been shown to be not only unlikely from both a statistical standpoint and a theoretical standpoint, but quite possibly nothing more than an intentional invention of media interests tied to both marketing and Sixties-era philosophies, though it may possibly have derived its technological basis from actual early academic experimentation. Further, most descriptions of supposed digital generation behavior are derived from two sources: observation of innovators and early adopters whose characteristics differ from the population as a whole and from a futuristic interpretation of normal adolescent behaviors. The idea of a Web 2.0 does not designate a technologically superior Web, but a business orientation that leverages existing technologies to take advantage of increased computing power and bandwidth to deliver a variety of consumer participatory services wherein the Web/Internet is the platform and the browser or browser-based software the main interfaces. It is however, the instructional potential of those participatory services that attracts the attention of educators. This chapter has examined the relationship of those two concepts, a digital generation and the Web 2.0, to ascertain whether any meaningful relationship can be found between them that informs instructional practice. Based upon generational theory, preliminary research and established statistical data, the following hypotheses for further study are advanced: The digital generation is not a viable or useful construct on which to base instructional assumptions. Students born within the generational location for the digital generation have too much variation in their technological experience to design sound curriculum or instruction based on common learner technological background knowledge. Students of all ages (generations), such as those likely to be found within teacher education

programs, use Web 2.0 technologies in similar amounts but in different ways. Those differences are tied more closely to life-stage and individual context than to age or generational identification. Age does matter because both context and lifestage can be affected by age, as can background experience. A longitudinal study tracking the use of Web 2.0 technologies over a period of 5-10 years should be conducted to test the hypothesis that web usage patterns change with life-stage. As members of the digital generation location move from undergraduate to graduate and professional life, will their use of Web 2.0 technologies change? Studies to determine which web-based technologies tend to be used by individuals at a given life-stage would be helpful in guiding educators in determining which technologies might best be used to meet the needs of students of different ages and backgrounds. In conclusion, the answer to the question posed in the title of this chapter is: “A little of both.” The digital generation is more media myth than cultural reality but Web 2.0 seems to be very much a legitimate learning concern.

REFERENCES Alanen, L. (2001). Explorations in generational analysis. In L. Alanen & B. Mayall. (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations, (pp. 11-22). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Alch, M. L. (2000). The echo-boom generation: A growing force in American society. The Futurist, 34(5), 42–46. American Library Association. (2007, November). What it means to be born digital. American Libraries, 30(10), 28. Anderson, C. (2000-2001). Survey: The young: Youth inc. The Economist, 357(8202), S9–S10.

109


Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion. Arnett, J. (1995). Adolescents’ uses of media for self-socialisation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 519–534. doi:10.1007/BF01537054 Battelle, J. (2005). The search: How Google and its rivals rewrote the rules of business and transformed our culture. New York: Penguin. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2007). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00793.x Buckingham, D. (2002). The electronic generation? Children and new media. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs, (pp. 77-89). London: Sage. Buckingham, D. (2006). Is there a digital generation? In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital generations: children, young people, and new media, (pp. 1-18). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Carlson, S. (2006). The Net Generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(7), A34. Available on-line at: http://chronicle.com/ weekly/v52/i07/07a03401.htm Chordas, L. (2001). A new generation in the cross hairs. Best’s Review,101(10), 49–54. Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matira, G. N. (2003). Cause-related marketing: How generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6/7), 310–321. doi:10.1108/09590550310476012 Darko, K. L. (1999). A home of their own. American Demographics, 21(9), 35–38.

110

DeVita, G. (2001). Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the multicultural classroom: a business and management perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 165–174. doi:10.1080/14703290110035437 DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Working Paper Series 15, Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton, NJ. Doherty, L. (2005). Where worlds collide and pupils leave teachers behind. Sydney Morning Herald, October 1, 2005. Donnison, S. (2007, October). Digital generation pre-service teachers as change agents: a paradox. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(4), 1–11. Duff, M. (1999). Gen Y comes of age: The 20s. Discount Store News, 38(20), 39, 58. Edmonson, B. (1995). The next baby boom. American Demographics, September. Edmunds, J., & Turner, B. (2002). Generations, culture and society. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Entertainment Software Association (ESA). (2008). Essential facts about games and violence. Retrieved from http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ ESA_EF_Violence_2008.pdf Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong, R., & Sutherland, R. (2003). Screenplay: children and computing in the home. London: Routledge. Frand, J. L. (2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, (SeptemberOctober): 15–24. Fromme, J., Kommer, S., Mansel, J., & Treumann, K. (Eds.). (1999). Selbstozialisation, kinderkultur, und mediennutzung [Self-socialization, children’s culture and mediause.] Opladen, GR: Leske & Budrich.


Gardener, S., & Eng, S. (2005). What students want: Generation Y and the changing function of the academic library. Libraries and the Academy, 5(3), 405–421. doi:10.1353/pla.2005.0034 Garrett, J. J. (2005). AJAX: A new approach to Web 2.0 applications. Adaptive Path, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.adaptivepath.com/ideas/essays/ archives/000385.php Gibbons, S. (2007). Redefining the roles of information professionals in higher education to engage the Net generation. Keynote paper presented at Educause Australasia 2007. Retrieved from http://www.caudit.edu.au/educauseaustralasia07/ authors_papers/Gibbons2.pdf Gilbert, M. (1994). Getting Wired. Boston Sunday Globe, Sept. 18, 1994. Gronbach, K. (2000). Generation Y- not just “kids”. Direct Marketing, 63(4), 36–37. Gros, B. (2003). The impact of digital games in education. First Monday. Retrieved from http:// www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_7/xyzgros/ index.html Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of systems design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39(3), 196–206. doi:10.1080/03634529009378802 Hird, A. (2000). Learning from cyber-savvy students: How Internet-age kids impact classroom teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Holloway, S., & Valentine, G. (2003). Cyberkids: children in the information age. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Holloway, S. L., & Valentine, G. (Eds.). (2000). Children’s geographies and the new social studies of childhood, In Children’s Geographies. London: Routledge.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Internet2. (1996). The Internet2Project. Available on-line at: http://www.internet2.edu Johansson, B. (2004). Generationing in consumer contexts. Göteborg University, Center for Consumer Science. Retrieved from http://ckf.gu.se Johnson, S. (1997). Interface culture: How new technology transforms the way we create and communicate. New York: HarperEdge. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for schools: Engaging in critical thinking, (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Kanter, R. M. (2001). Evolve! Succeeding in the digital culture of tomorrow. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kitchin, R. (1998a). Cyberspace: the world in the wires. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Kitchin, R. (1998b). Towards geographies of cyberspace. Progress in Human Geography, 22, 385–406. doi:10.1191/030913298668331585 Levin, D. J. (2006). This is your brain on music: The science of a human obsession. New York: Plume/Penguin. Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2005). UK children go online: Listening to young people’s experiences. London: London School Economics and Political Science. Livingstone, S., & Bovill, M. (1999). Young people, new media. London: LSE/ICT. Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In Essays in the sociology of knowledge, (pp. 270322). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. McLuhan, M. (1984). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

111


Moallem, M. (2007). Accomodating individual differences in the design of online learning environments: a comparative study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 217–245. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide: A report on the telecommunications and information technology gap in America (1999). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http:// www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/FTTN.pdf Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books. Nelson, T. H. (1992). Opening hypertext: a memoir. In M. C. Tulman, (Ed.). Literacy online, (pp. 43-57). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Nicoletti, B. A., & Merriman, W. (2007, Apr/ May). Teaching millennial generation students. Momentum, 38(3), 29–31. Nussbaum, E. (2007, February). Say Everything: Kids, the Internet and the End of Privacy. New York Magazine, February 12, 2007. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet. com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-isweb-20.html?page=1 Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials. Understanding the new students. EDUCAUSE Review, (July-August): 37–47. Oblinger, D. (2006). Listening to what we’re seeing. Keynote paper presented at ALT–C 2006. Retrieved from http://www.alt.ac.uk/docs/Diana_Oblinger_20060905_25MB_88Mins.mp3 Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE.

112

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books. Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet. Pekala, N. (2001). Conquering the generational divide. Journal of Property Management, November/December, 30-38. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2005). Trends2005. Internet: Mainstreaming of online life. Washington, D.C. Available online at: http:www.pewinternet.org Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital game based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Prensky, M. (2001b, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20 Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Prensky, M. (2001c, December). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20 Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf Prensky, M. (2006). “Don’t bother me Mom— I’m learning!” How computer and video games are preparing your kids for Twenty-first Century success—how you can help!” St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Quitter, J. (1994). The Merry Pranksters go to Washington. Wired magazine, June, 79-81. Rasmussen, K. L. (1998). Hypermedia and learning styles: can performance be influenced? Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 291–308.


Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style and learning from multimedia materials in 11year old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 43–54. doi:10.1111/14678535.00089 Roberts, R., & Strudler, N. (2008, March). Some Attributes of 21st Century Learners in the Online Environment: The Digital Generation and Web 2.0. Paper presented at SITE 2008—Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference to be held in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, March 3-7, 2008. Roberts, R. M. (2002). The role of computers in school restructuring: A meta-analysis. Unpublished Masters thesis, California State University, Fresno. Roberts, R. M. (2007, April). The effective instructional use of computers: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 16-20, 2007. Roberts, R. M., & Strudler, N. (2009, April). The differential use of Web 2.0 technologies by Digital Generation pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 14, 2009. Rodley, C. (2005). Meeting the demands of the Net Gen. UniNews, The University of Sydney, October 28, 2005. Available online at: http://www.usyd. edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=744 Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, fourth edition. New York: The Free Press. Rossetto, L. (1993). Why Wired? Wired (San Francisco, Calif.), 1(1), 2. Rushkoff, D. (1998). Playing the future: How kids’ culture can teach us to thrive in an age of chaos. New York: HarperCollins.

Seidensticker, B. (2006). Future hype: The myths of technology change. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc. Smith, R., & Curtin, P. (1998). Children, computers and life online: education in a cyber-world. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to Screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era, (pp. 185-210). New York: Routledge. Snyder, I. (Ed.). (1998). Page to screen: Taking literary into the electronic era. New York: Routledge. Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1997). The fourth turning: An American prophecy. New York: Broadway Books. Sweeney, R. (2006). Millennial behaviors & demographics. Unpublished paper. New Jersey Institute of Technology. Retrieved June 2, 2008 from http:// library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/Millennials/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.doc Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: the rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio/Penguin. Tsui, B. (2000). Generation next. Advertising Age, 72(3), 14–16. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Turner, F. (2006). From counterculture to cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the rise of digital Utopianism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. U. S. Census Bureau. (2005). Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

113


Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. L. (2002). Cyberkids? Exploring children’s identities and social networks in on-line and off-line worlds. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Association of American Geographers, 92, 302–319. doi:10.1111/1467-8306.00292 Wark, M. (1993, December). Planet of noise: So who are generation X and why are they saying these terrible things about us? Juice, 74-78. Weinberger, D. (1999). The longing, Chapter 2. In C. Locke, D. Searls, & D. Weinberger, (Eds.), The cluetrain manifesto: the end of business as usual, (pp. 39-46). New York: Basic Books. Weiss, M. J. (2000). The demographic investor. American Demographics, 22(12), 48–55. Wilson, E. J. (2000). Closing the Digital Divide: an initial review. Retrieved March 25, 2002 from http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/ ErnestWilson0700.html Yoffee, E. (2007). Facebook for fiftysomethings. Posted Thursday March 8, 2007. Retrieved from Slate.com at http://www.slate.com/id/2161456/ Ziehe, T. (2005 June). Post-detraditionalization: Reflections on a changed life attitude of today’s youth. Plenary presentation at Childhoods 2005 conference, University of Oslo.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Digital Generation: The generation of humans whose generational location places their birth and developmental experiences during a time of widespread access to digital computing technologies and whose exposure to and experience with those technologies led to a technological comfort and expertise with those technologies that surpasses those of prior generations. Web 2.0: A business term coined in 2003 by Dale Daugherty and popularized by Tim O’Reilly

114

that originally referred to the use of the World Wide Web as a platform for delivering business services. Web 2.0 services leverage existing AJAX technologies to facilitate the direct participation of the end user in the service being delivered. The term has since been adopted by educators who focus on the participatory nature of Web 2.0 services as a medium for instruction. AJAX Technologies: An acronym invented by Jesse James Garrett in 2005 for “Asynchronous JavaScript and XML” as a shorthand method for describing the technologies used to design and deliver Web 2.0 services to the end user. E-Learning: A term often used synonymously with distance education, but referring specifically to instruction delivered remotely to learners via electronic media. The most currently prevalent form of e-learning delivery is via the Internet. In e-learning, the instructor and students are separated from each other by distance and, in most cases, by time. The essential components of e-learning are distance, asynchronous as well as synchronous communication and electronic media as a communications mediator Diffusion of Innovations: A model of how innovations are diffused; that is, adopted by members of a specific social system over a period of time. Developed by Everett M. Rogers in 1962. The four elements of the diffusion model are (1) innovation, (2) communication (3) time and (4) social system. The characteristics and percentages of the individuals within any given social system that adopt a given innovation at a given amount of time is remarkably stable in any modern social system Generational Location: A concept and term coined by Karl Mannheim (who is given credit for developing the modern concept of generation) in 1928 that designates the beginning and ending dates for potential inclusion in any given generation. It is a purely theoretical construct. Actualized Generation: A concept developed by Karl Mannheim to designate the actual existence of an identifiable generation for any given


generational location. To become actualized, a generation must meet three criteria (1) shared experiences, (2) the experiences occurred at the same developmental stage (age), and (3) mutually and meaningfully interpreted by the members of the generation that shared the experience Social Networking: A term typically used to describe socialization via electronic media, specifically, but not exclusively, via Internet and cellular telephony-based media. It also refers to the non-electronic process of creating relationships with other individuals that last over time. Typically, for a social network to exist, members of the network must necessarily have mutual relationships with more than just one member of the network, though direct relationships with all members of the network is not required Asynchronous Communication: A term that designates communications between two or more individuals that is separated by the passage of time. Typically, such communication involves separation of the communicants by distance, but that is neither a necessary, nor sufficient condition for asynchronous communication to take place. Examples of asynchronous electronic communication include e-mail and voice mail.

Note that asynchronous communication typically refers to two-way communication, though broadcasting (one-way communication) can also be asynchronous. An example of the latter is radio broadcasting or blogging Synchronous Communication: A term that designates communications between two or more individuals that takes place simultaneously. It is marked by the all communicants being involved in the communications process at the same time, though not necessarily at the same location. Examples of synchronous electronic communication include telephone calls and instant messaging (though the former may take place asynchronously, as well) Digital Divide: A term referring to the unequal access to digital computing technologies by members of a given social system. Access consists of five dimensions identified by DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001): technical means, autonomy of use, patterns of use, social support networks, and requisite skill. Absence of any one of these dimensions constitutes lack of the access necessary to develop expertise in the use of digital computing technologies

115

116

Chapter 7

Adult Learners, E-Learning, and Success:

Critical Issues and Challenges in an Adult Hybrid Distance Learning Program Jeffrey Hsu Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA Karin Hamilton Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA

ABSTRACT Adult learners have a set of specific and unique needs, and are different from traditional college students. Possessing greater maturity, interest in learning, and also career and life-oriented objectives, they have different expectations for their education, as well as different backgrounds and goals. This chapter examines what adult learners are, theories of adult learning, and the applicability of online learning to adult learners. Specific teaching methods and techniques are discussed for online and hybrid distance learning courses, as well as hybrid arrangements; encompassing teaching methods, types of exercises and activities, intensive course structures, block scheduling, and the use of modular course segments. Examples from an adult learner hybrid distance learning undergraduate program, Fairleigh Dickinson University’s Global Business Management, are also provided. Future trends and areas for further research conclude the chapter.

INTRODUCTION While the focus of undergraduate post-secondary education has for many years targeted students who have completed high school, are in their late teens and early 20’s, and are obtaining a degree for their future career, adult students have gained influence and prominence in terms of their rapidly increasing

numbers, and in terms of their characteristics and influence on the educational market. This emerging group of students is becoming a force, and in the not too distant future, likely a majority, of students who enroll in educational programs. These adult students, who for various reasons did not obtain a college degree earlier in their careers and lives, are now becoming an important component of undergraduate student enrollment and recruitment and

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch007


Adult Learners, E-Learning, and Success

are receiving increased attention by educational institutions. Adult learners, categorized as non-traditional students, are fundamentally different from traditional undergraduates. Their backgrounds, needs, orientation, and objectives are unique and can affect the entire realm of teaching, scheduling, student services, and use of technology in education. The objective of this chapter is to examine the various issues, considerations, pedagogical techniques, and challenges which exist when educating adult students. Focus and attention is directed to online and e-learning, especially teaching in a hybrid distance learning environment. Insights and experiences obtained from theory, research, and practice are offered together with actual examples from a program designed to meet the unique learning needs of adults, the Global Business Management (GBM) program offered by the Silberman College of Business (SCB) at Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU). The goal is to provide a comprehensive look at the complex set of issues and considerations which are associated with adult learner students in relation to undergraduate college studies in a hybrid distance learning setting.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ADULT LEARNERS Adult learners comprise a significant portion of a category known as “non-traditional” undergraduate students, which now includes nearly half of all college students in the U.S (Horn, 1996). Some of the core characteristics of non-traditional students are that they delayed enrollment (did not enter college after high school; or started and did not finish), are likely to attend school part time, have full-time jobs and careers, and are likely to be married with dependents (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Other related, but proportionately smaller populations may also be

included in the non-traditional student category; such as older adults returning to the workforce (and college) as well as those who may have retired from a position and are seeking new careers in different areas. In contrast to the stereotypical undergraduate student who enrolls in college as the next logical step after high school, 73% of adult non-traditional students attend college for the purposes of career advancement, to improve their knowledge in a subject area, and/or to complete a degree to add to their credentials (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). These aspects help to categorize adult learners as a specialized population, together with their educational need for current, relevant and technically oriented content, and their goals of career development and mastery of practical (and accompanying conceptual/theoretical) skills. Many adult students are or were previously employed full-time and therefore understand that higher education is not only desirable, but necessary in today’s highly competitive global economy. In fact, many jobs which will be available in the future will require higher-level cognitive skills that only a portion of current workers possess (U.S. Department of Labor, 1999). Because the global economy has placed new demands on both workers and the workplace, the goals of adult students can differ significantly from those of 18 to 21 year old students. Adult students frequently bring to the classroom a number of positive qualities including enthusiasm and a genuine desire to learn, selfdirectedness, a desire to have an immediate application of learned material, a strong practical emphasis, and the ability to gain experiences related to new learning. Adult students tend to be more active in class participation, are eager and more engaged to learn for the enrichment of their careers and lives in general, and can better make use of real-life application when approaching their academic studies (Merriam, 2001; Knowles, 1984). Much of this is related to their previous work experience, and also to their goals

117


of personal and professional advancement. Adult students tend to exhibit higher levels of practical emphasis, self-directedness, and to have stronger critical thinking skills. Of particular significance, adult learners were found to operate more on the level of dialectic and contextual relativism, rather than the lower level skills of multiplicity and dualism (Espana, 2004). They possess the ability to engage in and prefer course activities which emphasize problem solving, decision making, collaboration, practical application, and active learning. (Merriam, 2001; Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998). It is also likely that adult students have incomplete, interrupted, and/or negative educational histories, which may have contributed to their decision to leave school earlier in life. Some may possess a less than adequate educational background, and associated learning and study skills may also be lacking (Merriam, 2001). Another challenge faced by adult learners is the tendency to be constrained by time and scheduling limitations. Daytime class attendance is usually not feasible and the amount of time which can be devoted to attending class and completing coursework must be carefully budgeted.

ADULT LEARNING THEORIES AND THE NEEDS OF ADULT LEARNERS The body of theoretical knowledge relative to adult learning provides insights and perspectives that help distinguish their needs from those of traditional undergraduate students. By aligning certain expectations, goals and objectives of adult learners (provided in italics below) with theories that support these distinctions, a clearer picture of the educational needs of adult learners can emerge. Adults are practical and focus on aspects of a lesson most useful to them in their work. Adults have accumulated a foundation of life experiences

118

and knowledge that may include work-related activities, family responsibilities, and previous education. They need to connect learning to this knowledge/experience base. Adults need to understand clearly the purpose and rationale of learning something, tend to take much greater responsibility for their own lives, have an enthusiasm and eagerness to learn, and are life-centered rather than problem- or task-centered (Knowles, 1980; Frey & Alma, 2003). The importance of a topic for managing certain kinds of life situations and career scenarios should be emphasized, as adults do not always value learning without practical application and a meaningful rationale. Students should be encouraged to bring out their knowledge in the form of experiences and examples to share with the class, whether in the classroom or in some online medium (discussion board, group discussions, etc.) (Frey & Alma, 2003). Adults view learning as a means to an end, not an end in itself.Cercone (2008) and Lowry (1989) advanced the concept that adults are able to initiate and study/learn a subject without requiring or seeking extensive help from others. This quality of being self-directed; that is more independent, persistent, self-confident and attentive to organization, contrasts with the dependency typically observed in younger, traditional undergraduates. Adult learners tend to be less interested in survey courses. They tend to prefer single concept, single-theory courses that focus heavily on the application of the concept to relevant problems. Andragogy, or the concepts and principles concerned with teaching and educating adults (Knowles, 1980), determined that adults want to relate what they have learned to their work and careers. Moreover, aspects of adult learning can be broken down into certain components, including the need to build a reservoir of knowledge, orientation towards developing social roles, moving toward self-direction, and also emphases on immediate application and problem-centeredness (Knowles, 1977).


Adults need to be able to integrate new ideas with what they already know if they are going to keep - and use - the new information. Information that conflicts sharply with what is already held to be true, and thus forces a re-evaluation of the old material, is integrated more slowly. Transformative learning theory can be useful in understanding what might be a point of epiphany or of frustration for instructors teaching adult students. According to the theory, students can be transformed by the learning process, so that after learning, they may approach a task, subject, or skill, from a different perspective than previously. When transformative learning occurs, the person “sees the world differently,” and can better understand things having new perspective and insight. Closely related is the concept of critical reflection, in that reflection can help to bring about new perspectives in the learner (Cercone, 2008; Frey & Alman, 2003; Mezirow, 1997). The theory of perspective transformation (Mezirow, 1990), focuses on change in the learner which comes about through the process of critical reflection and a changing of viewpoints and perspectives from which one views aspects of the world. An example of this might be a student’s view on technology, which could start by being resistant and negative, but after further discovery of computing power and capability, can change to a new sense of appreciation. Adults tend to have a problem-centered orientation to learning and generally want to immediately apply new information or skills to current problems or situations. The principle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) can address this educational preference by emphasizing experience, reflection, conceptualization, followed by action generating a dynamic cycle progressing from one stage to the next. There are a number of different exercises and activities which can come under this classification, and while relevant to adult learners, some believe it should not be the primary focus of adult learning but only one component of it (Brookfield, 1995).

Because adults are goal-directed, they appreciate a learning experience that is clearly defined, well organized, and with goals and objectives centered on their interests, careers, and expectancies. Adults require clear statements of expectations, an understanding of how their work will be graded and evaluated, and prompt and regular feedback (Frey & Alman, 2003). An important application of Knowles’s theory is that feedback, flexibility, and control are most appreciated. This includes receiving timely evaluations and being able to understand the value in, and level of, what they are learning, together with flexible schedules and formats. Although it is understood that some courses have topics which are recommended and required for all, it would be best to offer some flexibility (type of application, case to review, project options, etc.) avoiding a “one size fits all” arrangement (Frey & Alman, 2003). Removing obstacles to learning helps increase persistence and motivation for adults. The fact that learning is only one aspect of adult lives, and is intertwined with work and family responsibilities should be recognized (Knowles, 1977). McClusky (1963) offers a useful perspective on balancing work/school demands called the theory of margin. What is known as a student’s margin for learning is a function of both load and power (M=L/P). In other words, learning is affected by a student’s life roles and demands, together with one’s power (or resources/abilities). Learning can occur when the right balance of external life demands can be met by the existing power or resource level. Several concepts address the need to remove obstacles and provide time economies and balance. The ability to chunk and group information into modules and learning units is invaluable, since it helps to structure the material, and also provides students with logical starting and stopping points in completing their work. When courses within a sequence or a program are organized with wellstructured and consistent formats, then adults would be able to better appreciate the relationships between subjects, or between different

119


approaches. (Frey & Alma, 2003; Stilborne & Williams, 1996). Administrative areas that complement the learning experience can also impact the ability of adult learners to balance their work/life/ educational demands. Many adult students, given that they attend class on evenings, and especially weekends, may receive less support than daytime and weekday evening students. This includes support for technical issues and problems, additional help and tutoring for certain subjects, support for cohorts and groups, and also administrative needs (advising, registration, etc.) (Frey & Alman, 2003). While not technically in the realm of the classroom, educators need to be aware that adult learning can be negatively impacted out of the frustrations borne from poorly conceived scheduling and/or inaccessible services. In reviewing the diverse theories on adult learning, the main focus should be on the fact that adult learning requirements differ fundamentally from those of younger students. To be effective, a holistic approach targeted towards adults’ specific needs to be implemented when designing courses and programs.

E-LEARNING AND ADULT LEARNING The use of technology in the teaching and learning process is becoming increasingly commonplace, especially in business, sciences, and related fields. Development has been rapid, with considerable choice and variability in terms of online education, ranging from fully online courses, degrees, and programs, to those which use a hybrid (classroom/ online) approach, and those which use course management systems and portals primarily to support courses which meet regularly in a classroom (Ahn, Han & Han, 2005). While there has been a great deal written and discussed about the applicability of online and distance learning to the various kinds of students,

120

programs, and course content, the objective in this section is to examine research which can shed light into the methods that would work best for adult learners (Martyn & Bash, 2002). Distance learning (which is related to online and e-learning) can be defined as students using computing and communications technologies, interactivity, and also asynchronous communications to learn remotely, without the need for face-to-face class sessions (Beck et al, 2004; Wahlstrom, Williams, & Shea, 2003). The relevance of online and distance learning to adults is directly related to the nature of adult students, who can take advantage of the benefits of both flexibility and asynchronous communications. Although adults are more time constrained, they tend to demonstrate higher levels of motivation and persistence towards completing their courses and programs. From this perspective, it appears that distance learning provides an ideal option, since it allows for “anytime, anywhere” communications, the ability to log in at all hours and at one’s own convenience, and is appropriate for students who exhibit a higher level of selfdirection, focus, and initiative (Chaffee, 1998). Unlike traditional classroom structures where classes are conducted in real-time using lectures, discussions, and activities, distance learning is conducted without the instructor and students necessarily being online at the same time. While some real-time activities can be supported through virtual chat rooms, white boards, and other facilities, the most common usage is for students and instructors to communicate through threaded discussions, message boards, e-mail, and some kind of online Internet-based portal or course management system (CMS). These can be educational tools such as Blackboard or WebCT, through a customized website, or some other kind of communications system (Martyn & Bash, 2002). Hybrid distance learning, which includes both classroom sessions and online communications in the course, provides another option. Classroom sessions are scheduled intermittently, and coordi-


nated so that the online interaction forms a type of “virtual classroom” extension where significant interaction can occur. When implemented properly, the ability for closer, personal interaction in class can be enhanced, and also extended outside of the classroom (Martyn & Bash, 2002). An example of this can be found in the Global Business Management (GBM) program offered at the Silberman College of Business at Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU). The courses in this program, which are designed for adult undergraduate business students, were structured to combine both face-to-face classes (Friday evenings and weekends) and extensive support using a course management system (Blackboard). This design feature encourages primary interaction to occur in the classroom and then extends interaction outside the classroom online to establish rapport between the instructor and the students, and also among the students. The use of online learning therefore ensures that communication and collaboration continues throughout the duration of the course, fostering development of a learning community. (Hamilton, 2002) Online learning meets several needs of adult learners previously identified, including selfdirected learning, flexibility and motivation. Generally more independent, adults seek an online environment which supports their desire for a more “take-charge” approach that allows self-resolution of problems. This is in contrast to more dependent learners who rely heavily on their instructor to focus and direct their learning. In connection with self-direction is the need for flexibility, an integral component of online learning, and one of its desired benefits. Adults who have work and family obligations can adapt well to the asynchronous nature of online interaction. Greater interest and desire for online interaction is related both to the greater work hours and a student’s distance from campus (Perez Cerijo, 2006). Online learning has drawbacks in that it has been found to have a high attrition level, sometimes as high as 70% or more (Flood, 2002;

Tyler-Smith, 2006). The causes of these problems are often linked to a lack of internal motivation, especially if online course components and lessons are not properly designed (such as lessons using only typed lecture notes and/or pages of mainly theoretical and conceptual material). The concepts of andragogy would not be met, and there would be low completion and satisfaction rates. However, these can be better met through improving usability, self-direction, authentic activities, collaboration, and critical reflection.

E-LEARNING TECHNIQUES THAT ADDRESS ADULT LEARNING NEEDS To address the inherent challenge of high e-learning attrition, it is useful to review technical considerations as well as those issues and methodologies which address applicability to and needs of adult learner students using online and distance learning. Improvements in the online experience could first be realized through objectively assessing and enhancing technical aspects of course delivery. While this may seem to be a minor issue, the structure of the online course could have a major impact on the effectiveness of the online segment of the course. Proper course design assessment should include a review of the overall usability and design of screens (user interface design), as the effects of poor usability can affect learning, satisfaction, and the desire for students to take further courses in their program or in an online modality. Taking into account technological limitations can also help, such as avoiding the display of too much text on a single screen or graphics which take too much time to load up on a page. Instructors who are employing an online course module or segment may need to consult with an instruction designer or do some usability testing/review before employing new online course materials. While the effective use of graphics, charts and tables can aid learning, the improper or overuse of these can produce information overload (Hiltz

121


& Turoff, 1985) and actually reduce learning because there is too much information, often improperly structured, for a student to absorb. Effective and clear navigation, proper consideration of accessibility, and the use of multimedia can help to maintain interest and increase learning, especially when human memory aspects are taken into account. The cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Clark and Mayer, 2003) describes how learning can be enhanced or diminished using multimedia elements. Since humans have two information processing channels, visual and auditory, it is important that the material presented complements rather than competes with each channel. When there is too much text on a screen, or when audio and text are presented simultaneously, but do not support each other, learning declines. Similarly, students can be distracted from learning when the use of unrelated music, sound effects, or secondary material is presented with the main material. Another technical issue frequently faced by online instructors is that there is need when instructing adult learners to emphasize critical tasks over those which are more routine and easily presented online. The most critical tasks, however, are typically the most difficult to model or represent online. It is easy, for example, to put text up on a screen, but far more challenging to create multimedia presentations which explain complex tasks (Powers, 2005). So, it may be useful to decide which aspects of a course would best be presented in class and which would be designed for online delivery. Reviews by faculty and students prior to deployment would also be helpful to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement. One means of providing those learning a new method, technique, or skill, is to offer, aside from exercises, worked-out examples and demonstrations which can help a student to better understand the specific steps in that kind of problem solving. This focus on strategies and skills can be helpful to improve a student’s confidence in attempting

122

to solve a problem on his or her own (Powers, 2005).

Self Direction and Adult Online Learning The need for self-direction in their studies is of paramount importance to adult students, given their limited campus and classroom time and also because most of their time is spent off campus. The definition of self-direction can be described as being “active participants in their own learning process” (Zimmerman, 2001). In other words, these students take initiative and actually work toward formulating their own learning goals, select materials for learning, and also select strategies for solving a problem (Knowles, 1975). Feedback from students in a study of adult online learners appear to favor independent learning without extensive guidance and instructor presence. However, the need for an instructor to guide and coach students through the learning and also to provide meaningful examples for the concepts and topics presented appear to be important components to effective self-directed online course activities (Young, 2006). While there is definitely a need for adult students studying online to exhibit self-direction and work independently, feedback is also critical to the learning process (Knowles at al., 1998). Instructors should be mindful of the need to allow adult learners to pursue various aspects of their learning in a self-directed manner, however also remembering that feedback and guiding/ coaching is both needed and expected.

Authentic Activities As mentioned previously, adult learners do not seek strictly factual and conceptual learning, but rather, a combination of concepts, theory, and application which can help to enhance their lives and careers. Therefore, it is suggested that authentic activities be assigned to adult learners especially with constructivist approaches in mind.


Reeves, Herrington, and Oliver (2002) argue for the development of authentic classroom activities, which tend to move away from teachercentered “instructivist” approaches in favor of those which emphasize constructivist types of teaching and learning. The traditional concept is that instructional activities are designed with the purpose of providing a means for practice and that repeated and successful practice brings about mastery of a skill. In connection with this, learning happens when skills are taught and presented in a logical structure, order, or method. This more traditional, behaviorist approach, is geared towards specific performance as is required when using objective evaluation methods. This is contrasted to the constructivist approach, which is more in line with authentic activities. It is suggested that authentic activities are those kinds which are complex, constructive, and collaborative, used to solve more real-life, application-oriented, and “authentic” problems. Of particular relevance to this is the contribution of collaboration through groups, where the minds of several work together to solve a problem rather than providing an emphasis on individual learning (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2002). There are a number of key aspects and characteristics of authentic learning, including the need to have real-world relevance, to tackle ill-defined and complex tasks, to provide students the means to de-compose a large problem into smaller steps, and to use various kinds of tools and resources in problem-solving. Collaboration, the integration of values and beliefs, and the need to integrate across different topic and subject areas, are also important aspects of authentic activities. Ideally, authentic activities should be effectively linked with assessment, have outcomes which can be applied more universally rather than for a specific domain, and be able to emphasize diversity and value (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2002). The role of exercises and practice problems would be to help reinforce the concepts taught. In general, online sessions should include more, rather than

less, practice problems and exercises than face-toface classes. It is better to integrate practice and exercises into a lesson, rather than make it something which follows afterwards. Proper practice should include directions, questions, feedback, and responses (Clark & Mayer, 2003). The use of online and e-learning technologies would help to supplement the development and implementation of authentic learning, in that the Internet and online portals can provide support for a number of the features inherent in authentic learning activities. These include support by providing a wealth and diversity of resources, such as multimedia tools (documents, graphics, video, links, etc.).

Collaboration Another important aspect is to allow students to work as a team, whether by group e-mail, discussion board, real-time chat interaction, or by providing workspaces where documents and other working deliverables and items can be shared. The ability to use hyperlinks and other non-linear navigation through a set of resources allows students to follow a thought or idea more effectively than the linear approach inherent in most printed and traditional resources. The ability to publish information using weblogs, or to have a group collaboratively edit, modify, and update information using wikis would be helpful. These could help to promote more critical reflection and thought, and also to perhaps bring in the thoughts, ideas, and critiques by both external experts as well as the course instructor. The fact that the Internet is easily accessible helps to enable time-challenged adults to contribute and participate at times more suitable to them, since most interaction is asynchronous, online, and does not require travel as in a FTF meeting. Collaborative learning is defined as “working in a group of two or more to achieve a common goal, while respecting each individual’s contribution to the whole (McInnerney & Robert, 2004). Higher levels of achievement, connections, and

123


positive psychological factors arise from the collaborative approach, rather than from a competitive or individual approach. (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Smith, 1995). Benefits also include higher order thinking, socialization, and the ability to engage in critical thinking (Jegede, 2002; Schultz, 2003). Reduced anxiety, increased levels of student feedback, and greater levels of reflection have also been observed. Since collaborative group work is frequently assigned online, it would be useful to examine the work by An et al. (2008) who outlined the factors which contribute to and detract from effective group work. Factors contributing to effective group online collaboration include the need for individual accountability, whereby each member feels responsible for contributing to the team’s output, rather than “social loafing”, i.e. letting others do it. There should also be a sense of camaraderie within the group, promoting the ability to come to a consensus without diminishing the contributions of anyone, obtaining clear instructions about a project or assignment from the instructor, and also selecting a proactive team leader who can manage the group and produce positive results and outcomes (McInnerney & Robert, 2004). Negative factors include predominance of technical problems, unclear guidelines from the instructor, inability to come to a team consensus, difficulties in communicating through writing (which is the primary format for much of online communications), and lack of accountability on the part of individuals in the group (McInnerney & Robert, 2004). Discussion forums play a dominant role in online and distance learning as the primary means for dialog and communication. They generally offer threaded discussions so that the various topics, replies, and interactions evolve and are managed in an organized manner. In support of adult learning, discussion forums encourage discourse, and ultimately learning among participants, and can help to build learning communities (Garrison,

124

2003). Discussion is certainly an effective learning format from the perspective of andragogy (Knowles, 1990), critical evaluation of ideas, and the creation of new ideas (Bloom, 1956). The advantages of using discussion forums can also facilitate learning new ideas by relating concepts to previous knowledge (Anderson & Garrison, 1995), and, in fact, many aspects of what makes face-to-face discussions effective can also be found in online discussions (Hiltz, 1990). The ability to collaborate and discuss also brings about results in learning which are claimed to be superior to those trying to learn a topic alone because of the social aspect (Vygotsky, 1978). Since adults bring a wealth of personal experience to a course, it can be suggested that discussions with a group of adult learners is an especially useful means of sharing knowledge and allowing all members to learn (Kramlinger & Huberty, 1990). Some of the problems inherent in discussion forums include the lack of visual clues and body languages which are easily noted in face-to-face meetings. In addition, students who are less outgoing may not participate actively in discussions because of timidity, lack of interest or knowledge on the subject, or inability to express oneself clearly in writing (Nonnecke & Preece, 2001). Allowing for anonymous participation, and assigning credit or grades for participation has been found to have a positive impact on participation rates.

PROGRAM AND STRUCTURAL APPROACHES TO ADULT LEARNER EDUCATION One of the first areas of improvement made by schools seeking to address adult learner needs focused on removing administrative obstacles often confronted by adult students. Many programs began to offer evening and weekend hours for classes, advisement, bursar, and various other service functions; direct assistance with financial aid; online registration; and even babysitting.


Improvements in program and course structure to help adult learners better manage the learning process and their educational programs might be considered as a next step. The techniques discussed below involve the use of intensive courses, block course scheduling, and the presentation of course material using modules. The underlying reasons why these methods can and would be helpful to adult students are explained relevant to theories and previous research. Most traditional courses operate using the semester or quarter system, in which class sessions are held in a similar schedule throughout the course duration. While this is likely to be the most common format, and works for many types of students and classes, adults typically have limited time to devote to class and academic work, and are generally more available to attend class on evenings and weekends. This frequently increases the length of time needed for them to complete an undergraduate degree to sometimes twice as long. One solution is to use what is known as the intensive or compressed course format. Simply put, this is the structure where courses meet for longer periods of time each meeting, from a few hours to the length of an entire business day so that the entire a course is completed in a shorter timeframe, such as 4 to 8 weeks. Compressed formats allow for more prompt completion, while at the same time increasing the level of course intensity. Since the material in a 16 week course is taught and completed within the span of a few weeks, there are greater demands placed on both the instructor and the students during the limited time the course is running (Daniel, 2000; Scott & Conrad, 1991). The concept of intensive courses is not new to education as it is used both for summer session courses as well as for certain graduate programs where the goal is to appeal to students who can only attend classes outside of daytime hours . There have been discussions about the pedagogical soundness of intensive courses. Students tend to prefer this format, since it allows for

more prompt course and degree completion, and offers convenience for some, as it is easier to attend several weekend day-long classes, than to attend for two or three hours over a span of sixteen weeks. Some faculty and educators, however, tend to regard this approach as nothing more than an attempt to satisfy students’ desires for faster completion and greater convenience, while at the same time causing a decline in academic learning and standards. Concerns include claims that there is insufficient time for students to absorb the material, the fact that instructors may tend to teach less because of the short course duration, and that overall learning would suffer in the interests of expediency. Surprisingly, this usually is not the case with intensive courses. In fact, research comparing the learning outcomes of students taking intensive compared to traditional length courses found that those who took the intensive version had equal, and in some cases better performance than those using traditional semester-long scheduling (Serdyukov et al, 2003). How can this be true? It may be attributed to the fact that students taking an accelerated course are able to devote more focused, concentrated study time, allowing for deeper investigation of a certain topic or subject. Because of the short course duration, class meetings are frequently supplemented by distance learning, e-mail, and other means to continue the learning process outside of the classroom. Intensive courses are typically scheduled back-to-back rather than concurrently, so that students need to meet one set of instructor preferences and address only one set of classroom procedures that accompany course delivery, such as the course timetable and required submittals. This is in contrast to traditional scheduling where multiple courses are taken concurrently and thus force separate and contrasting requirements. The results of these include better development and learning of concepts and skills, together with a higher level of concentration and immersion

125


(Csikszentmihalyi, 1982; Espana, 2004; Scott & Conrad, 1992). A separate technique related to intensive courses is block scheduling. As previously discussed, the concept of presenting courses which meet in compressed time formats can improve immersion, retention, and learning for adult students. The use of blocked time formats combined with an intensive course schedule can also help to improve the learning process by allowing sufficient time for a greater variety of teaching methods and activities to be employed. Other benefits of block scheduled courses is that there are generally better relationships among students, improved rapport between students and the course instructor, and also higher levels of academic achievement overall (Canady & Rettig, 1995; Cawelti, 1994; Gaubatz, 2003; Hotterstein & Malatesta, 1993; O’Neil, 1995; Reid, 1995) . One particularly useful technique in block scheduling is to arrange courses so that there is a logical sequence within a given subject area—i.e. to follow certain, perhaps prerequisite courses with those that require the previous knowledge in order to fully grasp the content. By utilizing the same instructor to teach in logical sequence a set of core or foundation courses followed by courses that apply knowledge, a dynamic could be created whereby understanding of the material is developed more gradually and flows from one course to the next. In addition, blocking courses in this manner builds cohorts for that given subject. The second course could be used to reinforce, challenge or build upon concepts introduced in the first. Time savings could be realized in that students would be able to devote less time to learning instructor preferences and more time to learning content. Instructors would benefit from knowing the academic strengths and weaknesses of students and could immediately customize content of the second course to maximize overall mastery of the subject. An example where this technique is useful can be found in the Statistics I and II sequence of the GBM program. Taught by the same instructor,

126

Statistics I centers on developing facility in basic statistics, allocating time primarily to practice and reinforcement. Course content for Statistics II focuses on the use of statistics in business and in the media, deconstructing the use of statistics within an argument and how conclusions could differ under various statistical approaches. Another application of this technique involves the structuring of course material into modules which emphasize a certain task, skill, or concept. Instead of looking at material in terms of broad subjects comprised of various theories, facts, and concepts, adults would benefit from having content packaged into modular, structured learning units. These units would have a specific sequence of readings, activities, discussion, and exercises so that not only is the theoretical and conceptual knowledge gained, but also practical application on a realistic problem or task (Dillenbourg et al., 1996; Hafner & Ellis, 2004; Sloffer et al, 1999). One example of modular course material structuring is the GIL (Guided Independent Learning) module concept used in the courses taught in FDU’s GBM program. Carefully structured, GIL modules are focused toward a specific application, skill, or learning outcome. Background readings and materials are included to build foundation knowledge. A multi-step exercise which emphasizes problem solving and managing complex real-life scenarios follows in which students are required to work independently. Examination, discussion and evaluation typically forms the third step whereby the instructor supplies additional understanding, closes knowledge gaps, and challenges the understanding of relevant themes and concepts (Hamilton, 2002).

NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR ADULT LEARNING The fast growth of the Internet, World Wide Web, course portals, and course management systems has greatly changed the face of education. A revo-


lution of sorts is taking place as educators grapple with how best to deploy these new resources to support the learning process. The need is especially critical in various scientific and technical subject areas where the use of technology in the workplace is commonplace and ever-evolving, and in business, which is undergoing similar decision points regarding how much and when to adopt new technologies. As a result, new technologies and tools, such as Web 2.0, and also social networking are rapidly being implemented into the classroom. While there is overlap between these two categories, it can be more convenient to think of Web 2.0 incorporating such tools as weblogs, instant messaging, wikis, and podcasts, and social networking encompassing Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. Weblogs, or blogs as they are commonly referred, have been around for a number of years and were first used as a tool for individual expression. This is a kind of website where a user can offer an ongoing, continually updated diary-like presentation of information, which can then be responded to asynchronously by readers and members of the blog’s community. Having grown in stature, they are now used as a tool for information dissemination as well as for eliciting public response. The advantages of weblogs are that they allow for instant and dynamic publishing, enable someone to keep an ongoing discussion stream operating, and also allow for replies and feedback from readers and members of the blog (Flatley, 2005; Wagner, 2004). Weblogs are best utilized when there are materials which can be presented or “published” such as a report, essay, or analysis of a case or problem. Serving as a catalyst for ongoing discussion and critique, weblogs can create a collaborative work environment that allows critical reflection and analysis to occur. Blogging is well suited to adult learners because it provides the ability to publish and share information, opinions, and materials with other users. While improper use of the technology could

result in “uncritical ranting,” (Mason, 2006), if discussion is supervised and kept on track, blogs can be a useful tool to meet many adult learner preferences. Opportunities for critical reflection on material being studied, online peer reviews and commenting, and sharing of workplace experiences can all be enhanced through blogging. Wikis, which come from the Hawaiian word “wiki wiki” meaning fast, are yet another tool that when properly deployed, can enhance course-related communications, collaboration and sharing. What is unique about wikis is that not only can a certain document be made available publically to others and on the Internet, but that all contributors and viewers are allowed to edit and to add/delete from the shared document. Online collaboration, subject to certain rules and customs expected for that particular wiki, is built-in (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001). The additional learning benefit provided when using wikis is that groups working on a common submittal must arrive at a consensus regarding the review process and also in determining which revisions are to be kept. Instant messaging (IM) has been in use for quite some time primarily for casual communications between persons which can be conducted in realtime, eliminating the time lag and asynchronous nature inherent in e-mails. Because it enables quick, informal communication without the need for excessive formality, the technology has been embraced by business. Although this tool had mixed results for classroom use, it would appear to be an ideal communication means for collaborative adult student groups working on a specific project (Kinzie, Whitaker, & Hoffer, 2005). Podcasts can also be beneficial, and their use resulting in positive outcomes for adult learner students where repetition is helpful in aiding understanding or comprehension. These are audio and video files which have been produced for playback by the instructor and contain recordings of lectures, supplemental materials, review sessions, and other relevant course information. These are recorded and playable on a computer or

127


handheld device such as iPods and MP3 players (Lim, 2005; Lum, 2006). Social networking tools are quickly becoming ubiquitous. Because of the widespread use of these kinds of tools, their popularity and availability, and the fact that younger students are familiar with these tools, it should be considered whether these can be employed in adult learner classes. It also should be remembered that many adult students did not grow up with many of these technologies as have many of their younger undergraduate counterparts. Closing the technology gap in this area may therefore prove to be quite useful to the adult student who is seeking a degree with the goal of learning more current tools and techniques. The use of blogs, wikis, podcasts, and social networking would be useful to adult learners, because of the need for various means to support both constructivist approaches to learning, and also to bring about greater collaboration, sharing, and interactive activities such as “peer reviews” and the like. While the applicability of these tools may vary according to the course, subject, and specific activity, in general these can help support learning and should be considered as a part of the “toolbox” of possible resources. This clearly is an area that deserves more emphasis and attention, because of the rapid pace in which technology changes are occurring and also because mastery of these technologies helps learners develop facility in all aspects of information gathering.

THE FDU GLOBAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT (GBM) PROGRAM A downturn in enrollment of adult non-traditional students in the undergraduate part-time business program at the Silberman College of Business (Fairleigh Dickinson University, New Jersey, USA) prompted the need to explore the reasons for attrition and to develop an appropriate remedy. Focus groups revealed that adults were de-motivated by a learning environment geared to younger

128

students, the length of time needed to complete an undergraduate degree, course scheduling that was random and frequently out of alignment with work and family responsibilities, and the lack of financial aid for part-time study. In consideration of these needs, a program was designed to allow adult students to pursue and earn a college degree through a “hybrid” approach using both face-to-face classes and web-based distance learning. Intensive courses geared to the strengths and interests of adult students were offered in a block schedule format and supported by a standardized e-learning structure. GBM students were required to have a minimum of 2 or 3 years full-time business work experience so that they could contribute real-life examples to share with others when undergoing coursework. The overall goal was to combine the advantages of both technology and classroom interaction into the educational experience. Courses were slotted on Friday evenings and Saturdays during the day to accommodate work schedules, and structured in modules designed so that GBM students would take no more than 3 courses at any given time within each semester. Where possible, courses in the same subject area were scheduled sequentially under the guidance of the same professor. This provided an opportunity for GBM students to immerse themselves in a topic and for professors to carry over and reinforce key concepts from the first course into the second. One of the cornerstones of the GBM program was the development and adoption of Guided Independent Learning (GIL) modules. This outcomebased approach requires students to receive and understand the requirements and components of a given assignment, use textbooks and other secondary sources to complete the assignment and also use asynchronous conferencing (i.e. Blackboard) to pose questions and provide answers to other students (and the instructor) while working on the assignment. Students frequently work in teams to share knowledge and improve submissions. Effective use of asynchronous conferencing is


fundamental to the proper implementation of GIL modules and is used by the instructor to monitor student progress, clarify the requirements of an assignment, point to additional resources to help students complete the assignment, prompt or participate in student discussions, provide encouragement or challenge student opinions to bring about a change in perspective. Other e-learning tools are being explored to enrich resources available to the “independent learner,” such as podcasts to introduce a particularly challenging concept, and blogs to provide a forum for discussion and reflection. Class time is utilized for presentation and sharing of work, and also lecturing by the professor to close knowledge gaps that emerge or to elevate thinking to the next level. Armed with new knowledge, students typically are required to demonstrate mastery of a concept by resubmitting an improved assignment, writing a retrospective, or completing additional work to build upon what was learned. An example of a GIL module underscores how the principles of adult learning with e-learning are combined. ENGL 1101 College Writing Workshop is a required first semester course in the GBM program and focuses on moving students to a higher-order level of thinking required to successfully complete college-level work by building analytical writing skills. One assignment requires students to find and email to the instructor using the conferencing feature in Blackboard, a workrelated article having unfamiliar subject matter, challenging vocabulary, or an advanced writing style. After some asynchronous discussion, an article is selected by the instructor which students are required to read prior to class. During class, they are challenged by the instructor to explain/ evaluate/ question critically what was written. The instructor uses the opportunity to connect the learning to aspects in one’s life and work by lecturing for example, on the value of basing decisions on facts vs. opinion. After the class, students conduct Internet-based research and

post additional examples found in the workplace of decisions devoid of proper fact-gathering and the results that ensued. As a final step, students individually write a retrospective on the module, using the examples posted to factually back their impressions/opinions. Utilizing GIL modules meets many adult learning goals and preferences. Learning is focused on mastery of a single skill, yet provides flexibility and self-direction in how the learning might be approached. A constructivist approach is used in that authentic real-life, real-time examples form the foundation of the assignment, and collaboration brought into play for discussion and for building a shared “resource bank” to draw upon and help deepen the understanding of all student participants. The iterative process whereby the student first works independently, then collaboratively, and then independently helps to foster critical reflection and, in some cases, perceptual transformation. One can envision where e-learning tools can supplement and improve delivery of content using GIL-based modules, although this area is new to GBM instructors and not yet fully developed. However, some possible next steps could include use of podcasts to demonstrate a comparison between data-driven and opinion-based decisionmaking, and incorporation of blogs that require contributors to practice fact-based arguments. By standardizing the use of GIL modules and reaching agreement on a standard set of protocols for setting up course content on Blackboard, communication with instructors and fellow students, and assignment delivery, instructors in the GBM program worked together to help remove technological barriers. Newly enrolled students were trained in the protocols during program orientation and typically got up to speed quickly, thus conserving instructor time. While much work remains to be done, especially in the area of incorporating new technology, students in the GBM program have reported a high level of satisfaction in the value of the education

129


received and appreciation for the methods used to help them persist in earning a degree.

CONCLUSION/SUMMARY The educational market of the 21st century is dynamic and changing, and adult learners are becoming a key growth sector in university programs. Because of their maturity, professional background, and life experience, the teaching of adult students should be different from that of traditional students (characterized mainly by those who attend after high school, and are younger and generally lack professional and extensive life experience). Learning theories attest to the fact that adult learners are fundamentally different from traditional university students and would benefit from the employment of different teaching, learning and e-learning approaches. Earlier in this paper, the characteristics of adult learners, theories on andragogy, goal-directedness, practical application, experiential learning, and integration/transformation were discussed. In addition, critical reflection and collaboration were reported in research as methods which can help to enhance the educational experience of adult students. These theories underscore the importance for instructors who teach adults of moving away from pedagogical approaches (teaching children) toward andragogical methods (teaching adults). In alignment with this, a number of techniques were introduced which have been found to contribute to an effective adult learning experience in the areas of course and program structure, classroom techniques, and online learning methods. E-learning can be used to greater effectiveness in educating adult learners. Because many of them are experienced in using technology at work, adults would have fewer problems engaging in the self-directed, independent learning required to successfully complete online activities. Course and program structure is another key element to consider. The modular approach to

130

adult learning appears to be well-suited to adults who have found it very helpful to have linked assignments and resources presented in a structured manner. A review of student experiences in the GBM program at FDU indicated that adult students were quite satisfied with the program, especially in comparison to previous experiences where they attended traditional courses with younger undergraduate students. Students in the program who completed either questionnaires or were interviewed confirmed they did seek practical, application-oriented, and career-focused courses. Some reported that they especially liked the fact that instructors were aware that GBM students brought reserves of knowledge to the classroom which they were encouraged to draw from, (critically) reflect on, and apply to new situations in their course work. Because of the emphasis on project-based learning which drew upon real-life situations in many GBM courses, the goals of practicality, critical thinking, and perspective transformation were met. This provided opportunities for students to approach a challenging problem, think through various issues and possible solutions, or to prepare arguments in support of a position. For instance, creating an online marketing campaign as a course project in a (GBM) marketing course was deemed to be far more than useful and meaningful than memorizing concepts and terms from a textbook for recall on an exam. E-learning was found to work best as a supplement to the classroom meetings and was used in a hybrid format, with various combinations of face–to-face and online content. Because of work schedules, travel time, and family obligations, the availability of online access and resources greatly extended and continued the learning process outside the classroom. Students not only continued learning through the exploration of online resources and tools throughout the week, but also had the benefit of online collaboration among class team members and with the instructor.


Positive comments were also received regarding the benefits of being able to explore various online resources, dig deeper into a subject, and work collaboratively toward tackling projects to explore different possible solutions to an actual business problem. These help to support the principles of self-direction, flexibility, and authentic activities. The use of online discussion boards for students to communicate and express opinions on a certain topic was found to be highly beneficial, both for discussion of concepts, and as a good alternative to e-mail, since threaded discussions helped produce a better structure and outline of topics discussed. For example, it was noted that some GBM students did not always contribute insightful, thoughtful questions and comments during class; but often did so during the online discussions outside the classroom when they could devote more time to thinking about the materials or a working on an assignment. There was some discussion of the design aspects of e-learning, including the need to take account of usability, ensure proper placement and presentation of multimedia elements, provide examples or illustrations to aid the learning process while online, and to properly organize course materials presented online. This was mentioned because it is often given less attention than it deserves, and should be properly addressed. For example, when instructors design online screens and lesson information poorly, learning is negatively impacted. Having too much text or too much multimedia on a screen, or exhibiting inconsistencies in structure or organization can de-motivate adult learners, since being slowed or hindered in completing coursework is particularly frustrating for those having limited time. Therefore, making every effort to make learning materials accessible, platforms easy to navigate, and communication preferences clear should be an integral part of any online course or course component. Collaboration, self-directed learning, and flexibility are also supported in GBM and were

found to be important factors to help ensure effective learning through the online portion of the course. Since classroom time is limited, online learning accounts for a significant proportion of the student to student (and student to instructor) interaction. Group projects were found to be effective in bringing about collaborative learning, and to promote the sharing of the varied expertise of the team members. The use of an online CMS (Content Management System) discussion board and e-mail was found to help maintain a communication flow between weekly class sessions. The ability to learn on one’s own in a self-directed manner is also supported; in that GIL modules provide resources from which to help seek solutions, delve further into a topic, or to survey a subject as needed. The flexibility of learning new information, communicating with others in a group, and also constructing a project or solution collaboratively online was also found to be a positive aspect of the program. In connection with this, adult student support is also critical. If a new technology is being employed, some kind of training, or an online tutorial needs to be included. Providing help to users who have difficult navigating through the screens of content, supplemental materials, and even assignment descriptions is important. There should be a program coordinator outside the classroom, as well as instructors who are available both in person, and especially, online during the week, to help guide and direct the students as needed. In conclusion, the Global Business Management (GBM) program was designed to meet the needs of adult learner students, and has been successful in terms of helping students to learn more effectively, using a combination of modular course designs, authentic problems and assignments, clear definitions of goals and objectives, effective “student-friendly” online content design, providing student support, offering a practical/ work-oriented emphasis, fostering collaboration, and offering classes using both intensive and block scheduled program sequencing. A review of the

131


effectiveness of the GBM program in educating adult learners underscores the need for utilizing this kind of a holistic approach.

FUTURE TRENDS/ AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Much more needs to be done in terms of examining the ways to most effectively ensure the success of adult learners. While this chapter focused on various techniques which proved effective for an adult learner undergraduate business program, there are opportunities for studying the key considerations and factors which might affect other kinds of programs that vary by focus, degree, and student population. New forms and types of course problems and exercises which can encourage higher levels of effective collaboration, critical reflection, and transformative learning should be studied, especially in the context of applying these together within e-learning formats and various emerging technologies. The use of constructivist, Web 2.0 tools need to be further explored and studied, with particular attention on how adult learner students can use them to reach greater levels of critical thinking and self-directed learning. Because of the relatively short history of these technologies in education, there are many promising research opportunities emerging which are viable in this area. Finally, innovative new methodologies for, and the effective use of, intensive courses and block scheduling formats at the higher education level need to be more fully explored and developed.

REFERENCES Ahn, J., Han, K., & Han, B. (2005). Web-based education: characteristics, problems, and some solutions. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 2(3), 274–282. doi:10.1504/ IJIL.2005.006370

132

An, H., Kim, S., & Kim, B. (2008). Teacher perspectives on online collaborative learning. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 8(1), 65–83. Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Critical thinking in distance education: Developing critical communities in an audio teleconference context. Higher Education, 29, 183–199. doi:10.1007/ BF01383838 Beck, P., Kung, M., Park, Y., & Yang, S. (2004). E-learning architecture: challenges and mapping of individuals in an internet-based pedagogical interface. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 1(3), 279–292. doi:10.1504/ IJIL.2004.004884 Bloom, B. (1956). The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Classification of Educational Goals Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay Press. Boak, G. (1998). A complete guide to learning contracts. Hampshire, England, Gower Publishing Ltd. Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1995). The Power of Innovative Scheduling. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 4–10. Cawelti, G. (1994). High School Restructuring: A National study. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of Adult Learners with Implications for Online Learning Design. AACE Journal, 16(2), 137–159. Chaffee, J. (1998). Critical thinking: The cornerstone of remedial education. Paper presented at Conference on Replacing Remediation in Higher Education, January, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. Clark, C., & Mayer, R. (2003). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.


Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey and Bass. Daniel, E.L. (2000). A Review of Time Shortened Courses Across Disciplines. College Student Journal, June. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The Evolution of research on Collaborative Learning. In E. Spada, & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-221). Oxford: Elsevier. Espana, J. (2004). Teaching a Research-Oriented, Graduate Global marketing Course to Adult Learners in a One-Month Format. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1-2), 418. Flatley, M. (2005). Blogging for Enhanced Teaching and learning. Business Communication Quarterly, 68. Flood, J. (2002). Read all about it: online learning faces 80% attrition rates, TOJDE, 3(2). Frey, B., & Alman, S. (2003). Applying adult learning theory to the online classroom. New Horizons in Adult Education, 17(1), 4–12. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education, (pp. 161-168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gaubatz, N. (2003). Course Scheduling Formats and their Impact on Student Learning. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 12(1). Hafner, W., & Ellis, T. J. (2004). Project-Based, Asynchronous Collaborative Learning. In [January.]. Proceedings of HICSS, 2004, 15–23.

Hamilton, K. C. (2002). Teaching Adult Learners: A Supplemental Manual for Faculty Teaching in the GBM Program at FDU. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University, Silberman College of Business. Hiltz, S. R. (1990). Evaluating the Virtual Classroom. In L. Harasim, (ed.), Online Education (pp. 134 – 184). New York: Praeger. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1985). Structuring computer-mediated communication systems to avoid information overload. Communications of the ACM, 28(7), 680–689. doi:10.1145/3894.3895 Horn, L. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Hottenstein, D., & Malatesta, C. (1993). Putting a school in gear with intensive scheduling. The High School Magazine, 2, 28–29. Howland, J., & Moore, J. (2002). Student Perceptions as Distance Learners in Internet-Based Courses. Distance Education, 23(2), 183–195. doi:10.1080/0158791022000009196 Jegede, O. (2002). Facilitating and sustaining interest through an on-line distance peer-tutoring system in a cooperative learning environment. Virtual University Gazette, 35-45. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active learning: cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Kinzie, M., Whitaker, S., & Hoffer, M. (2005). Instructional Uses of Instant Messaging During Classroom lectures. Educational Technology and Society, 8(2), 150–160. Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

133


Knowles, M. (1977). The Modern Practice of Adult Education, Andragogy versus Pedagogy, 8/e. New York: Association Press. Knowles, M. (1980). Malcolm Knowles on “how do you get people to be self-directed learners?” . Training and Development Journal, 34(5), 96–99. Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey and Bass. Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: a neglected species, (4/e). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (1998). The Adult Learner, 5th Edition. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kramlinger, T., & Huberty, T. (1990). Behaviorism versus Humanism. Training and Development Journal, 44(12), 41–45. Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The WIKI Way: Quick Collaboration on the Web. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Lim, K. (2005). Now Hear This- Exploring Podcasting as a tool in Geography Education. Nanyang Technological University. Lowry, C. (1989). Supporting and facilitating self-directed learning, ( . ERIC, ED312, 457. Lum, L. (2006). The Power of Podcasting. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(2), 32. Martyn, M., & Bash, L. (2002). Creating New Meanings in Leading Education. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second National Conference on Alternative and External Degree Programs for Adults, Oct 9-12, 2002, Pittsburgh PA.

134

Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121–133. doi:10.1080/01580370600751039 McClusky, H. (1963). Course of the adult life span. In W. C. Hallenbeck (Ed.), Psychology of adults. Chicago, IL: Adult Education Association of U.S.A. McInnerney, J., & Robert, T. (2004). Collaborative or cooperative learning? In T.S. Roberts (ed.) Online collaborative learning: theory and practice (pp. 203-214). Hershey PA: IGI Publishing. Merriam, S. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3–13. doi:10.1002/ace.3 Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12. doi:10.1002/ace.7401 National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates. NCES Report Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001). Why Lurkers Lurk. In Proceedings of the AMCIS Conference, Boston. O’Neil. (1995). Finding Time to Learn. [November.]. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 11–15. Perez Cereijo, M. (2006). Attitude as predictor of success in online training. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), 623–639. Powers, M. J. (2005). Effective online learning: recognizing e-learnability. PAACE Journal of Lifetime Learning, 14, 49–64. Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic Activities and Online Learning. In Proceedings of HERDSA 2002.


Reid, L. (1995). Perceived Effects of Block Scheduling on the Teaching of English, (ERIC #: ED 382 950).

U.S. Department of Labor. (1999). Occupational Outlook Handbook. U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Schulz, B. (2003). Collaborative learning in an online environment: will it work for teacher training? In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 503-504). Charlottesville VA: AACE.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Scott, P. & Conrad, C. (1991). A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research, (ERIC#: ED 337 087). Scott, P. A., & Conrad, C. F. (1992). A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon Press. Serdyukov, P., Subbotin, I., & Serdyukova, N. (2003). Short-Term Intensive College Instruction: What Are The Benefits For Adult Learners? Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2, 1550–1552. Sloffer, S. J., Dueber, B., & Duffy, T. M. (1999). Using asynchronous conferencing to promote critical thinking: two implementations in higher education. Proceedings of HICSS-32, Maui Hawaii. Smith, K. (1995). Cooperative Learning: effective teamwork for engineering classrooms. Engineering, University of Pittsburgh. Stilborne, L., & Williams, L. (1996). Meeting the needs of adult Learners in Developing Courses for the Internet. In . Proceedings of INET, 1996, c4. Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time e-learners. MERLOT Journal of online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 73-85. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The Condition of Education 2002, NCES 2002-025. Washington, DC: NPO.

Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group collaboration. Communications of the AIS, 13, 265–289. Wahlstrom, C. Williams, B.K., & Shea, P. (2003). The successful distance learning student. Belmont, CA: Scratchgravel. Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 20(2), 65–77. doi:10.1207/ s15389286ajde2002_2 Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of selfregulated learning and academic achievement: an overview and analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical perspectives (2/E, pp.1-37). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

ADDITIONAL READING Brookfield, S. (1991). The development of critical reflection in adulthood. New Education, 13(1), 39–48. Brookfield, S. (1995). Adult learning: an overview. In A. Tuoinjman (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, UK, Pergamon Press. Chang, C. (2001). A study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of web-based learning portfolio. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 435–458. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00212

135


Chyung, S. Y. (2007). Invisible Motivation of Online Adult Learners During Contract Learning. Journal of Educators Online, 4(1). Cross, K. (1981). Adults as Learners. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Daley, B. (2002). An exploration of electronic discussion as an adult learning strategy. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 11, 53–66. Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/ articles/garnham.htm. Glowacki-Dudka, M. & Barnett, N. (2007). Connecting critical reflection and group development in adult education classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher education, 19 (1), 43-52. King, K., & Lawler, P. (2003). Trends and Issues in the Professional Development of Teachers of Adults. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (98): 1–92. doi:10.1002/ace.93 Koohang, A., & Durante, A. (1998). Adapting the traditional face-to-face instructional approaches to on-line teaching and learning. Refereed Proceedings of IACIS. Morris, L. V., Xu, H., & Finnegan, C. L. (2005). Roles of Faculty in Teaching Asynchronous Undergraduate Courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1). Perry, W. G. (1970), Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Scott, P. (1994). A Comparative Study of Students Learning Experiences in Intensive and SemesterLength Courses. In Proceedings of NAASS, Portland Oregon, Nov. 1993.

136

Scott, P. (1995). Learning experiences in intensive and semester-length classes: Student voices and. experiences. College Student Journal, 29, 207–213. Scott, P. (1996). Attributes of High-Quality Intensive Course Learning Experiences: Student Voices and Experiences. College Student Journal, 30(1), 69–77. Singh, P., & Martin, L. R. (2004). Accelerated Degree Programs: Assessing Student Attitudes and Opinions. Journal of Education for Business, 79(5), 299. doi:10.3200/JOEB.79.5.299-305 Stephens, M. (2007). Messaging in a 2.0 World. Library Technology Reports, 43(5), 62–66. Tekinarslan, E. (2004). Project based distributed learning and adult learners. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5(2), 74–80. Thompson, G. (1988). Distance learners in higher education. In Chere, Campbell, Gibson (eds.) Higher Education: Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes (pp. 9-24). Madison WI: Atwood Publishing. Thompson, M., & Deis, M. (2004). Andragogy for Adult Learners in Higher Education. Proceedings of the Allied Academies International Conference, New Orleans LA, 9, 1. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wlodkowski, R. J. (2003). Accelerated Learning in Colleges and Universities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 97(Spring), 5–15. doi:10.1002/ace.84 Young, G. (2002, March 22). Hybrid teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A33–A34.


KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Andragogy: The principles and concepts behind teaching adults. Authentic Activities: Teaching and learning with an emphasis on real-world, complex, and collaborative activities. Block Scheduling: The scheduling of classes using larger (and sometimes, sequenced) blocks of time. Collaboration: Teaching and learning activities which emphasize teamwork, group work, and other situations where students work together on a task. Critical Reflection: The use of careful deliberation and thought to produce new insights. Hybrid Distance Learning: The employment of both classroom sessions and online communications sessions in a course.

Intensive Scheduling: Scheduling formats where courses are taught in a shorter time frame than a semester or quarter. Pedagogy: The art and science of teaching children. Perspective Transformation: The process of learning through changes in viewpoint and approach. Self-Direction: The situation where students are active participants in their own learning process. Transformative Learning: The process by which newly gained (or changed) perspectives provide better insight and understanding.

137

138

Chapter 8

Online Interaction Styles:

Adapting to Active Interaction Styles Dazhi Yang Purdue University, USA Jennifer C. Richardson Purdue University, USA

ABSTRACT Past studies indicate that students demonstrate different online interaction styles, which consist of the ways or habits students acquire knowledge from computer-mediated discussions (Sutton, 2001). Such interaction styles include the active interaction style (Beaudion, 2002), the vicarious interaction style (Sutton, 2001), and the mixed or balanced-interaction style. The purposes of this chapter are to: (1) examine relative studies on students’ online interaction styles; (2) propose a hypothesis that students’ online interaction styles can change during the course of computer-mediated discussion; (3) conduct a case study on students’ online interaction styles to test the hypothesis. This chapter reviews current issues related to students’ online interaction styles. It offers practical suggestions on the design of online learning environments, instructor’s role in online courses, and educational tools to facilitate students in adapting to more active interaction styles in computer-mediated learning environments.

INTRODUCTION Online and distance learning has exploded exponentially around the globe. In North America, there are fully online universities (e.g. the University of Phoenix and Capella University) and degrees offered completely online at Drexel University

Online and Athabasca University. Similarly, in Asia, there are the Open University of Malaysia and India’s Indira Gandhi National Open University. Although the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies such as MySpace and Blogger greatly facilitates this wave of online and distance learning, questions about pedagogical value and methods of effectively integrating such technologies have also emerged

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch008


Online Interaction Styles

(Bonk, 2009). In addition, due to access and type of security issues involved (Evers, 2006), online instructors have yet to find a way to fully adopt these technologies. Therefore, it is not surprising that asynchronous online discussions, which are usually mediated or assisted by computers, is still a common pedagogical practice in online courses (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000; Swan, Schenker, Arnold, & Kuo, 2007). As for asynchronous online discussions, research shows that when they are appropriately implemented, asynchronous computer-mediated discussions can increase knowledge and understanding of course materials (Brown, Smyth, & Mainka, 2006; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). In asynchronous computer-mediated discussions, students can discuss and reflect on course materials and post their ideas and thoughts within a course management system or tool, such as Moodle or Blackboard. Students are also usually required to respond to their peers’ postings. During such discussions, students display different online interaction styles, which are defined as the ways or habits students acquire knowledge from the discussions (Sutton, 2001). For instance, some students are constantly participating or posting more than the course requires, which allows them to be categorized, as Sutton defines, as active interaction style learners (Sutton, 2001). Some are actively observing and processing both sides of the interaction from others (peers and the instructor) without direct participation in the discussions and are known as vicarious interaction style learners (Sutton, 2001). Furthermore, according to the authors’ online teaching and discussion facilitation experiences, another group of learners also exists, who may not fixed in the active or passive mode, whom we refer to as the mixed or balancedinteraction style learners. For students categorized within the mixed or balanced-interaction style, their levels of effort in computer-mediated discussions are approximately equal to the minimum amount of postings required by a course.

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED TO ONLINE INTERACTION STYLES Online Interaction Styles Because of different online interaction styles, students utilize different learning processes or manners of learning in computer-mediated discussions. The “manner in which information is learned” affects learning transfer, which is the ability to apply learning to new situations (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999, p. 64). Thus, students’ online interaction styles in asynchronous computer-mediated discussions not only reflect students’ participation behaviors, but can also affect students’ learning and learning transfer. The active interaction style involves students continuously participating and responding to discussion questions and their peers’ postings, generally more than they are required to. The constant participation and responses may reflect students’ active encoding and decoding of course materials and others’ ideas. In fact, educational researchers argue that active student participation and interaction is critical to the success of online learning (Moallem, 2003; Spitzer, 2001; Zirkin & Sumler, 1995). In a socially constructed knowledge learning environment such as asynchronous computer-mediated discussions, students need to be actively participating to construct their own learning (Anderson, 2008). Vicarious interaction style, which involves actively observing and processing both sides of the interaction and discussions among other participants, benefits from vicarious learning characteristics (Sutton, 2000) such as learning from observing others (Bandura, 1986) and reading postings (Lee, Dineen, McKendree, & Mayes, 1999). Vicarious learning has two phases: the acquisition phase and the performance phase (Masia & Chase, 1997). Masia and Chase (1997), in their description of the phases, point out that there is often a gap in terms of time between the two phases. The completion of the acquisition

139


phase is a cognitive representation of the acquired knowledge and skills. It is also a subsequent display of student’s learning. The performance phase occurs when learners apply the acquired knowledge and skills into new situations. Thus, vicarious learning occurs as a result of observation, active process of ideas and information, and personal reflection (Masia & Chase, 1997). Students who have vicarious interaction styles appear to be observers in asynchronous computermediated discussions. Although vicarious learners can benefit from online discussions, the benefits of vicarious interaction “will not be as great as in the case of direct [interaction]” (Sutton, 2000, p.23). Recently, educational researchers concluded that students should be actively creating rather than consuming knowledge (Collis & Moonen, 2001; Grabinger & Dunlap, 2002). Furthermore, if there is no visible participation (e.g., postings), how can we know whether the acquisition phase of knowledge and skills or the performance phase has been reached by learners? The mixed or balanced-interaction style refers to learners who are not fixed in the active or passive mode, i.e., they are neither actively involved nor a complete observer all the time. The mixed style learners may be engaged in active encoding and decoding at one point while observing the interactions or they may be observing the interactions at another point during the learning process. Students categorized into this mixed or balanced-interaction style usually do what they have to do to meet course requirements rather than being completely immersed in discussions. However, as Anderson (2008) argues, students need to be actively involved in a learning process because active interaction is a result of aggregated contribution of all participants. Moreover, for the purpose of online learning community building and a better leaning experience, it is also highly desirable that all participants are completely immersed in discussions. In summary, different online participation styles and behaviors, especially active online

140

participation, have differing impacts on students’ learning and learning experiences (Moore, 1989; Sutton, 2000; Swan, 2002). Given this, designers and instructors of computer-mediated discussions and online courses should be aware of the possibility and potential of students’ different interaction styles and try to promote more active and direct interaction. However, this is not without challenges. To address these challenges, we first need to investigate whether students can change or adapt to more active interaction styles during the course of computer-mediated discussions.

Online Learning Styles and Preferences In order to investigate whether students can change or adapt to more active online interaction styles, we have reviewed past studies on students’ online interaction styles in computer-mediated discussions. In particular, we have reviewed studies that examined the factors impacting online students’ participation and interaction in asynchronous computer-mediated and text discussions. Such studies report that individual learning styles are among the main factors that affect students’ direct participation in computer-mediated discussions (Beaudion, 2002; Kovacic, 2004). According to Keefe (1979), individual learning styles include the cognitive, affective, and psychological traits that students reveal when interacting with, perceiving, and responding to others. Individual learning styles were found to play a major role in the way students learn and process information in computer-mediated learning environments (Assis, Danchak, & Polhemus, 2006; Ford & Chen, 2000; Riding & Cheema, 1991). This finding and Keefe’s definition of learning styles lead us to believe that individual learning styles are static characteristics (Assis, Danchak, & Polhemus, 2006; Pena, Marzo, & Rosa; 2002), which are fixed and do not change during a learning process. Moreover, because individual learning styles affect and determine individual learning preferences (Louange,


2007), most people believe that individual learning preferences are also static and fixed. In view of past research that indicates learning styles and preferences are static, some researchers and practitioners suggest a focus on online course design and instruction that would meet diverse learning styles (Fresen, 2005; Janicki & Liegle, 2001; Johnson & Arogan, 2003). However, in order to accommodate different learning styles and preferences, online instructors are often puzzled with how to meet diverse student needs when facing twenty, thirty, or hundreds of students. Despite the claim that “online environments can be particularly well suited to some learning styles” (Illinois Online Network, 2008, ¶1), researchers have found most students display a dual learning style in online courses and there is no one single dominant learning preference (Butler & PintoZipp, 2006). Similarly, Fahy and Ally (2005) report that students’ cognitive styles are not significantly correlated with their preference for instructional delivery modes such as traditional face-to-face, online, or blended learning – the mixing of faceto-face and online delivery modes. Therefore, we propose a hypothesis that students’ online interaction styles can change during the course of certain computer-mediated discussions due to their dynamic characteristics, such as active participation in and active observation of online discussions. If true, then online instructors will be able to help students adapt to more active online interactions or learning styles and benefit from direct interaction. This hypothesis is in line with Kolb’s work (1984), which states that individual learning styles are dynamic and change over time due to elements such as learning objectives and learners’ role in the learning process.

A CASE STUDY In order to test our hypothesis, we have conducted a case study. The case study was intended to explore whether students’ online interaction styles

could change during the course of asynchronous computer-mediated discussions, for example, from the vicarious interaction style to the active interaction style or vice versa. Specifically we focused on: •

•

•

What kinds of interaction styles (active, vicarious, or mixed or balanced-interaction styles) did students display in asynchronous computer-mediated discussions? Did students’ interaction styles change during a semester-long course utilizing asynchronous computer-mediated discussions? And if so, Why and how did the students change their interaction styles during a semester-long course utilizing asynchronous computermediated discussions?

Context and Participants Two graduate Educational Technology courses at a large Midwestern university were chosen for this case study. The first one was a foundations of distance education course with an enrollment of 13 students. The second one was an instructional and learning theories course with an enrollment of 15 students. Both courses were credit-bearing. Asynchronous computer-mediated discussions were the main instructional strategy employed by both courses. All enrolled students (N=28) were required to participate and post weekly in online forums. They were required to post two to three postings during a one week period with one initial response for the assigned discussion topic(s) and one or two postings to their peers’ postings. Students’ weekly postings were also graded and accounted for 35% of their final grades in the distance education course and 30% in the learning theories course. In both courses, the online discussions lasted for 16 weeks and the instructors actively monitored and facilitated the weekly discussions, which helped both the students and researchers identify students’ online interaction

141


styles and further verify whether students changed their online interaction styles. Because of the subject matter being studied, both courses attracted students from diverse fields and schools including education, science, technology, and engineering. In addition, both courses were delivered using WebCT Vista with an initial face-to-face meeting. Thus, the courses further attracted some students who worked full-time or lived far away from the university campus. Both courses had students with a range of ethnicities (Caucasian, Africa American, Hispanic, and Asian). Students’ ages ranged from 21 to more than 40 years of age. Students had different levels of experiences with asynchronous computer-mediated discussions and online courses. All enrolled students in the two online classes were invited to participate in the case study, with 89% choosing to do so (25/28 potential participants).

Data Collection A mixed model research approach was utilized (Johnson & Christensen, 2004) that allowed for triangulation of data. The learning objectives, learning environments, course requirements, students’ role, etc. in our study were unique, and therefore, an online survey was created. The online survey included Likert-scale items focused on students’ online interaction styles, individual learning preferences, and online learning activities. Questions about online interaction styles were created based on definitions of vicarious learning (Bandura, 1986) and vicarious interaction (Sutton, 2000). In addition, several questions came from Beaudoin’s work (2002) and were intended to track students “lurking” in the online discussions. Individual learning preferences in this case study refer to one’s preference to participating in discussions, reading others’ postings, and observing the interaction between others in an online environment. Sample survey questions included: (a) I often processed ideas from reading others’ postings even

142

when I was not visibly participating in the online discussion; (b) I was more of an autonomous learner and seldom got too engaged in group online discussion; (c) I preferred interacting and discussing the course materials with others in order to learn more effectively; (d) I would not have participated in the online discussions/postings if it was not graded; and (e) I preferred reading others’ postings and comments to writing my own discussion postings. Quantitative data were collected from the online survey given at the close of the two courses. In addition, in order to verify students’ self-identification of their online interaction styles, quantitative records of students’ login activities such as frequencies of logins and time durations of each login in WebCT Vista of each student were obtained and examined. Qualitative data were collected from openended questions embedded in the online survey. The open-ended questions asked for students’ experiences and feedback on the asynchronous computer-mediated discussions. Participants were also asked if their online interaction styles had changed as the courses proceeded and why their online interaction styles changed if there was such a change. The online survey was pilot-tested in an online graduate educational technology course and modified accordingly to increase the face and content validity before it was administered to the case study participants (n=25). Furthermore, follow-up questions seeking clarification, including soliciting explanations of influential factors causing such change, were sent via email to those participants who indicated they had changed their online interaction styles as their course proceeded.

Data Analysis All survey data including those from the Likerttype questions, the open-ended questions, data from students’ login activities, and follow up emails were analyzed. During the data analysis process, the researchers grouped similar survey


questions and confirmation questions together in order to check the consistency of students’ responses. Confirmation questions, which mean two questions were essentially the same but with different wordings, were placed in different places throughout the survey to ensure appropriate identifications and classifications of different interaction styles and learning preferences. In addition, the results of the survey data indicating students’ online interaction styles and learning preferences were triangulated with frequencies of their logins, number of postings they read, and number of postings they posted in the online forums. The qualitative responses from the open-ended questions were also analyzed. This analysis was focused on students’ experiences and feedback on the asynchronous computer-mediated discussions. Patterns and themes of why and how the students changed their interaction styles were identified through a systematic comparative analysis (coding) (Patton, 2002).

Table 1. Results for students’ online interaction styles Interaction Style

Class 1

Class 2

Total (Subtotal/ Percent)

Active interaction

6

7

13/52%

Vicarious interaction

3

4

7/28%

Mixed interaction

3

2

5/20%

Table 2. Results for the change of students’ online interaction styles Interaction Style

Class 1

Class 2


Changed

5

8

13/52%

Has not changed

4

5

9/36%

Not sure

3

0

3/12%

Results Results of the survey data triangulated with students’ login activities indicated that students (n=25) displayed various online interaction styles (Table 1) during the asynchronous computermediated discussions. As expected, more than half of the students displayed active interaction styles due to instructor’s constant presence and facilitation in the discussions (Berge, 1995). However, seven students displayed vicarious interaction styles and five students demonstrated mixed or balanced-interaction style. The survey results also showed that students had different individual learning preferences in the online discussions. Eighty percent of the participants indicated that they processed ideas from reading others’ postings without visible participation; sixty percent indicated that they preferred to discuss content materials with others. More than half of the participants (52%) responded that they preferred to read others’ postings; twenty-eight percent indicated that they were an autonomous learner and seldom got too engaged in group online discussions. From the survey results, more than half of the students (n=13) did change their online interaction styles at the close of the courses (Table 2). Most of those (85%) who changed their interaction styles became more actively involved in the discussions, which was confirmed by an increased number of posts and students’ login activities. However, two participants did not follow this pattern according to the results of the online survey and open-ended questions. One student appeared to have actively participated in the discussions initially and then changed to a mixed-interaction style because she felt her “discussion[s] were not encouraged” and only a few participants replied to or commented on her postings. The second participant indicated that she switched to a more vicarious style after she realized she “was completely new to the field of education”; the course on foundations of distance education was her first course in education.

143


Based on the survey results, one of the main factors impacting students’ online interaction styles was individual learning preferences, such as preference for discussing course materials with others (n=15) and preference for reading others’ postings (n=13). We found that the number of participants (n=13) who displayed active interaction styles was close to the number of participants (n=15) who preferred to discuss course materials with others. However, we also found that there was no strong indication of specific learning preferences (e.g., preferred to discuss content materials with others) for specific online interaction styles (e.g., active, vicarious, or mixed), which means that although different students displayed different learning preferences they could have had the same interaction style. In addition, from students’ responses to the open-ended questions, factors such as the instructor’s presence and involvement in asynchronous computer-mediated discussions and course requirements (e.g., requiring peer feedback) also impacted students’ participation and online interaction styles. In fact, more than 50% of the students indicated in the survey that the instructor’s presence and involvement in discussions and the course requirements were critical in shaping and changing their participation and posting habit in online discussions. Furthermore, the difficulty level of the content, the student’s familiarity with the subject, the availability of time, and the class size also impacted students’ online interaction. Finally, from the survey results, most participants (n=20) indicated that they “processed ideas from reading others’ postings without visible participation,” which verified that most participants were involved in vicarious interaction and benefited from vicarious learning. According to the data from open-ended questions, students who have changed their interaction styles provided different explanations for such change that provided insight on why and how the students changed their interaction styles. Different instructional strategies such as group discussions, role playing, and debates, helped students

144

change their styles of postings and interactions in the computer-mediated environment. As one participant responded: …team work, week[ly] leaders [in the discussion], …different activities (i.e. case study writing [that was] not only [general] discussion), weekly summarizing from [the] instructor, [and] more feedback from other teams [motivated me and prompted me to achieve a deeper understanding of the course materials and the others’ postings]. Knowing the content and course requirements, such as being familiar with the subject and knowing participation requirements and guidelines, also affected participants’ online interaction styles. As one participant stated: … I was unsure of how online postings work[ed] the first few weeks of the semester and became a more active participant after I understood the online course requirements better… Another participant had a similar explanation of his or her change of online interaction style: Initially I wasn’t sure how to post in a way that would contribute and leave it open for others -and initially my comments were pretty superficial, I had to reach to get more depth…. Other factors such as being open-minded and receiving insightful feedback from both peers and the instructor also helped some participants become more actively involved in the discussions. Despite the fact that some students were not actively involved in the discussions due to different factors, most students responded that they had a great learning experience and learned a lot in the discussions and the course.


FUTURE TRENDS The case study demonstrated that students do utilize various interaction styles (active interaction, vicarious interaction, and mixed or balanced-interaction style) in computer-mediated discussions. The study also demonstrates that students’ online interaction styles are dynamic rather than static in an online course, as confirmed by the change to more active learning styles as the courses progressed by 44% of participants. These findings provide new directions for the design of computer-mediated discussions and online learning environments. In the past, we have heard much about accommodating individual learning styles and preferences; this deeply rooted belief has led to a one-way street of educational practice with puzzled and frustrated instructors and learners too easily giving up. In this study, we found that although individual learning preferences were a strong factor impacting students’ online interaction styles, there was no direct association between the two as Table 3 shows in comparison to Table 1. Although eighty percent of the participants reported that they processed ideas from reading others’ postings without visible participation, only 28% were identified as displaying vicarious interaction style. Even more interesting was that we found that students did change their interaction styles during the course of computer-mediated discussions. Thus, in the future, we need to shift

Table 3. Results for students’ learning preferences Learning Preferences

Class 1

Class 2


Preferred to discuss content materials with others

7

8

15/60%

Processed ideas from reading others’ postings without visible participation

11

9

20/80%

Preferred to discuss and also prefer to read others’ postings

6

7

13/52%

the effort of accommodating individual differences to facilitate students in adapting to learn in different modalities. Specifically, online instructors can adopt instructional strategies, such as small group discussions, role playing, and debates, within online discussions that encourage students to become more active. More specifically, when designing online learning environments and online tools, designers and instructors should focus on strategies that can help online students actively interact with others and effectively learn and communicate in diverse modalities. For instance, the emergence of the Web 2.0 can help students acquire different learning skills to communicate and construct knowledge such as writing (in a blog), listening (to a Podcast), verbally presenting (via Skype), and observing (a live scene online). The results of the case study also showed that instructor’s presence and involvement in asynchronous computer-mediated discussions was one of the main factors affecting students’ online interaction styles. Thus, online instructors are able to influence and help students change their predominant interaction styles in computermediated learning environments. Such finding provides a new direction of focus in encouraging and helping students use and develop multiple learning modalities in the design of computermediated learning environments and tools. It is also important to note, as we found in the case study, that learners’ may need time to adapt to not only a new medium but also new content before they can fully involve themselves and move to a more active style. It is unlikely that every student will be actively participating in online discussions at all times. However, students can still have an effective learning experience if most students are actively involved in the discussion or a learning process most of the time. For vicarious learners, because they prefer to observe, using traditional assessment of online discussions such as simply counting the number of postings may be a disadvantage for

145


them. Chances are that online instructors will have vicarious learners in her or his online discussions. Therefore, when making assessment decisions for computer-mediated discussions in the future, online instructors should be aware of this factor. Instructors may need to focus on learning transfer in order to fairly assess those vicarious interaction style students. Thus, applying what students were supposed to learn in a new situation should be emphasized in the assessment. The results of this case study might apply to not only graduate students but also undergraduate and K-12 learners. As we all know online learning has also invaded K-12 education. In 2007, there was an estimated of one million K-12 online course enrollments in America (NACOL, 2007). Currently, the number of online courses continues to grow at both undergraduate and K-12 levels (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Further research on instructional strategies for helping diverse levels of online learners adapt to active interaction styles in online learning environments is needed.

CONCLUSION This chapter examines and reviews relative studies on students’ online interaction styles. It proposed a hypothesis and conducted a case study to test the hypothesis—students’ online interaction styles can change during the course of computer-mediated discussion. The results of the case study confirmed the hypothesis. Thus, it provides a new direction for designing effective online tools and instruction to facilitate students in adapting to more active interaction styles in computer-mediated learning environments. The outcomes of the case study have implications not only for effective design and organization of computer-mediated discussions, but also for online and blended learning environments. However, because the case study was an exploratory study with a small sample size, we need more data to fully understand why and how students’ online instruction styles change. In

146

addition, we need to better understand how to help students, especially those vicarious and mixed or balanced-interaction style students, achieve a more satisfactory learning experience. Similar studies will further shed light on strategies that can be utilized in the design of emerging educational technologies and tools for online and distance education. Finally, as online courses afford more situations (e.g., watching an interactive video) where learners can gain knowledge by observing others instead of active participation (Craig, Driscoll, & Gholson, 2004), differing interaction styles, in particular the vicarious interaction style, should be taken into account for the purpose of assessment.

REFERENCE Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://sloan-c. org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course. pdf. Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory And Practice Of Online Learning (2nd ed) (pp.45-74). AU: Athabasca University. Assis, A., Danchak, M., & Polhemus, L. (2006). Optimizing instruction using adaptive hypermedia. In Kinshuk, et al, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies IEEE Computer Society (pp. 779-783). Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the “invisible” online student. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 147–155. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00086-6


Berge, Z. (1995). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30. Bonk, C. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100. Brown, N., Smyth, K., & Mainka, C. (2006). Looking for evidence of deep learning in constructively aligned online discussions. Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2006/abstracts/pdfs/ P05%20Brown.pdf Butler, T. J., & Pinto-Zipp, G. (2006). Students’ learning styles and their preferences for online instructional methods. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(2), 199–221. doi:10.2190/8UD2-BHFU-4PXV-7ALW

Ford, N., & Chen, S. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and learning: an empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 281–312. Fresen, J. W. (2005). Quality assurance practice in online (web-supported) learning in higher education: An exploratory study. Retrieved on May, 16, 2005, from http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/ etd-02172005-134301/unrestricted/04chapter4. pdf Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. Grabinger, S., & Dunlap, J. (2002). Applying the REAL model to web-based instruction: An overview. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002 (pp. 447-452). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World: Experiences and Expectations. London: Koogan Page.

Illinois Online Network. (2008). Learning styles and the online environment. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/tutorials/id/learningStyles.asp

Craig, S. D., Driscoll, D. M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163–183.

Janicki, T., & Liegle, J. O. (2001). Development and evaluation of a framework for creating webbased learning modules: a pedagogical and systems approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 58–84.

Evers, J. (2006). The security risk in Web 2.0. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http:// news.cnet.com/The-security-risk-inWeb-2.0/2100-1002_3-6099228.html Fahy, P. J., & Ally, M. (2005). Student learning style and asynchronous computer-mediated conferencing (CMC) interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 5–22. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.leaonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/ s15389286ajde1901_2?cookieSet=1

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Johnson, S. D., & Arogan, S. R. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 31–43. doi:10.1002/ ace.117

147


Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In NASSP’s Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp.1-17). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Kovacic, Z. J. (2004). Learning styles, sociodemographics and level of participation in a discussion forum. Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw04/papers/refereed/ kovacic/paper.html Lee, J., Dineen, F., McKendree, J., & Mayes, T. (1999, April). Vicarious learning: Cognitive and linguistic effects of observing peer discussion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Louange, J. E. G. (2007). An examination of the relationships between teaching and learning styles, and the number sense and problem solving ability of Year 7 students. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3d/43/ db.pdf Masia, C. C., & Chase, P. N. (1997). Vicarious learning revisited: A contemporary behavior analytic interpretation. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 28, 41–51. doi:10.1016/S0005-7916(96)00042-0 McLaughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? Retrieved November 11, 2006, from Teaching and Learning Forum 2000 http://www. lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html.

148

Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 85–103. doi:10.1007/BF02504545 Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6. Retrieved January 24, 2005, from http:// www.ajde.com/Contents/vol3_2.htm#editorial North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). (2007). Online learning facts. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.nacol. org/media/ Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pena, C.-I., Marzo, J.-L., & Rosa, J.-L. l. (2002). Intelligent agents in a teaching and learning environment on the Web. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT2002. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://lttf.ieee.org/icalt2002/ proceedings/t104_icalt094_End.pdf Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles -- an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3-4), 193–215. doi:10.1080/0144341910110301 Spitzer, D. R. (2001). Don’t forget the high-touch with the high-tech in distance learning. Educational Technology, 61(2), 51–55. Sutton, L. A. (2000, April). Vicarious interaction: A learning theory for computer-mediated communications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242.


Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication, and Information, 2, 23-49. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from http://www.kent.edu/rcet/Publications/upload/ SocPres%20ECI.pdf Swan, K., Schenker, J., Arnold, S., & Kuo, C.-L. (2007). Shaping online discussion: assessment matters. E-mentor, 1(18). Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/_xml/ wydania/18/390.pdf Thiessen, J. (2001). Faculty attitudes in delivering undergraduate distance education. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from http://hdl.handle.net/2194/564 Zirkin, B., & Sumler, D. (1995). Interactive or non-interactive? That is the question! An annotated bibliography. Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 95–112.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Online Interaction Styles: The ways or habits students interact with the content, peers, and their instructor and acquire knowledge from asynchronous online discussions. Computer-Mediated Discussions: Discussions and reflections on course materials posted

within a course management system or tool, such as Moodle or Blackboard. Active Interaction Style: Students’ participation or posting are constantly more than the course requires for each week and each discussion topic. Vicarious Learning: Learning from observing others and reading postings without direct interaction. Vicarious Interaction Style: Students’ active observation and processing both sides of the interaction from others (peers and the instructor) without direct participation in discussions. Mixed or Balance Interaction Style: Students’ participation in online discussion is approximately equal to the minimum course requirement; they are not fixed in active or passive mode in terms of their participation in online discussions. Online Learning Styles: The cognitive, affective, and psychological traits that students reveal when interacting with, perceiving, and responding to others in online environments. Learning Preferences: Students’ preference for instructional delivery modes such as traditional face-to-face, online, or blended learning or the way to interact with content, their peers, and their instructor in online learning environments.

149

150

Chapter 9

Strategies for Providing Formative Feedback to Maximize Learner Satisfaction and Online Learning Yuliang Liu Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, USA

ABSTRACT Learner satisfaction and learning is currently a very important topic in online instruction and learning. Blignaut and Trollip (2003) proposed six types of response for providing formative feedback in online courses. These six response types include: Administrative, Affective, Other, Corrective, Informative, and Socratic. The first three types involve no academic content while the last three types are related to academic content. Each type serves a different purpose for online learners. This study is designed to validate how the appropriate use of six response types for providing formative feedback affected learner satisfaction and online learning in an online graduate class at a midwestern university in the summer semester of 2008. Results indicated that all six response types are necessary to ensure maximum online learner satisfaction and effective online learning although each has its different focus. Findings have implications for all other online courses in the future.

INTRODUCTION In educational settings, feedback typically refers to “what the instructor writes on and about student work products” (Wolsey, 2008, p. 312). Formative feedback refers to the ongoing feedback from the instructor throughout the semester. According to Palloff and Pratt (2003), instructor feedback is provided exclusively in written format in online DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch009

instruction. According to Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001), instructional feedback has very large effect size on student learning and instructional feedback is one of the most useful teaching strategies a teacher should use in either traditional classroom or in online environments. According to Baird and Fisher (2005-2006), most online students possess the “always-on” learning styles. The major responsibility of the online instructor is to maximize opportunities for all students (Schwartzman, 2007). Thus, how to


Strategies for Providing Formative Feedback to Maximize Learner Satisfaction and Online Learning

support such a group of online students is a relatively new and challenging task now. In recent years, much research has been directed toward the asynchronous bulletin board discussions in online courses (Dennen, 2005). How an online instructor be visible to students, the so-called instructor presence in online courses has attracted numerous research in online instruction (Coppola, Roxanne, & Rotter, 2002; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Wolsey, 2004). Instructor presence has been defined differently by various researchers including, but are not limited to: teaching presence, faculty presence, cognitive presence, interaction, faculty roles, and so on. Leh, Kouba, and Davis (2005) identified these five types of interactions in online learning: learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner, learner-interface, and learner-community. Online interaction was identified as one of the major learner-centered features in online instruction and learning (Bangert, 2006; McCombs & Vakili, 2005). Actual measures of interaction among the instructor and students and student performance in online courses are mixed and complicated (Picciano, 2002). Thus, according to Ni and Aust (2008), more research should be done in the fields of online interactions to advance the understanding of online pedagogy. Different aspects of effective formative feedback have been demonstrated in the appropriate use of six response types proposed by Blignaut and Trollip (2003). According to Blignaut and Trollip, there are six response types for providing online formative feedback. These six response types include: administrative, affective, other, corrective, informative, and Socratic. The first three types involve no academic content while the last three types are related to academic content. Each type serves a different purpose for online learners. But the integration of all six types will tend to achieve a maximum result in an online course. This chapter will discuss the best practices related to the online course design and delivery. Specifically, this chapter is designed to explore

how the appropriate use of six response types for providing formative feedback affected learner satisfaction and online learning in an online graduate class at a midwestern university in the summer semester of 2008. Results indicated that all six response types are necessary to ensure maximum online learner satisfaction and effective online learning although each has its different focus. Findings have implications for all other online courses.

Literature Review In recent literature on online teaching, there has been much research emphasizing instructor presence/teaching presence/cognitive presence. Earlier in 2001, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer proposed a critical thinking and practical inquiry model in a computer conferencing context. This model was primarily designed to show the multifaceted elements of online teaching and learning. This model involved three major elements: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. They defined cognitive presence as one of the critical-thinking processes and used their cognitive presence model to describe and analyze online discussions messages. Based on this critical thinking and practical inquiry model in a computer conferencing context, Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer (2001) developed a tool to assess teaching presence in online course instruction. Specifically, Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer defined teaching presence as the design, facilitation, and direction of students’ cognitive and social processes in online courses. The teaching presence occurs as the instructional designer before the course starts and continues until the course objectives are achieved. Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer identified that teaching presence has the following three major categories: design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. First, design and organization processes in online courses are more important than traditional

151


classroom instruction since online classes lack lots of nonverbal cues for effective communication. Design activities include the course syllabus, course materials, assignments, and activities before the class begins and continues until the end of the class. Major indicators of design and organization processes include (a) setting curriculum, (b) designing methods, (c) establishing time parameters, (d) using medium effectively, and (e) establishing netiquette. Organizational activities include supplying guidelines and tips for success. Second, discourse facilitation is critical to maintain and sustain students’ interest and curiosity, as well as to engage their learning throughout the course. The major indicators of discourse facilitation include (a) identifying areas of agreement/ disagreement, (b) seeking to reach consensus or understanding, (c) encouraging, acknowledging or reinforcing student contribution, (d) setting climate for learning, (e) drawing in participants and prompting discussion, and (f) assessing learning process efficacy. Third, direct instruction allows teachings to guide and facilitate intellectual and scholarly development process and to share knowledge with the class. Major indicators of direct instruction include (a) presenting content or questions, (b) focusing discussion on specific issues, (c) summarizing discussions, (d) confirming understanding via assessment and feedback, (e) diagnosing misconceptions, (f) injecting knowledge from various sources, and (g) responding to technical issues. Another important issue related to teaching presence is interaction. According to Picciano (2002), interaction is not equivalent to presence although very important for successful online courses. Picciano also found that there is a mixed relationship between actual measures of interaction among the instructor and students and student performance in online courses. Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005) further examined the nature of online interaction and assessed the

152

depth of online learning in four distance education courses. Garrison and Cleveland-Innes found that (a) simple interaction, lack of course structure and leadership, were not adequate for effective deep and meaningful learning, (b) course design significantly affected the nature of interaction and how students processed course information deeply and meaningfully, and (c) course structure and instructor leadership was very critical for online students’ deep and meaningful learning. Thus, Garrison and Cleveland-Innes proposed that a qualitatively richer view of online interaction supporting high levels of learning should be needed based on teaching and learning approaches. Specifically, the reflection and collaboration of synchronous, text-based online learning are well suited for student deep approaches to learning including cognitive presence. Another important issue related to teaching presence is faculty role in online instruction. Coppola, Hiltz, and Rotter (2002) conducted twenty semi-structured interviews of faculty teaching online courses and reported three major categories of faculty role changes in online teaching comparing with traditional classroom teaching. These three categories for being a virtual professor are: cognitive roles, affective roles, and managerial roles. According to Coppola, Hiltz, and Rotter, online instructor’s cognitive roles include information manipulation such as thinking, reasoning, analyzing, and storing. Online instructor’s affective roles include the lack of nonverbal cues, more intimacy and connectedness, as well as finding new ways to show energy and humor. Online instructor’s managerial roles include course planning, course organizing, leading the class, and controlling student progress. Wolsey (2008) investigated the efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in four online masters’ courses in an online program at Walden University. Wolsey found such five major categories of feedback as complex affirmations, editorial function, instructor stance, learning goals vs targets, and feedback location. Specifically,


students preferred (a) the instructor’s complex affirmations as very useful, (b) the instructor’s editorial corrections as very useful, (c) the instructor’s respectful stance as very useful, (d) the instructor’s learning rubric or criteria as very useful, and (e) the instructor’s feedback inside the documents, rather than summary at the end, as very useful. Blignaut and Trollip (2003) investigated and collected field survey and interview data from the 18 post-graduate level course sections in Capella university. Then they developed taxonomy to measure faculty presence and participation in asynchronous learning environments. According to Blignaut and Trollip, there are six response message types for providing online formative feedback. These six response message types include: administrative, affective, other, corrective, informative, and Socratic. The first three types involve no academic content while the last three types are related to academic content. Each type serves a different purpose for online learners. But the integration of all six types will tend to achieve a maximum result in an online course. These six types are described as follows. 1.

Messages without academic content: ◦ Administrative type: This is not related to academic content. Specific postings will include general administrative topics including profile, due dates, format, software requirement and functionality, and any other organizational aspects. ◦ Affective type: This is not related to academic content. Specific postings will include messages to acknowledge learner participation and offer affective support. ◦ Other type: This is not related to academic content. Specific postings will include forums and/or messages for open discussion topics such as Cyber Café or Just For Fun.

2.

Messages with academic content: ◦ Corrective type: This is related to academic content. Specific postings will include messages to correct the content of a learner’s posting. ◦ Informative type: This is related to academic content. Specific postings will include messages that comment on a learner’s posting based on the course content and provide individual feedback. ◦ Socratic type: This is related to academic content. Specific postings will include messages that require reflective questions about a learner’s posting.

At the end of the paper, Blignaut and Trollip (2003) suggested further research for empirical validation of the above taxonomy of faculty presence and participation and for correlating the above six response types with student satisfaction and learning in online courses. Since then, there have been some studies investigating this issue. Gallien and Oomen-Early (2008) conducted a comparative study to explore the impact of personalized vs collective instructor feedback in online courses. In Gallien and Oomen-Early’s study, personalized instructor feedback refers to the three message types with academic content described previously: corrective feedback, informative feedback, and Socratic feedback. Collective instructor feedback refers to the feedback provided by the instructors after they read all of the students’ responses to any specific course assignments. Specifically, in Gallien and Oomen-Early’s (2008) study, in the treatment group, the instructor used a taxonomy of instructor feedback developed by Blignaut and Trollip (2003) to prepare the personalized feedback. Basically, the experimental instructor used the three message types with academic content described previously: corrective feedback, informative feedback, and Socratic feedback. Gallien and Oomen-Early found out

153


that online students who received personalized feedback based on the taxonomy of instructor feedback tend to show greater satisfaction and to perform academically better than their counterparts who received only collective feedback form the instructor. According to Gallien and OomenEarly, research studying instructor feedback and class interaction in online learning is still relatively a new area. Gallien and Oomen-Early’s study serves as a starting point and warrants the need for continuous research in elearning in areas of the relation among instructor feedback, class interaction, and academic success and satisfaction.

Research Purpose and Hypothesis This project was designed to fulfill the suggestion proposed by the above researchers including Blignaut and Trollip (2003) and Gallien and Oomen-Early (2008). Specifically, this study was to explore how the appropriate use of six response types proposed by Blignaut and Trollip (2003) for providing formative feedback affected learner satisfaction and online learning in an online graduate class at a midwestern university. The research hypothesis was stated as follows: It was hypothesized that the integration of all six types of response proposed by Blignaut and Trollip (2003) will tend to achieve a maximum positive result in learner satisfaction and online learning at the end of an online course.

METHOD Participants and Course A convenience sample was used in the study. All 42 students who self-enrolled in the two online sections of a graduate educational research course at a midwestern university in the summer semester

154

of 2008 for eight weeks were solicited for participation in the study. The author of this study taught the two sections in Blackboard platform. Both sections were combined into one course shell. All participants were recruited and agreed to complete the consent forms and demographic information at the beginning of the semester. For most participants, this was their first time taking an online course. No students dropped out throughout the semester in this study. Students met twice on campus. The first campus meeting was about course orientation. The second campus meeting was in the middle of the semester and was for studying statistics using Statistical Package of Social Science program in the university computer lab. The participants’ demographic information is summarized in Table 1.

Procedure The major formative feedback the instructor provided involved the six major response types (Blignaut & Trollip, 2003) described previously. The relationship between the online course design and the six major response types described previously is outlined as follows. First, under the General Discussion Forum, the instructor designed several discussion threads which included the following four types: a.

Faculty Expectation Message Thread. The instructor posted my Faculty Expectation Message Thread regarding the details of my course requirements before the course started and asked students to reply that they have understood the course expectations by the end of the first week. This thread primarily serves as administrative type of responses since it provides topics including due dates, format, the requirement and functionality of Internet browser and other software such as Microsoft Word and PDF software, and any other organizational aspects.


b.

c.

d.

Updates and Handouts Thread. The instructor posted the Updates and Handouts Thread regarding the course updates before the course started. The instructor posted weekly updates here. Students are also encouraged to post their questions about the Updates and Handouts here any time during the semester. This thread primarily serves as administrative type of responses since it provides topics including format and samples related to every content unit, as well as the class progress summary every week. Ask Your Instructor Thread. The instructor posted the Ask Your Instructor Thread before the course started and asked students to post any questions they may have regarding this course any time during the semester. This thread serves multiple purposes such as administrative, affective, and informative types of responses since it provides topics including specifying format and due dates, answering students’ questions, and providing emotional support. Cyber Café Thread. The instructor posted the Cyber Café Thread before the course started and asked students to post any noncontent related questions any time during the semester. This thread primarily serves as emotional and other types of responses since it provides topics including personal hobbies, self-introduction, and other noncontent related information.

Second, under the Content Unit Discussion Forum, each unit has discussion topics or essay assignments every week. This forum for all units primarily serves as affective, corrective, Socratic, and informative types of responses since it provides information to support students learning, correct students’ responses carefully and provide additional information if not correct, as well as challenge students by asking reflective questions to further their higher-order thinking.

Table 1. Participants’ major demographic information (N = 42) Demographic Variables

Percent

1. Gender Male

16.67

Female

83.33

2. Ethnicity Caucasian

97.62

Asian

4.76

3. Job Type School teacher

88.10

Other

11.90

4. Age 25 and below

14.29

26-35

52.38

36-45

21.43

46-55

7.14

56 and above

4.72

5. Years of Teaching Experiences 0-1 year

2.38

1-3 years

28.57

4-9 years

30.95

10 or more years

26.19

6. Academic Major Elementary education

40.48

Secondary education

9.52

Special education

2.38

Educational administration

14.29

Instructional technology

11.91

Other

21.43

7. Perceived Computer Skills Beginning level

4.76

Intermediate level

80.95

Advanced level

14.23

Third, the instructor required students to post their weekly assignments using MS Word attachments. The instructor typically graded these assignments and made suggestions for improvement using the Track Change function in MS Word. Similar to the Content Unit Discussion Forum, this assignment

155


option primarily serves as affective, corrective, Socratic, and informative types of responses since it provides information to support students learning, correct students’ responses carefully and provide additional information if not correct, as well as challenge students by asking reflective questions to further their higher-order thinking. Finally, the instructor encouraged students to send their inquiries to the instructor either via Blackboard mail or regular e-mails too if they like to receive private answers. This primarily serves as affective, corrective, Socratic, and informative types of responses.

Research Design This study used the one-shot case study experimental design to collect data. Basically, the dependent variable in the study was students’ satisfaction and learning at the end of the semester. The independent variable was that instructor used the six types of message response developed by Blignaut and Trollip (2003) in the two online sections of a graduate course throughout the semester. An example of each of the six types of message response was as follows: 1.

156

Messages without academic content: ◦ Administrative type: “Dear students, just a reminder that the essay for chapter 1 will be due on the discussion board this Sunday midnight. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me”. This post can be done on the public bulletin board. ◦ Affective type: “Dear Sarah, sorry to know that something unexpected occurred in your personal life. I understand your situation. It will be fine if you can turn in your project a week later after the deadline. There will be no penalty for being late this time. Let me know if you have further questions.” This post can be done privately in email.

◦

2.

Other type: “Dear students, just let you know that our university will host a speech by a internationally known speaker to talk about the current status of K-12 education research nationwide in the university auditorium at 6pm Wednesday. Free admission. I think this is a good opportunity if you can attend.” This post can be done on the public bulletin board. Messages with academic content: ◦ Corrective type: “Tom, your research hypothesis seems interesting. But in your case, you should use the directional research hypothesis. That is, students in the experimental group will achieve higher achievement scores in math than their counterparts in the control group.” ◦ Informative type: “Jeremy, your post seems interesting and practical. In order to expand your topic, I’d like you to read an article entitled Diversity, Group Identity, and citizenship education in a global age in Educational Researcher in 2008.” This post can be done either on the public bulletin board or via private email. ◦ Socratic type: “Ellen, your post is really interesting. However, I’d like you to think about these questions too. (a) What are the extraneous variables in the study? (b) How can you control those extraneous variables in the study?....” This post can be done either on the public bulletin board or via private email.

In some situations, an instructor’s post will serve one function as indicated above. But in reality, in most situations, an instructor’s post will serve multiple functions as a combination of several type among the above six types.


Research Instrument The major research instruments included: (1) Midterm Course Feedback Survey. This instructor developed survey has only three open-ended questions: (a) “What have you learned so far?” (b) “What have you liked so far?” (c) “What suggestions do you have for the rest of the semester?” Students are asked by the instructor to complete the qualitative survey in the middle of the semester. (2) University Student Evaluation Survey. This established survey was mandated by the university and students were asked to complete it at the end of the semester. Both surveys were in online format. This survey has 18 items in Likert scale format from “strongly agree” (5 points) to “strongly disagree” (1 point) in addition to one open-ended question in the end of the survey. Both surveys were administered on the Blackboard platform.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This study focused on both qualitative and quantitative data at the end of the semester. The overall result of both student evaluation and the mid-term student course feedback showed very significant positive learning satisfaction and outcomes. The qualitative data from the mid-term survey indicated that a great majority of students liked the course setup and the instructor’s strategies of formative feedback; they did not make many suggestions for improvement. There were only a few suggestions from the mid-term survey. Some of these suggestions were related to the technical part of the course system while some were related to the course delivery platform. The students’ example excerpts included the following: I think there is a problem with some of the tests. I have not used the back button, but I have had at least 3 test lock up on me. I have found that

I have to finish the entire test and then go back and save the answers, because the test locks up when I try to save them while taking the test. So, I would suggest seeing if there is anything that can be done about that. Could it be possible to have more on campus meetings? I realize it is on-line, but meeting people face to face sometimes is helpful. The quantitative data in this study was taken from the official end-of-semester student evaluation which has 18 items in addition to the last open-end comments item. Table 2 below shows that the mean of the items was 4.7 with a standard deviation of .55 on a 5-point Likert scale. Although the course taught in the survey was perceived as one of the most challenging graduTable 2. Results of end-of-semester students evaluation Item No.

Items

Mean

Std. Dev.

1

available to meet

4.5

0.8

2

willing to assist

4.7

0.7

3

ethical and fair

4.8

0.6

4

effective teacher

4.6

0.7

5

create interest

4.7

0.5

6

stimulate thinking

4.7

0.6

7

open-mindedness and respect

4.6

0.7

8

knowledge of subject

4.9

0.2

9

planning and organizing

4.7

0.6

10

support for participation

4.8

0.5

11

sensitivity

4.4

0.8

12

connect theory and practice

4.8

0.5

13

manage discussion

4.8

0.4

14

helping analysis and understanding

4.5

0.8

15

overall understanding

4.8

0.4

16

meaningful

4.5

0.8

17

intellectually challenging

5.0

0.0

18

fair assessments

4.9

0.3

4.70

0.55

157


ate courses in education, most students perceived very favorably about the online delivery of the course. The example excerpts from students in the end-of-semester student evaluation indicated very positive specific learning satisfaction and outcomes. Some of those comments were related to one specific response type while some were related to a combination of several response types described previously. Each of the following student comments were specifically mapped to specific response types in bold italic. The instructor sets very high expectations. Those expectations can be met with effort by the students. I learned a great deal from this course. [related to a combination of Socratic, administrative and other types] Dr. Liu was extremely organized. His syllabus was clear. He gave feedback quickly and also e-mailed a quick reply if there was ever a question. I feel that Dr Liu has developed a class that could very well be extremely rigorous in a traditional setting and has made it easier to manage in an online setting. [related to a combination of administrative, informative, corrective, and other types] I was very impressed with how quickly Dr. Liu responded to any of our inquiries. He also got grades with feedback to us quickly. This class was very organized and structured with the expectations very clearly spelled out. [related to a combination of administrative, corrective, informative, and other types] Dr. Liu was quick to respond to questions I had during the semester. He was very helpful. I feel that the assignments were fair and helped me better understand the course content. I enjoyed evaluating other students’ projects and then reading other students’ suggestions to improve my own project. [related to a combination of administrative, affective, informative, corrective, and other types]

158

I’m glad I took the online class. It made me responsible for knowing the information and be able to be accountable for myself. I enjoyed it more I think that I would have a lecture type class. [related to a combination of affective, informative, and other types] This class was the most difficult and time consuming one yet. I was glad that I chose to take in the summer b/c I would have had a real struggle completing all coursework along with the daily activities involved in teaching in my own classroom. I know some of this may be due to the class being online. Instructor was quick to answer questions and help through BB and email. Grading was done promptly, considering the amount of students. All information was easily accessible on BB if you had questions concerning grades, syllabus, requirements, etc. [related to a combination of affective, corrective, informative, administrative, and other types] I really enjoyed this class being online. Dr. Liu was always prompt in e-mailing me back if I had a question about anything. I would highly recommend anyone to take this online course. I also liked how we could retake the quiz again because I am a perfectionist and this allowed me to go back and correct my mistakes and I feel everyone learns better if they can correct their mistakes. [related to a combination of affective, informative, corrective, and other types] Since the expectations of graduate students are much higher than undergraduates, it’s very hard for me to comment on Dr Liu’s ability to sift through tougher material as we students are responsible for understanding the material. This class has given me much to think about with respect to my final project and I sincerely hope that the high standards that have been taught in this class are applicable to the final goal of my Masters’ Degree. [related to a combination of informative, corrective, Socratic, and other types]


Dr. Liu is an excellent professor. I look forward to having more classes with him. [related to a combination of affective and other types] I cannot say enough great things about Dr. Liu! He was extremely helpful. I was concerned in the beginning that it would be more difficult to have interactions with the instructor with this being an online course. Dr. Liu always responds to questions within 24 hours and provides feedback on our essay’s in a fast manner. The course was very challenging but Dr. Liu made the assignments easy to understand through examples and explanations. I feel prepared and confident as I continue in my graduate school experience due to what I have learned in this class. I can extend what I have learned about research in this course to help me become a better inquirer and educator! [related to a combination of other, affective, corrective, Socratic, administrative, and informative types] I believe that Dr. Liu made a difficult course very fair. I thought his grading was reasonable and respectful for the students. [related to a combination of other, corrective, and informative types] This has been an extremely challenging and rewarding course for me. Although I was apprehensive at first, I loved the online format. It was sometimes difficult to keep up with the fast paced time schedule, but Dr. Liu’s syllabus, instructions, guidelines, and examples were very thorough and easy to understand. [related to a combination of other, administrative, informative, and corrective types] This was my first course in the Master’s program and it was great. I learned a lot and I really did ENJOY it. Thank you! [related to a combination of administrative, informative, and other types] Dr. Liu obviously knows his subject matter. He was sincere in his desire for his students to learn

the content of the course. I had a wonderful experience, and I learned several very helpful and important items/lessons that will be applicable in the future. This was by far the most difficult and time-consuming class that I have taken. There is so much information that needs to be covered, and so much applied work that it was overwhelming for me…. All that being said, you couldn’t ask for a more helpful, friendly or competent instructor for this course than Dr. Liu. He was great from start to finish and I appreciate his efforts; he challenged me more than I thought possible and looking back on the course, I feel like I learned a great deal. [related to a combination of administrative, informative, corrective, and other types] I enjoyed this class more than I ever thought I would....I love the flexibility of online....I liked that we could retake quizzes until we had mastered the content....I think it will be extremely useful in future research endeavors! [related to a combination of affective, corrective, and Socratic types] The course was challenging. I enjoyed having to do it on-line because I felt more in control of my learning. Dr. Liu was helpful and knowledgeable about the subject matter. [related to a combination of affective, Socratic, corrective, informative, and other types] I enjoyed this class. Although it was a lot of work, it was obtainable and not intimidating. It allowed us to correct errors. This is how I learned much of my material. [related to a combination of affective and other types] This is the 7th graduate course I have taken at SIUE. This was by far the best course. The material was challenging but Dr. Liu broke it down into manageable pieces, gave clear instructions, and provided excellent examples for us to follow. Dr. Liu is enthusiastic about his work and shows he

159


really cares about the learning process. [related to a combination of administrative, Socratic, informative, corrective, and other types]

while the other half of the messages were related to non-academic content. Second, these three categories of response types (Other, Corrective, and Informative) were used more often than the other three types (Administrative, Affective, and Socratic). Those major themes seemed very consistent with the use of these six response types: administrative, affective, other, corrective, informative, and Socratic identified by Blignaut and Trollip (2003). The results were also consistent with the results from another recent study (Liu, 2009). In all, the results in this study indicated that the research hypothesis was supported. The results of this study further supported Gallien and OomenEarly’s (2008) finding that online students who received personalized feedback based on the taxonomy of instructor feedback tended to show greater satisfaction and to perform academically better than their counterparts. This study also implies the need for continuous research in elearning in areas of the relation among instructor feedback, class interaction, and academic success and satisfaction.

At first I was very overwhelmed with this class, but as time went on and I got into my own routine with it, it was easy (but time consuming) to get everything done in a timely manner. I enjoyed doing this class online. [related to a combination of administrative, affective, Socratic, informative, and other types] The instructor is very knowledgeable in the area of research methods. A lot of work was difficult and time consuming. The concept of peer reviews for each essay was helpful but a better assignment of who reads who would be beneficial. There were a few times when my essays were not peer reviewed by 2 students. [related to a combination of informative, Socratic, affective, and corrective types] The major identified response types which was used by the instructor and cited by all students in the student evaluation is summarized in Table 3. Table 3 indicated that several major themes emerged from all of the above qualitative comments. First, both types of formative feedback with (Administrative, Affective, and Other) or without academic content (Corrective, Informative, and Socratic) seemed very necessary and important to maximize student learning and satisfaction. Based on Table 3, about half of the instructor’s messages used in the class were related to academic content

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This result has validated and is further supporting the original perspectives proposed by Blignaut and Trollip (2003). That is, the integration of all six types of response achieved a maximum positive result in learner satisfaction and online learning in an online course. The results in this

Table 3. A summary of major identified response types Types without Academic Content

Types with Academic Content

Administrative Type

Affective Type

Other Type

Corrective Type

Informative Type

Socratic Type

Total

Frequency

22

20

34

28

32

20

156

Percentage

14%

13%

22%

18%

21%

13%

100%

76 (49%)

160

80 (51%)


study will have significant implications for other online courses in the future. That is, if the online instructor uses all six types of response types to provide formative feedback, he/she will most likely to receive maximum student satisfaction and online learning. The finding of this study has theoretical and practical significance in online learning and instruction. Theoretically, the result will contribute and enrich the literature related to online instruction and learning. Practically, the six types of response for providing online formative feedback can help online instructors to improve their student satisfaction and online learning. Another major implication resulting from the present study is that online instructors should be encouraged to use the Socratic Method in online instruction to ensure higher order thinking. The author was surprised to learn that many students liked the Socratic types of formative feedback although the course was very challenging. This result seemed consistent with other recent studies. Coppola, Hiltz, and Rotter (2002) defined the Socratic method as “a give and take between instructor and student with questions leading to learning” (p. 183). According to Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001), the Socratic method can be used to facilitate higher-order learning in online instruction. The Socratic method in online teaching has recently been advocated to maximize online learning by many researchers in the area. For instance, Mazzolini and Maddison (2007) recently found that many online instructors are using the Socratic method to either continue existing discussion threads or to start new ones. But there is not enough studies about the instructor’s use of the Socratic Method in online instruction. Thus, more empirical research seems necessary in this area.

REFERENCES Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 2–15. Baird, D. E., & Fisher, M. (2005). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support “always on” learning styles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5–32. doi:10.2190/6WMW47L0-M81Q-12G1 Bangert, A. W. (2006). The development of an instrument for assessing online teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 227–244. doi:10.2190/B3XP5K61-7Q07-U443 Blignaut, S., & Trollip, S. (2003). Developing a taxonomy of faculty participation in asynchronous learning environments- an exploratory investigation. Computers & Education, 41, 149–172. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00033-2 Bower, M. (2005). Online assessment feedback: Competitive, individualistic, or…preferred form! Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2), 121–147. Coleman, J. (2007). My virtual professor. Maclean’s,120(45).[Online] http://www.macleans. ca/education/universities/article Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169–189. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. doi:10.1080/01587910500081376

161


Gallien, T., & Ommen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 463–476. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:10.1207/ s15389286ajde1903_2 International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 5. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/ article/view/186/801 James, D. (2004). A need for humor in online classes. College Teaching, 52(3), 93–94. doi:10.3200/ CTCH.52.3.93-120 Leh, A. S., Kouba, B., & Davis, D. (2005). Twenty-first century learning: Communities, interaction and ubiquitous computing. Educational Media International, 42(3), 237–250. doi:10.1080/09523980500161296 Liu, Y. (2009). (in press). Providing formative feedback to maximize student satisfaction and learning in online courses. The International Journal of the Humanities, 7. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

162

Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49, 193–213. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.011 McCombs, B. L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learnercentered framework for E-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9620.2005.00534.x Ni, S., & Aust, R. (2008). Examining teacher verbal immediacy and sense of classroom community in online classes. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 477–498. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40. Schwartzman, R. (2007). Refining the question: How can online instruction maximize opportunities for all students? Communication Education, 56(1), 113–117. doi:10.1080/03634520601009728 Trollip, S. R., & Blignaut, A. S. (2005). Measuring faculty participation in ALN as a basis for faculty development. Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http:// www.unex.edu/disted/conference. Wolsey, T. D. (2004). Literature discussion in cyberspace: Young adolescents using threaded discussion groups to talk about books. Reading Online, 7(4). Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art-index. asp?HREF=wolsey/index.html


Wolsey, T. D. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311–329. Woods, R. H., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Formative Feedback: The online instructor provides ongoing suggestions for students to improve their course work and/or assignments during a course. This is very effective to monitor student learning during the course. Administrative (Response): The online instructor provides ongoing answers for students’ non-content related questions. This type of response is helpful for students’ successfully fulfilling the course requirements during a course. Affective (Response): The online instructor provides ongoing answers for students’ non-content related, but emotion-related questions. This type of response is helpful for avoiding students’ dropouts during a course

Corrective (Response): The online instructor provides ongoing content-related answers for students’ online discussion and assignments. This type of response is helpful for correcting student mistakes in their online discussions and assignments during a course. Informative (Response): The online instructor provides ongoing additional content-related directions for students to expand their knowledge. This type of response is helpful for expanding student knowledge during a course. Socratic (Response): The online instructor provides ongoing challenging questions to force students to go beyond their current knowledge and to think creatively about their discussions and assignments. This type of response is helpful for developing students’ higher order thinking during a course. Learner Satisfaction: The online learners will be satisfied whether the online instructional strategy has effectively helped them to meet the course objectives.

163

Section 3

E-Learning Environments and Communities

165

Chapter 10

Exploring Ideas and Possibilities of Second Life as an Advanced E-Learning Environment Bo Kyeong Kim Jeonju University, Republic of Korea Youngkyun Baek Korea National University of Education, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT Web 2.0 is changing the paradigm of using the Internet which is affecting the e-learning paradigm. In this chapter, e-learning 2.0 and its strategies will be described for net generation. E-learning 2.0 was followed by introduction of Second Life as an advanced e-learning environment. Flexibility, strong social networking, and residents’ creative activities of Second Life allow unlimited potential to educators when they apply various educational principles to designing a learning environment. The authors assert that Second Life is a classroom built in 3D cyber space. Some cases that Second Life was used for a new e-learning environment are also presented. The 3D virtual classroom context is attractive to the educators with the same appearance as real life as well as prepared educational elements which can be built into Second Life. Exploring ideas and possibilities of Second Life provides alternatives to make up for the limits in the current e-learning environment.

INTRODUCTION Kwanwoo, who is in 2nd grade at an elementary school, has no desk at home. However, he enjoys reading books and working with his laptop on a bed instead of a firm desk. As in this example, for the digital generation, classrooms and libraries are not necessary learning places. Laptops with the wireless Internet have made people learn well on their beds, couches, or a street DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch010

café. We would not have expected to see this a decade ago. Until now, classrooms have been the primary place in teaching and learning. However, the World Wide Web has emerged as the primary way most people use the Internet and has occupied the digital generation’s daily lives. “The Web has spawned a wealth of new, network-based applications, from digital music stores to new venues for scholarly publishing (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005)”. Indeed, the availability of network access, in wired or a wireless connection, is ubiquitous and taken for granted.


Exploring Ideas and Possibilities of Second Life as an Advanced E-Learning Environment

The Web has evolved to expand its service to hold blogs, user-created content, and collective intelligence for a problem. According to this expansion, people using the Web have begun to change - they want to be more open to the public, participate more actively in their interests, and try to share their knowledge with others. Changes on the Web and its users “are sweeping across entire industries as a whole and are not unique to education; indeed, in many ways education has lagged behind some of these trends and is just beginning to feel their wake (Downes, 2005)”. The new Web is called Web 2.0 and people using it are called “digital natives”. These new users approach work, learning, and play in different ways - they absorb information quickly, in images and video as well as text, from multiple sources simultaneously. They operate at “twitch speed,” expecting instant responses and feedback (Prensky, 2001). They prefer random access to media, avoiding sequential processing information. They want to be online, expecting to be in constant communication with their friends. They are as likely to create their own content and want it to be delivered free to others. New learners with new traits expect new e-learning strategies. Traditional e-learning with digitized material content in the classroom cannot guarantee active participation in learning and vivid representation for their real lives. The new Web does not refer to an update to any technical specifications but to changes in the way software developers and end-users use the Web. These trends manifest themselves under a variety of guises, names, and technologies: social computing, user generated content, software as a service, podcasting, blogs, and the read–write web. Taken together, they are Web 2.0, the next generation, user-driven, and intelligent web (O’Reilly & Musser, 2006). It is a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet characterized by user participation, openness, and sharing. There are a number of Web-based services and applications that demonstrate the foundations of

166

the Web 2.0 concept and they are already being used to a certain extent in education. “These are not really technologies as such, but services built using the building blocks of the technologies and open standards that underpin the Internet and the Web (Anderson, 2007)”. These include blogs, wikis, multi-media sharing services, content syndication, podcasting, and content tagging services. Many of these Web technology applications are relatively mature, having been in use for a number of years, although new features and capabilities are being added on a regular basis. It is worth noting that many of these newer technologies are concatenations, i.e. they make use of existing services. Second Life is one of them. It has builtin Web 2.0 concepts: social networking, wikis, communication tools, collaborating and sharing information. More importantly, it is being used for educational purposes. Second Life is a virtual world. It is a 3D online space, totally created by its users. Within Second Life, anything imagined can be done, created, and realized. Adopting Second Life as an educational environment enables educators and learners to be more creative and adaptive in how they use the environment and in developing new ways of learning, rather than purely replicating reallife into second life. Learners and educators can work together anywhere using the Second Life environment. Using Second Life as a supplement to traditional classroom environments provides new opportunities for enriching an existing curriculum. Educational organizations using Second Life include universities, libraries, and museums, national and local organizations. For example, there are some campuses, help islands, and schools such as science. E-learning 2.0 is currently finding most interest from both academic and industrial communities. It is based on the Web 2.0 vision that refers to a second generation of Internet services that let people collaborate and share information online in previously unavailable ways. Thus, this chapter aims to explore Second Life in its possibilities,


functions, and learning strategies as an e-learning environment. This chapter expects to bring up new trends and an e-learning horizon based on a new e-learning environment and traits of new learners.

CHANGES OF E-LEARNING AND ITS STRATEGIES Changes to Web 2.0 Dale Dougherty, vice-president of O’Reilly Media Inc., coined the term ‘Web 2.0’ when he discussed a conference brainstorming session. He coined it to describe the common actions of companies that had survived the dot-com collapse and marked a turning point for the new web (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 is a web technology which allows users to do more than retrieve information. O’Reilly attempted to clarify Web 2.0 by describing seven principles: the web as platform, harnessing collective intelligence, data are the next ‘Intel inside’, end of the software release cycle, lightweight programming models, software above the level of a single device, and rich user experiences (O’Reilly, 2005). Anderson (2007) also presented six principles of Web 2.0: individual production and user generated content, harnessing the power of the crowd, data on an epic scale, architecture of participation, network effects, and openness. Brown and Adler (2008) focused on the cultural meaning of Web 2.0 saying that it denoted that information is created by openness, sharing, and participation and reproduces as a result of resharing in repeated circles. From these experts’ opinions on Web 2.0, six principles and examples which have educational implications to educators are listed below:

The Web as Platform Platform is a computer system which operates hardware so that application software can run on

it. The Web as platform means that Web 2.0 can provide applications such as a word processor, spreadsheet, and messenger regardless of the user’s specific platform. It makes informationgathering and publishing to take place in the same space: the Web. Thus, Web 2.0 allows people to get, communicate, create, and share information on one web platform. Google Docs is a web-based application including a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation. People can create a variety of documents and save them to Google’s server so that people can collaborate simultaneously within Google Docs. Thinkfree is another web-based document-creating application. It provides a ubiquitous documentation platform beyond PCs and works with mobile devices connected to the Internet. Parakey is a web-based user interface being developed by Blake Ross who is a Firefox contributor. It will provide a browser-based way to access and manipulate the contents of a desktop PC. Web-based messengers and flash-based movies are an example of Web 2.0 as an alternative platform. Web 2.0 makes it unnecessary for users to install software packages on their PC and do everything through a web browser.

Harnessing Collective Intelligence Knowledge is so rapidly changing to publish with any version. Knowledge is more useful and powerful when it represents in general people’s thoughts and experiences. Web 2.0 encourages users to become providers who contribute to shaping knowledge and lead people to harness collective intelligence using collaborative reference software tools such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a web-based open content encyclopedia which is currently the largest and most popular collaborative reference work. Wikipedia shows that collective knowledge is stronger than one expert’s knowledge without dividing producers, consumers, participants, or reproducers. There is a Korean collective work, Jisik-In, which deals

167


with human tacit knowledge. People ask others’ experiences of Jisik-In. For example, we can post a question to ask which restaurant is most popular in our vacation area prior to arriving there. Many people who had been there then reply but the answers can be different depending on their experiences. We can choose the best reply among them. Others can share the question and answers because they are open to the public. However, we have to be careful in this way of producing knowledge by collective intelligence because it could become a way to service social virtue, not just a web service.

Social Networking in Own Space Over the past few years, social networking through the Internet facilitates making friends, contacting people, and sharing ideas by e-mail, electronic bulletin, and instant message but these tools are only official tools for networking, not personal affairs. Web 2.0 gets you in touch with a lot of people. In Web 2.0, social networking takes place in people’s own space like Facebook, MySpace, blogs, trackback, and podcasting. People have their own territory on where they can scrape information from on their personal interests, present ideas, and describe daily lives. Like real home, they invite friends to their space and visit others and they can identify who visits my home, what they said, and what is disseminated where. They can determine the privacy level of their space with controlling permission.

User Generated Content and Openness Anderson (2007) said the widespread adoption of cheap but high-quality digital cameras, camcorders, and mobile devices have contributed to a rise in ‘citizen journalism’ or ‘witness contributions’. Mobile devices make people get real-time experience, generate digital content, and easily publish to their own space at once. One of the characteristics of user generated content (UGC) is that the

168

authors of UGC want people to share it as much as possible. The more people view the UGC or comment on it, the better authors feel. The OhmyNews in South Korea, the Internet newspaper, has serviced with a catchphrase of “All Citizens are Reporters’ and “News Guerrilla Organization’ since 2000. OhmyNews edits in-depth news by 50 professional reporters and daily ordinary news by 41,000 citizen reporters in a ratio of 5:5 (OhmyNews, 2006). Open Application Programming Interface (API) is an open technology that enables users to embed a web service into their own web pages. For example, users can embed a page which shows the results of keywords that they search for in search engines on their homepage and companies can show their locations using Google Map’s API on their homepage.

Lightweight Programming Models Programming based on Web 2.0 has a simple design and makes syndication, hackability, and remixibility easier. Because this simple design of programming allows one database mashed up to several web services or integrates databases from various sources into web services, it has become easy to distribute Web 2.0.

Long Tail Users can contribute through cooperative uploading meaningful data at online companies. This brought about a change of sales structure of online companies based on Web 2.0. Traditionally, 20% of the top sale items take 80% of company sales according to the 20-80 rule. Stores focus on the best-selling or popular items because it is not easy to display all the goods and the store clerks cannot learn all the information about the whole inventory. At online companies, however, customers provide experiential information about various items even though they are hard-to-find or non-hit ones. So the online companies’ sales show as Figure 1 in contrast with offline stores companies.


Figure 1. Long Tail

Anderson (2006) said Amazon.com’s sales focuses on users’ interests in unique items in relatively small quantities and he called the group of persons that buy the non-hit items as the ‘Long Tail’. The right side of Figure 1 is the Long Tail and the left side means popular items. Barnes & Noble holds on average 130,000 books; for the rest of these 130,000 books, however, it takes more than half the book-selling by Amazon.com. Long Tail would last as long as there is no additional cost for displaying one more book and users upload the unique information the store cannot provide. These six characteristics of Web 2.0, the web as platform, harnessing collective intelligence, social networking in own space, user generated content and openness, lightweight programming models, and Long Tail are the ways that implement the four values of e-learning 2.0, that is participation, cooperation, creation, and sharing as in traditional classrooms. These could make a big difference to the current e-learning paradigm. In other words, the economical efficiency of elearning has been stressed and considered a kind of distance education while e-learning on Web 2.0 called e-learning 2.0 can follow after the openness, sharing, and participation that have been in conflict with implementation in traditional faceto-face education.

Tools Needed for E-Learning 2.0 Traditional e-learning is linear in its path which learners follow. However, e-learning 2.0 provides content in the format of a learning environment. It stresses cooperation among learners such that they are sharing their learning outcomes and products. Traditional e-learning also adopts LMS (Learning Management System) which pushes its content to learners. The new e-learning, based on social change, paradigm shifts in education, and changes in information technology, evolves continuously adopting blogs, podcasting, media sharing, and social networking which are Web 2.0 elements. Karrer (2007) showed the broader view on the evolution of e-learning. He classified and called the e-learning trends like e-learning 1.0, e-learning 1.3, and e-learning 2.0. According to him, the traditional e-learning such as e-learning 1.0 and e-learning 1.3 can be characterized by online course experiences, which were developed by instructional designers and subject matter experts. On the contrary, e-learning 2.0 can be characterized by the web that supports learning and improves human performance. Table 1 summarizes the differences between traditional e-learning and new e-learning based on Web 2.0 that Karrer said. It shows that the first

169


Table 1. E-learning 1.0 vs. E-learning 2.0 E-learning 1.0

E-learning 2.0

- Training delivered through the web - Traditional training model

- Combination of access to learning content - Learning becomes an organic action driven by learners

- Virtual school - Authoring tools

- Wikis - Social networking and bookmarking tools - Blogs - Add-ins - Mash-ups

Learning Content

- Synchronous/asynchronous courseware (60+ mins) - Learning Management System - Driven by instructional designers

- Learning object (1 mins) - Content combining tools - Driven by learners

Access

- Downloading - At one time

- Streaming - When you need it (search, RSS feed)

What is learning?

Learning delivery

generation of e-learning with simple web pages evolves according to the evolution of Web technologies. It adopted standardized LMS, integrated solutions, a personalized learning environment, and a collaborative working environment of participation, openness, and sharing.

E-Learning Strategies for Net Generation Life style and learning styles of the net generation who spend lots of time on Web 2.0 is very different to older generations. Net generation, sometimes referred to as ‘Generation Y’ or ‘Millennials’. They were born in the 1980s and 1990s and are the first generation to grow up surrounded by digital technology. They prefer the Net to TV shows. TV doesn’t allow them to control but they can control much of their world on the Net. They can learn, discuss, play, shop, search, inform, ridicule, and investigate on the Net. Brown (2005) presented nine characteristics of net generation such as net generation has traits such as group activity, goal and achievement orientation, multitasking, experimental (trial and error), heavy reliance on network access, pragmatic and inductive, ethnically divers, visual, and interactive. He also presented learning styles, learning spaces application, and IT applications based on the nine traits. These give implications to establishing e-learning strategies for net generation using Web 2.0.

170

For example, net generation is very familiar to multitasking. Sometimes, multitasking takes place on a laptop. It occasionally needs a variety of tools such as a digital camera, cell phone, mp3 player, as well as a laptop when walking on the street or staying in a room. They are always with digital data and behaviors in their lives themselves are producing, modifying, playing repeatedly, and sharing. It is quite natural for them to do this simultaneously. Second Life includes the above Web 2.0 technology which can be considered as a learning space for this net generation. In the next topic, we present how teaching and learning strategies are implemented in Second Life.

LEARNING IN SECOND LIFE: IDEAS, POSSIBILITIES, AND FUNCTIONS In recent years, there have been some attempts to use commercial games for learning. Educators have designed and implemented game-based learning that provides fun for students and engages them in learning such as game-playing. However, it is very hard to balance between learning and fun within a robust game scenario when educators design game-based learning with commercial games. Moreover, educators have had difficulty in implementing a formal education setting cause of the perception that playing games leads students away from learning.


Many people said that Second Life is a kind of Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG), however, Second Life is not a game. It has no mission, no rules, no competition, and no battle that most games have. It means that avatars in Second Life have high freedom level. The freedom level is more than 100% because avatars can do everything without limitation. This leads educators to choose Second Life as an educational environment. Instructional designers could make various experiments to improve learning in Second Life. They could design the learning environment in Second Life where has Web 2.0 characteristics with high freedom level. In this part, characteristics of Web 2.0 that can be found in Second Life would be presented which would be described especially focusing on the educational potentiality of Second Life.

Classrooms in Virtual Reality Second Life has over 100 regions used for educational environment by universities, colleges, and libraries. Because Second Life has age limits, it is preferred by higher education than K-12 education. Lots of universities have built virtual classrooms for courses and orientation and educated their students. A high freedom level of Second Life makes educators apply any instructional methods and instructional design in Second Life. Faculty can give a lecture to the audience and students can do group activities. And teleport, a traveling command for an instant change of player’s locations, is another powerful function for field activities and the command can give high freedom level to players. In this part, ‘Terra Incognita’ and ‘CyberOne’would be presented among classrooms for higher education in Second Life: ‘Terra Incognita’ is an island prepared by the University of Southern Queensland and the Queensland government. This project built a virtual classroom where students learn and do cooperative work. Most classes were lecture-driven and students can break out from the class and work

group activities. The instructors can visit students and send messages to encourage them to take part in the class again. This project is a kind of example of Action Learning so it was designed to unify the conception and implementation. Second Life is a suitable environment for connecting learning and working together so students learn theory in a classroom and apply it in a workplace close by the classroom immediately. Another interesting example is the 2006 fall course, ‘CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion for Harvard Law School and Harvard Extension School students’. As well as students who registered for this course, any residents who are in Second Life can review it and get the course materials for free. This project focused on the finding the way virtual education can be in tune with face-to-face education. Why are lots of educators attracted to Second Life? What is the advantage of teaching in Second Life than the traditional classroom? What makes us give up a beautiful college campus and choose the 3D virtual classroom? There are two big advantages. First, Second Life is a suitable environment to improve students’ real-life social skills that educators could not easily teach in a formal classroom. It is possible to practice presentation skills, teaching skills, leadership, discussion skills, and interview in Second Life because various people can gather in an island. Second, students can learn from experiences even though it is not real but 3D virtual places. Second Life already has various educational objects such as museums, music halls, movie theaters, and traditional folk villages’ therefore students can visit educational places and learn and experience. Some residents moved their country to the Second Life, so that we can travel through Asia and Europe while sitting in front of a monitor.

171


Practicing Social Skills and Constructing Collective Knowledge People socialized themselves in their own space such as MySpace or Facebook in Web 2.0. They try to make friends and gather into their space and they also move to friends’ spaces. Second Life also has this Web 2.0 characteristic. Second Life’s residents begin to prepare their own space with purchasing land like the real world. They design and build their space with individual preferences and its social networking purpose through scripting. It could be a classroom for education, a mall for business, or a café for meeting friends. It is a little time-consuming work but it makes them attach themselves to the space rather than paying money. Other social networking software provides users with the same format, but Second Life has no framework for designing space. Let alone the own space, what is the remarkable difference between the Second Life and other social network software? One thing, Second Life allows residents to communicate with the way that is most similar with the real world (Table 2). The only thing that is different is ‘Teleport’ transport across space and distance instantly. They can speak with their voice as well as shaking their hand, hugging, clapping, and crying. In Second Life, it is possible for users to communicate for social networking as follows: Proxemics, the knowledge that deals with the relationship between the physical space or distance and peoples’ psychological state can be applied to the communication in Second Life as well as in real

Table 2. Communication tools in Second Life Messaging

Verbally: text or (and) voice chat Nonverbally: visual appearance, gestures, and animations Publishing book: note card

Private/public

In private: instant message In public: group instant message

Tools for travel

Walk, fly, and teleport

172

life. The other thing, communications in Second Life is always real-time and synchronized. Unsynchronized communication gives people uncertainty that they don’t know when they can get feedback. And it makes people formal or official because people know that the different contexts between the sender and the receiver make communication noise. So people say words, not depending on context. Social networking in Second Life is very powerful and rich because residents of the world communicate following proxemics principles in their own 3D space and the same context. Powerful social networking is an essential social skill for harnessing collective intelligence and shows that Second Life is an appropriate environment for e-learning 2.0. Social networking in Second Life makes player construct knowledge in collaboration. The idea of hypertext itself is based on the collaborative knowledge construction with concepts linked. Therefore, the creation of collaborative knowledge is not a new idea. But unlike the previous web paradigm that links scattered concepts, Web 2.0 services provide users not just with knowledge but a platform that can create knowledge. The activities of a user on a Web 2.0 platform are likely to be shown that they are not separated activities of production and consumption but circular activities or simultaneous ones. YouTube is a very eligible example. YouTube provides users a platform for digital broadcasting. People visit YouTube for video consumption as well as video broadcast. However, Second Life is an environment in which the circular activities take place collectively, not individually. It is easier to construct collective knowledge in Second Life than other social networking software because communication in Second Life is similar to that in real life. Second Life allows users to discuss in real time with voice chatting and grasp responses of a talking companion through voice, text, and gesture. This makes it easier to reach an arrangement and consensus of the issue. What is more, Second Life represents knowledge with 3D


objects and there are various ways of expression to represent collective knowledge. Anyone who has permission to access the object can modify it and therefore collective authorship and collective narratives are very natural which helps collaborative working.

User Generated Teaching and Learning Content Second Life consists of completely user-generated 3D content that comes with easy-to-learn tool that anyone can use. Even though people use a user generated content service site such as YouTube based on Web 2.0, they are unwilling to create something. Dr. Jim Purbrick who works on scripting and networking technology for Linden Labs presented statistics showing how people do not participate in generating content. For example, only 5% of YouTube users have uploaded videos they made. And 5% of eBay users have sold something. 0.1% of first-person shooting game players has modified the game. In other words, over 95% of Web 2.0 users are just consumers, not producers. Surprisingly, however, 60% of Second Life users generate objects and build something in the world according to him. He said Second Life’s users create something more than 30 times for Second Life (Cocker, 2007). They provided tools for creating and shaping the world including: 3D prim building, Linden Scripting Language, and texture, sound, animation import. Each prim has a set of parameters, including position, scale, rotation, shape, cut, hollow, etc. Users can link prims together into link sets and attach it to avatars. Prims can be modified in various ways, such as size, twists, shearing, changing surface, and cutting, etc. In Second Life, users can sell the content they made themselves and get financial profits as in the real world. Users are driven by this incentive system. And Second Life allows inhabitants to collaborate to create content. This collaborative creation makes it possible to create complex and

large things such as buildings, classrooms, and parks. Because this phenomenon seems like a market economy, the time and labor which the user expends to make the content are rewarded with financial profit and the habitants try to create something more. In addition to the financial effort, people pay attention to the gorgeous content and gather around it. People build attractive structures and beautiful gardens and fill them with stuff on wild land to get others’ attention. No other Web 2.0 service can be built with user generated content than Second Life. Everything in the world is created by residents’ creativity. This is enough to arouse educators’ interests who are looking at the new learning environment. Second Life is a life as it stands. So learning in Second Life is learning in a life. Therefore, all the educational theories such as behaviorism, cognitive approach, situated learning, cognitive apprenticeship model, and cooperative learning can be applied to explain the learning in Second Life. Including ready-made learning content, the existing e-learning model is somewhat robust. In contrast to teachers, students, and curricula from real life can be transplanted to the new educational environment, Second Life. Second Life is off limits for allowing learning, so it is not surprising that educators try to learn and give educational implications. Second Life does not place restrictions on sharing user generated content. “Second Life is not a game but a creation engine and a place to make and sell/share stuff.” Purbrick said. That is to say, Second Life is different from a game in which players have to compete with others and win a battle. Because most MMORPG gives the same goal to the game players, a player has to establish his own stealth strategy. Players have their own weapons and items. They do not have to be open or share them for winning the game play. However, inhabitants of Second Life enjoy opening and sharing their knowledge and skills. These traits of Second Life which game does not carry denote that Second Life is a more advanced learning environment for openness and sharing

173


of knowledge than game-based learning. It is possible for users to produce, transfer, and share objects based on the concepts of copyright and intellectual property rights. Users even share the process of making objects using a ‘sand box’. In a like manner, educators can store teaching materials in ‘inventory’ and share with others. Here is an example of an exhibition of teaching materials: Metalab (http://metalab.blogspot.com). This blog shows how to create and explore tools for online learning events within Second Life. Metalab is a place for science teaching materials including slides, a model of a human body, white board, and an event timer. If you want to build your own classroom or need educational tools, you can get things from visiting a lot of educational exhibition places such as metalab for free.

Cases of Teaching and Learning in Second Life Case 1: Building Objects Hwang, Park, Cha, and Shin (2008) examine the effects of object-building activities in Second Life on players’ spatial reasoning and explore the relationships between learners’information-perceiving styles and spatial reasoning. In this study, activities for spatial reasoning consist of five areas: analysis and synthesis, deductive reasoning, development and application of visualization methods, systematic approach, and transformation. These activities were adopted from de Moor (1990) who suggested wooden block-building as spatial reasoning activities. Players used prims instead of wooden block-building to build virtual physical objects. (A primitive or prim is a single part object such as cones, cubes, pyramids and can be modified as well as combined to create objects. Multi-part objects have multiple primitive parts or “prims”). Research question is “Which is more effective to players’ spatial reasoning, concrete experience or abstract conceptualization?”. For research, 73

174

university students whose ages ranged from 20 to 22 learned how to play Second Life, including registration, making avatars, walking, hopping, and flying before performing the spatial reasoning activities. They also learned several skills and methods for making an object, using the object-editing tool. Researchers prepared instructional materials and instruments for using in Second Life such as whiteboards for showing images, examples made of prims for activities, five note-cards for guiding, and task papers for assignment to provide during a player’s learning. (Note-card is an inventory item containing text and or embedded textures, snapshots, objects, or other note-cards.) Participants performed as the assignments are written on the five note-cards. Each of the assignment has one of the primsbuilding activities as below: Analysis and synthesis: This activity consists of locating the same prim when presented, top view, side view, and front view only; building the prim after top view, side view, and front view presented; drawing the top, the side, and the front shape of the prim; assembling the prim after disassembly. •

•

•

Deductive reasoning: This activity involves building the object after viewing it in one direction; guessing the number of a prim after viewing it in one direction; and building the prims and drawing the top, side, and the front shape of the prims after viewing the whole building. Development and application of visualization methods: This activity consists of making various shapes with the same number of prims by moving, turning over, and twisting; drawing a sketch, the top, side, and the front of the shapes. Systematic approach: This activity consists of building various shapes with four prims, connecting side to side; and building various objects with three, four, five, and six prims.


Figure 2. Screen of ‘analysis and synthesis’ activity

•

Transformation: This activity consists of building objects in real life with prims such as a house and an office; drawing the plane figure and the plan.

For grouping learners by information perceiving styles, the Learning Style Inventory of Kolb

was administered. And Spatial Reasoning Test was administered to measure learners’ spatial reasoning. The research outcome shows that activities provided in Second Life were more positively effective to abstract conceptualization learners on their information processing such as spatial reasoning.

Figure 3. Screen of ‘deductive reasoning’ activity

175


Figure 4. Screen of ‘development and application of visualization activity

Case 2: Interactive Group Work Seo, Cui, and Shin (2008) analyzed the effects of collaborative activities on group identity in Second Life. 63 university students who are from two ‘New Media’ classes from Korea National University of Education in South Korea participated in this study. One class was used as an experimental group and the other used as a control group. They have never visited Second Life. The participants were given Figure 5. Screen of ‘systematic approach’ activity

176

one mission that they construct the educational space for learning in collaboration. This study adopted events of promoting participants’ interactions using tools inherent in Second Life. According to the study, the following five tools support collaborative activities in Second Life: ‘Permissions’, ‘Add Friends’, ‘Give Item’, ‘Instant Messaging and Chatting’, ‘Give Item for Praise’, and ‘Pollster’.


Figure 6. Screen of ‘transformation’ activity

•

•

•

Permissions: Permissions in Second Life are related to object creation (move, copy, edit). When ‘Move’ permission is given to an object, the object can be rearranged even though it belongs to another player. Thus, this ability makes it much easier to rearrange objects when players are in collaboration for building and decorating their spaces. But this permission does not allow modifying the object itself (shape, color, etc.) or the contents. Add Friends: ‘Add Friends’ gives friends the ability to modify one’s objects: shape, color, and texture. Added friends can use ‘teleport’ to friends and teleport to a location passed to the viewer from a web browser (SLURL). The ‘Teleport’ function calls players into a place for collaboration quickly and easily. Using this feature, a place can be shown to other players without difficulty. Give Item: Objects can be delivered and shared though this feature. This feature

•

•

facilitates delivery and sharing of items. It also expedites interactivity among players. Second Life’s inventory can hold and save documentation of interactions that happen during collaboration as objects for later use. These interactions become a basis of student-centered learning. Instant Messaging and Chatting: In Second Life, ‘Group Instant Messaging’ (IM) allows players to send a message to all members belonging in the group. The player must be a group member in order to send an IM. Thus, they can share a special affinity within a group. In addition, ‘Chat’ allows voice and message communication among players. These features allow students to present their ideas and get feedback synchronously as well as asynchronously. Give Item for Praise: Players can give and take a ‘Praise Item’ when they are in interaction. ‘Give Item’ in a player’s profile can produce positive effects of praise directed to one another. In order to ‘Praise

177


Figure 7. Screen shot of ‘give item for praise’

•

Item’, they should observe not only what they are doing but also what the others are doing. In this study, a party-hat was used as a symbol of praise. Pollster: Another tool for interaction is ‘Pollster’. Pollster is a kind of audience feedback tool. A presenter or instructor

Figure 8. Screen shot of ‘pollster’

178

prompts the audience with a question who then respond with a click to signal their choice. A pollster, consisting of five items for ‘respect’, ‘concern’, ‘contribution’, ‘responsibility’, and ‘collaboration’, was given to the experimental group in order to provide individual as well as group


reflection. The experimental group members could respond to five answers of the pollster. Four colors were assigned to each member of a group. They can see the result of their voting by touching the colors. To measure the group identity the test by Balmer and Wilson (1998) and Chizhik (1998) was administered to participants. The test has nine categories: affection, alliance, attachment, bonding, closeness, kinship, and nostalgia are from Balmer and Wilson, and satisfaction and enjoyment are from Chizhik. Using this tool initiates interactions among players through evaluating their collaboration. The study concluded that the experimental group that used tools for facilitating participants’ interactions shows more higher group identity.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS Conclusion E-learning 2.0 places a high value on participant’s creation, participation, sharing, and cooperation. These values also should be pursued in the classroom learning. They facilitate knowledge construction and consumption useful for people’s quality of life. Until now, the web provided already made universal menus of quality food, while the Web 2.0 provides cooking utensils. It leaves cooking to its participants. Thus, they can cook what they like to have in their own way. They have to cook good food and frequently cooperate with others. After all, they sit together in a table in order to serve themselves. It is enjoyable because they prepared a meal together. In this process, participation, cooperation, creation, and sharing have taken in order. In web-based learning, there are many restrictions for adopting the four values of e-learning 2.0, that is, participation, cooperation, creation, and sharing as in traditional classrooms. In the

traditional classroom, the role of teachers is a knowledge deliverer and that of students is a passive recipient. . In Second Life, both teachers and students can co-create a learning environment. In addition, e-learning can be implemented with management system by simple scripting in Second Life. E-learning has been trying to secure efficiencies in digital sources and on cost-effectiveness of developed courseware. In reality, the interaction which hyperlink, drag and drop, and click can bring out in e-learning has been extremely limited. The interaction was not exuberant enough to draw learner’s active participation and cooperation. Accordingly, e-learning designer’s important task was to encourage learner’s participation and maintain elevated motivation to learn. E-learning, in spite of efforts of educators, designers, and developers, is an alternative to traditional classroom when required condition is not met in the classroom. We had no choice but accept it as an aid to the traditional classroom teaching for time convenience and impersonal way of communication in a web-prevalent society. Thus, many teachers and students found e-learning attractive and efficient. Several traits of Second Life we discussed 3D visioning, cooperative knowledge construction, realistic ways of communication, social networking, inhabitant’s creative activities, openness, and easy scripting. These traits all together support new learning paradigm in on-line education. Especially, three dimensional vision and avatar in Second Life enhances player’s sense of being present and control, leading to a high participation. Learning in Second Life is not simply an aid to classroom teaching, but it is new learning for social skills which traditional teaching cannot achieve, collective intelligence, value sharing, and reaching affective domains of instructional objectives. It provides students with enhanced and expanded learning opportunities. It overcomes timing inefficiencies of traditional instruction and limited communication of e-learning. It can

179


further reflect high quality of social experiences and interaction. In this sense, Second Life can be a second classroom for students in addition to their real classroom.

Suggestions Second Life provided us with a blank-second classroom. Educators need to decorate the classroom with our imagination to build an ideal environment for teaching and learning. To accomplish this, we suggest the followings: First, Second Life for learning is currently implemented in many classes and institutes. Their uses of Second Life need to be documented and shared in order to develop effective use of Second Life in learning. Second, there is a need for developing guidelines and principles for blended-learning that could integrates real-time instruction with the virtual learning. Third, Second Life needs to be integrated with other technologies such as Wikipedia, blogs to enhance student learning. Fourth, to maximize the use of Second Life in learning, the design and implementation of a learning management system in Second Life is necessary. Second Life provides more powerful learning context than real situation. For Second Life to become a more advanced learning environment, designing learning based on context is required.

REFERENCES Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/ documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

180

Balmer, J., & Wilson, A. (1998). Corporate identity: There is more to it than meets the eye. International Studies of Management & Organization, 28(3), 12–31. Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16-32. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://connect.educause. edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/MindsonFire OpenEducationt/45823?time=1217884504 Brown, M. (2005). Learning Spaces, In D. G. Oblinger, & J. L. Oblinger, (Eds.). Educating the Net Generation, (pp. 12.1~12.22) Educause. Retrieved September 10, 2008 from http://net. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7101.pdf Chizhik, A. W. (1998). Collaborative learning through high-level verbal interaction: From theory to practice. Clearing House (Menasha, Wis.), 72, 58–61. Cocker, G. (2007). Jim Purbrick: Second Life and User-generated Content. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.gamespot.com/ news/6175694.html de Moor, E. (1990). Geometry instruction in the Netherlands (ages 4-14): the realistic approach. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Realistic mathematics education in primary school (pp.119-138), Culemborg, The Netherlands: Technipress. Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. eLearn. Retrieved September, 2, 2008, from http://www. elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&a rticle=29-1 Hwang, J., Park, H., Cha, J., & Shin, B. (2008). Effects of Object Building Activities in Second Life on Players’Spatial Reasoning. Paper presented at the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, November 17-19, 2008, Banff, Canada.


Karrer, T. (2007). Understanding E-Learning 2.0. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://www. astd.org/LC/2007/0707_karrer.htm O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/ tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html O’Reilly, T., & Musser, J. (2006). Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices: O’Reilly radar. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://radar. oreilly.com/2006/11/web-20-principles-and-bestpra.html OhmyNews. (2006). Why OhmyNews? Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.ohmynews. com/NWS_Web/company/01_introduction.aspx Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Seo, S., Cui, X., & Shin, B. (2008). Effects of Collaborative Activities on Group Identity in Second Life. Paper presented at the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, November 17-19, 2008, Banff, Canada.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Second Life: Second Life is a 3D online virtual world developed by Linden Lab. Second Life provides only online community environment and the every content created by the residents. Web 2.0: Web 2.0 first became notable at the O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. Web 2.0 is the web service that aim to facilitate user creation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing Collective Intelligence: Collective intelligence is a shared intelligence that emerges from the collaboration of individuals. Web 2.0 facilitate the production and consumption of collective intelligence User Generated Content: User generated content also known as user created content. It refers to digital content that are produced by the Internet end users, not the content experts E-Learning 2.0: E-learning 2.0 means that the second generation of e-learning based on Web 2.0. technologies. 3D Virtual Classroom: 3D virtual classroom is the classroom environment which is emulated in 3D virtual world such as Second Life looks like real classroom. Net Generation: Net generation is students who were born in the 1980s and later. They have grown with computer and the Internet and been digitally literated.

181

182

Chapter 11

When Virtual Communities Click:

Transforming Teacher Practice, Transforming Teachers Jeannine Hirtle The University of Hawaii at Hilo, USA Samuel Smith University of Texas at Arlington, USA

ABSTRACT Communities of practice (CoP’s)—much touted and studied as a mechanism for teacher education and professional development—may offer environments for deeper learning and transformation of their participants. This chapter examines more meaningful outcomes possible in community-centered learning— deep learning, changes in professional culture and identity, and participants “finding voice”—outcomes of value not often seen in formal educational and traditional professional development settings. Drawing on qualitative data from participants in a three-year community of writers and literacy educators, this study suggests that CoP’s can be linked not only to development of knowledge and skills, but also to changes in participant beliefs, attitudes, voices, visions, and the identities of practicing educators.

INTRODUCTION A community of practice is generally defined as the process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in some subject or problem collaborate over an extended period to share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations, with early scholarly inquiry driven by the writings of Lave (1991) and Wenger (1998). It is important to “stress that such a community of practice is not

just a Website, a database, or a collection of best practices. It is a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships, and, in the process, develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment; people who share your overall view of the domain and yet bring their individual perspectives on any given problem to create a social learning system that goes beyond the sum of its parts” (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). Cox (2005) provides an excellent summary of these early writings and approaches.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch011


When Virtual Communities Click

All well and good. Few constructivist, technology-oriented teachers in 2008 would doubt the value of interweaving the intellectual and social cultures of a class or professional development group to transform a course or study group. To modern-day readers of such theoristand-practitioner colleagues as Barbara Ganley or Gardner Campbell, these ideas are givens. And the same group of faculty innovators eagerly infuses technology tools for community building into their digital pedagogies, even if online groups and classes sometimes struggle to find a sense of community (Chavis & Pretty, 1999; Rovai, 2002) or lack a certain group “spark” representative of the best a “community of practice” can be. Indeed, researchers and thinkers have struggled to find models to describe, predict, and improve the activity of communities designed for human potential, a burgeoning professional literature represented in such works as: Barab, Barnett, et al. (2002); Barab, MaKinster, et al. (2003); Barah, Schatz, et al. (2004); Chee & Hedberg, 2005; and McConnell (2005). Glazer & Hannafin (2005), for example, provide a meta-analysis of the educational literature focusing on aspects of communities of practice to outline members’ traits—factors such as affect, belief, or cognition— that research has suggested is related to interaction in group settings. And the qualitative research of Little (2003) most especially influenced us as researchers looking to document deeper learning and more meaningful outcomes from communitycentered learning. Domains from science, mathematics, and technology instruction (Howe & Stubbs, 2003; Graven, 2004; Horn, 2005; John & Triggs, 2004) to literacy education (Liberman & Wood, 2002) have provided fertile ground for electronic communities of practice to grow, and numerous anecdotal reports link accounts of such communities with “changing the culture” of participants’ thinking and professional practice, as well as “deepening thinking” (Chapman, Ramondt, et al., 2005)-both the types of complex, high-end learning

outcomes which educators covet. Communities of practice have also been linked to such ideals as allowing participants to find or shape identity (Duguid, 2005), sustain commitment among atrisk educators (Goldring & Hausman, 2001), build a “culture of inquiry” (Snow-Gerono, 2005), or increase internationalization in study and practice (Sierra & Folger, 2003).

ISSUES, CONTROVERSIES AND PROBLEMS How are such learning communities built and sustained? Instructors of university graduate courses in education, both online and in the classroom, often go to great lengths to create learning environments which promote collaboration, support facilitation, and build community. Supported by principles of social constructivism, professors and students mediate learning in this nurturing environment where knowledge is transacted—not simply transmitted—by active, engaged learners who collaborate on problem solving contextualized in real world situations. In this environment, trust and respect are carefully built as both teachers and students emphasize the processes and products of learning. But what happens when the course is over and teacher participants have dispersed to their individual places of work? How is the knowledge they have mediated integrated into their praxis as they recursively apply theory, reflect, and build theory? Often new knowledge—and the community that helped support it—is lost with the close of the institute, class or project. Teachers need time to apply new concepts and understanding, and they need a support system with whom they can continue to ask questions, share stories, and brainstorm. Without an ongoing support system, new instructional understanding is likely to diminish in the face of the culture of the organization or school to which the teacher returns.

183


The virtual learning community offers the opportunity for this sustainability to occur (Hirtle et al 2006). But in order to find shape or identity, sustain commitment among its participant educators, or build a culture of inquiry, some common elements must be in place to help these communities “click.” In Leadership for the Schoolhouse, Sergiovanni (1996) offers four theoretical elements necessary for a sustained learning community. He asserts that school-based learning communities are shaped by theory and form; moral connections; non-linear relationships, and social constructivist principles. Those same principles can be applied to virtual communities that extend from school to form a sustainable community of learners, practitioners and leaders. First, Sergiovanni (1996) asserts that the theory and form of the community should be aesthetically pleasing. The language and form should be appealing. Students, professors, and interested professionals should want to visit this site. Not only should it be easily navigable, but it should be inviting with images that the site participants can relate to easily and in which they are motivated to participate. Secondly, he addresses moral/ethical connections—deep personal connections which bind the community and create recognition of common shared values and commitments that will propel learning and new knowledge. Sergiovanni defines moral connections as the duties teachers, parents, and students accept and the obligations they feel towards others, and toward their work. The term “moral” can be highly problematic if it attempts to codify values for all. Dewey (1897) believes that moral education centers upon the notion that the best and deepest moral training is precisely that which one gets through having to enter into proper relations with others in a unity of work and thought. Howard Gardner suggests the term moral “is a concern with those rules, behaviors and attitudes that govern the sanctity of life, in particular, the sanctity of human life and, in many cases, the

184

sanctity of any other living creatures and the world they inhabit” (1999, p. 70). He views morality on a personal level but contextualizes it in relationship to others. He defines “moral” as: a sense of personal agency and personal stake, a realization that one has an irreducible role with respect to other people and that one’s behavior towards others must reflect the results of contextualized analysis and the exercise of one’s will . . . (1999, p77) Dewey (1897), Gardner, and Sergiovanni (1996) each posit that the element of morality can not exist solely within the individual; that it must find its place in relationship to others. When it does, the conditions are set for transformation. We assert that it must be an essential element of community-based or social-based learning. What connections can be established in the learning community that correlate to shared values and practices in the daily lives of the virtual inhabitants? Third, the non-linear or hierarchical relationships that exist in the social constructivist learning community can be supported by shared opportunities for communication in the community. We extend this position, adding that by using the tools that technology offers today—blogs, podcasts, vlogs, chat rooms, threaded discussion areas—the leadership role in learning communities can be shared. When supported by common ethics, shared purpose, trust and respect, any of the participants can initiate learning, encourage others, ask questions, and share experience. And fourth, Sergiovanni (1996) believes the learning community should be grounded in the principles of constructivism. Learners should have an opportunity to mediate knowledge within a social context. Constructivists believe that: Thinking takes place in communication, and that when learners’ home cultures are honored and validated, a dialogue will open up fixed boundaries so that ‘students can freely examine different


types of knowledge in a democratic classroom where they can freely examine their perspectives and moral commitments. (Hirtle, 1996, p92) Multiple intersections of thought and language should exist to offer richly complex opportunities for knowledge to be created and sustained. The virtual learning community can be designed and populated with technology tools that support these intersections of social experience, creating, as Vygotsky believes, a “culture, which is the product of social life and social activity”(1981, p. 168). With these elements in place, it is possible to forge a culture of inquiry, a place that inspires praxis, and ultimately empowers teachers to be transformative. Transformative educators believe that “thought has meaning only when generated by action upon the world” (Freire 1993, 58). In order to support learners’ transforming their reality, educators can help them use the “literacy process as a cultural action for freedom . . . in an act of knowing in which the learner assumes the role of knowing subject in dialogue with the educator” (Freire 1988, 403–404). This transforming power enables learners to discover that they are makers of a world of culture with creative and recreative impulses (Hirtle, 1996) In addition to available theory, Fox (2000) provides multiple excellent, narrative examples of teacher transformative renewal, as does Peery (2004), who, incidentally, bases a substantial portion of her work on examples from a South Carolina National Writing Project. Within Fox’s definition of transformation, three themes he cites are clearly threaded throughout the writing and reflection of the Bluebonnets: • • •

engage in social contexts with help to redefine their identity; have flow experiences, related to their teaching passion; find voice.

And it is exactly these “higher end,” transformative results—deep group commitment to shared inquiry and practice—that particularly interest us as researchers. This is represented in our ongoing work (Hirtle, 2006) to document how the community of practice fostered by a multi-year National Writing Project group at our institution provided an environment to encourage literacy educators into a culture of developing practice. This online, or e-community of practice (e-CoP), allowed teachers to be located in their home work environment while simultaneously learning, sharing, and innovating as a team, a unique mix Brown (1991) calls “a unified view of working, learning, and innovating.” But as this long-term initiative—the Bluebonnet Writing Project—unfolded, we also began to sense transformations of—not only professional practice as literacy educators—but even deeper senses of teacher renewal and increased personal agency on the part of “Bluebonnets.” It was these transformations we set out to document in more detail.

A MODEL VIRTUAL LEARNING COMMUNITY The Bluebonnet Writing Project’s e-community of practice provides the context of this study. The Bluebonnet Writing Project (BWP), an affiliate of the National Writing Project (NWP) (http:// www.nwp.org) is located at The University of Texas at Arlington. Its mission is to help build the leadership, programs, and research needed for K-12 teachers to help their students become successful writers. The NWP model is dedicated to the beliefs that: • • •

Teachers are the best teachers of other teachers Effective professional development requires a continuum of in-service programs Students ultimately benefit from researchbased practices.

185


Supported by extensive research and funded by matching grants between the National Writing Project and hosting universities, local affiliates of the NWP offer credit-bearing, annual summer invitational institutes to teachers of all grade levels to come together to write, study existing research on writing, and demonstrate their best practices. These teachers are supported, after the annual Summer Institute by on-site programs called “continuity” which are designed to help continue the opportunities to write, study, and share best practices. In existence since 1974, this national program for teacher professional development has positively affected thousands of teachers and reached exponentially many more students. Supported by principles of social constructivism, professors and students mediate learning in this nurturing environment where knowledge is transacted—not imply transmitted—by active, engaged learners who collaborate on problem solving which is contextualized in real world situations. In this environment, trust and respect are carefully built as both teachers and students emphasize the processes of learning, as well as the product. Cooper (2006) posits that it is important for students to take part, not just during the tenure of a course or program of study, but to grow into a community that will help implement and sustain similar elements of support beyond the virtual or physical classroom. The Bluebonnet Writing Project, since it is situated in the large Metroplex of Dallas/Fort Worth, faced multiple challenges in getting former institute participants to continue their community. Challenged by travel through a large urban area with heavy traffic, busy teaching schedules, and family and life schedules, little time was left for the participants to come together in a face-to-face environment to continue their writing, learning, and sharing, The solution was a virtual learning community that offered the opportunity for continuity to occur online. To that end, the leadership of the Bluebonnet Writing Project established a virtual community

186

center. Complete with spaces for writers to share, professional development to occur, community news to be shared, and successes to be celebrated, Bluebonnet participants found it to be a space where they could share their ongoing professional development. Over the last two and a half years, BWP leadership and summer institute graduates have forged a community of professional practice where they telementor each other in their virtual village. The virtual community center is housed at the Bluebonnet Writing Project Village http://txbluebonnetwp.blogspot.com/. Modeled after a real village, this village consists of virtual dwellings, each of which has a purpose to support the Bluebonnet Community. A schoolhouse represents the space where more formal virtual professional development takes place. The garden links to notifications of Bluebonnet’s growth professionally—or how the Bluebonnets blossom. The tents in the garden link to the Bluebonnet’s Young Authors’ Camp information and blogs. The community center houses a calendar of events. Perhaps the heart of this virtual community is the “mother” blog. This mother blog guides, and ultimately mentors community participants through their summer invitational institutes and supports them with its continuous virtual presence as they return to their schoolrooms and seek to continue writing personally and teaching writing to their students. While each of the community participants has a blog he/she posts to, it is the mother blog that ties the community together and helps it fulfill its role of providing a space for members to learn, grow, receive mentoring, and mentor others. As this community of practice is geographically spread out over 9289 square miles and encompasses more than sixteen school districts, it was vital that the BWP find a solution to help its participants be easily involved in a community of practice. We sought to examine these questions: Can computer technology facilitate the development of an “e-community of practice”? Can computer technology enable mentoring rela-


tionships that promote reflective thinking, deeper understanding, substantive conversations, and a change in professional practice? Our data sources were the Bluebonnet Writing Project participants and we collected our data by survey and interview—both electronically delivered. We followed up the interview with e-mails that asked for elaboration and specifics on some questions. Initially we surveyed 36 of the Bluebonnet participants and had a 30% return rate. We were attempting to determine how useful the participants found the “mother” blog and participant blogs. When asked about how useful the blogs were during the summer institute, 63.6% of respondents answered that they found the blogs very useful and another 36.4% found them either somewhat or a little useful. When asked the same question about use after the summer institute, 36.4% ranked the blogs as very useful, while 54.6% found them somewhat or a little useful. Only one person found the blogs to be not at all useful. We asked a couple of questions about use of the mother blog. We found that 45.5% checked the mother blog once a week, 18.2% checked once a month, 18.2% checked once or twice a semester and 18.2% checked once or twice a year. When asked why they accessed the mother blog (multiple answers possible), 50% of respondents said that e-mail notifications prompted them to check the blog; 60% reported a desire to check in on the Bluebonnet community; 30% said that looking for a past post prompted them to check; and 20% reported that they needed to find an answer to a classroom writing or technology methods problem. Of those that checked the mother or participant blogs, 70% reported incorporating something from the blog(s) into their teaching. They reported using the blog(s) to refresh their memories about lesson ideas from the summer institute. They also reported using and reflecting on the teaching demonstrations posted on the blog—particularly those that crossed grade

levels. They reported modifying these lessons for their own grade levels. Several reported having limited technology in the classroom, but after reading the blog(s), they were inspired to creatively figure out how to include the technology. One student discussed how the blogs that focused on technology integration in literacy helped her meet the Texas Technology Application standards in her ELA classroom. Another respondent reported incorporating additional technology with her students on a daily basis. Another felt the biggest benefit was knowing where to look for support or information to share with other students. Finally, one participant observed that the blog served as a model for the community, reflection, and professional development that she seeks in her own experience. When questioned about whether the blogs helped participants in the Summer Institutes feel connected to the Bluebonnet Writing Project community, 90.9% responded in the affirmative. Feelings of connection ranged from “enjoying reading about a participant’s activities during and after the summer institute” to a realization that the community was there to support each other whenever a problem occurred. One participant wrote: “I knew I could get a response from other BWP members by blogging there about a new find or even a problem I was having in my instruction. The collective is more powerful than the individual.” The blog helped participants not only stay in touch, but plan to meet and team-teach: “I was able to give and get current information and feedback. I also have met with three different Bluebonnet attendees on various occasions to share and team-teach.” One reported that time caused them to not utilize this asset: Life has been so busy for me with a little one that I barely have time for the computer, checking e-mail, writing . . . anything! I would have felt more connected if I had not forgotten all my passwords.

187


At the end of the initial survey, we asked if anyone would be willing to participate in an additional interview. Six people responded, but only three were able to arrange time for an interview. In the interviews we asked respondents to tell us about a time when they used the blog to tell a story or classroom experience, brainstorm, motivate or reinforce, model or teach, or pose or respond to assignment or task-based questions. We also asked: During the Summer Writing Institute, many participants reported a “flow experience” or “being in the zone”—a mental state of excitement and high energy, a feeling of being fully immersed and involved in what you are doing, marked by strong focus and a feeling of success. Does this describe your experience during the on-site summer program? If so, what role did the blog play in nurturing this feeling both during the in-person institute and during the months following? The interview responses were varied and informative. These are representative: • • • • • • •

Used it to access others research Referred others in my school to the website Go there when I need ideas or current information Use it as a resource for teachers that I mentor Access resources to help support my classroom practices A way to reach out for help and support Use it to help strengthen my understanding and enable me to speak out with authority on research-based writing instruction

After reading and coding the data from the surveys and interviews, three themes emerged: social contexts of development in person; passion/ flow experiences; and finding voice—all leading to transformational states/experiences/readiness.

188

PARTICIPANT CASE STUDIES Scott Scott is currently a technology specialist at a small east Texas school district. When he came to the Bluebonnet Writing Project Summer Institute, he was an English teacher for the middle grades in his school district, and was in the process of completing a Masters of Education online from the University of Texas at Arlington. His online experience in the education milieu was already deep and varied. It did not take long for him to inspire and motivate the Bluebonnets with his natural love of technology as a way to support classroom learning and teaching. Throughout the summer and in the subsequent academic semesters, he served as a tech liaison for the Bluebonnet Writing Project. This position, created by the National Writing Project for its local sites, was a natural for him. Scott recalled that a story he shared in his early days of posting on the BWP blog was an eye opener for him—leading him to an epiphany-like understanding of what open source software could do for him, and for his students. I found this tool (part of what we now call Web2.0 or the Read/Write Web). It is free and really cool. Since we are writing teachers, it has a lot of bearing on what we could do in the classroom. Even if we just used it a few times the students would gain from it. This is what their website has to say: Writeboards are sharable, web-based text documents that let you save every edit, roll back to any version, and easily compare changes. Use Writeboard to write solo or collaborate with others. I say it is worth a try. (Floyd, 2006)


It was this post that Scott saw as a perfect model for short, reflective writing. He was interested in its motivational potential for student writing, but soon he went further into Web 2.0 with blogging. With blogging he found success and controversy. Scott initially saw a problematic side to blogging and he posed this issue to our community in the following post: Anne Davis has a great post pondering the pedagogy that resides within blogging in the classroom. This quote by her really summed it up for me: ... blogs can provide an opportunity to change our writing instruction to make it more meaningful and relevant for our students. Many times our classroom assignments are assignments where students reiterate or restate information they have read with an occasional opinion. Generally just the teacher will see the paper. Blogging lets many more become engaged. Blogging can be a place where we can make connections and dig deeper into how and what we are learning, both student and teacher. Sharing these thoughts and discoveries with others builds networks of learning that can cross continents. We get to toss our ideas out, have reactions to them, receive suggestions to build upon them and many more become involved in the process. It becomes more personalized and certainly more meaningful. Students are creating meanings that make sense to them because they are constructing them, not having pieces delivered to them that they just repeat. There is too much evidence to think otherwise about blogging. I think we allow too many others around us in the school building to control what we do for our students. Criticism about trying something new can be strong, but if we truly know the benefits for our students, why should we let the naysayers mess it up? I am going to make a coordinated effort to not only have my students blogging more this next year but to get more teachers doing it as well with their students. If they live

in the glass house with me then they can’t throw stones. Correct? Any thoughts? (Floyd, 2006) Scott’s thoughts brought about a lively discussion, but it also gave him impetus to bring blogging into his district. He reported it as an interest he had at the time and it turned into “hundreds of kids blogging, which in turn turned into thousands of kids of having access to blogging tools in our school district. The blogs are used for podcasting, writing, and we are moving into electronic portfolios with them.” (Floyd, 2008) Scott engaged in an inner and outer dialogue when he broached the subject of using blogs. In the best of social constructivism, he gave voice to his inner thoughts, anticipating mediating those with his learning community (Vygotsky) and, in so doing, his dialogue took a “moral” stance because it engaged his valued peer community. The relationship within the blog is “non hierarchical” (Sergiovanni, 1996) and it enabled Scott to give voice to his forming thoughts and provided the space he needed to build a bridge to his practice. Thus Scott’s experience was transformational— moving him beyond traditional curriculum, outside the current hierarchy of school curricular decision-making, and ultimately into a technology job within his district which allowed him to further develop and implement his progressive thinking about curriculum with his whole school district. Scott’s feelings about the necessity of engaging his community members in discussions of shared values were evident went he took on the “hot topic” of Web 2.0 in K-12. Scott cited Southern Methodist University’s Dr. M. Ray Perryman’s (2006) recognition about how reading habits could change in a positive way as students engage in more literacy transactions digitally. Perryman’s arguments that the highly interactive social way that students are reading and writing that teachers bemoan does have merit as it keeps the skill of reading alive and well and that it necessitates writing to get the message across. Scott affirms

189


Perryman’s “take” on Literacy in the Digital Age and challenges K-12 educators to consider these same issues: It is good to see that the higher Ed folks are paying attention to the changing habits of today’s student culture. I wish I could say the same for the K-12 crowd. Videos such as this are great ways to demonstrate a visual of the problems we face in the classroom today. Instead of preparing our students for the world they will face (and one we have not even seen yet), we put them in the same setting as those that we, our parents, and their parents sat in. Is this just our lazy way as teachers of saying we came, we taught, we tried? Are we not concerned that we are sending students out unprepared? Do we not understand that the world is changing so quickly that half of what a student learns their first year of college is outdated by their third year? Are we unaware that there are more students in China taking the SAT test in English than in the Untied States? Do we simply not care that the top 10% of the population in China equals the total population of the United States and the top 25% is more than the total population of North America? We are not just competing with the neighboring school districts anymore. We are (or at least should be) preparing our students to compete against the world. (Floyd, 2006) Scott took this argument one step further and he asked community members to consider David Warlick’s post: 2 Cents Worth: Scare Em! Is this a legitimate avenue for affecting change? Does fear motivate people to change? Might it motivate reluctant teachers to modernize their practices? (http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p=756) (Warlick, 2006) Scott exhorted community members to consider:

190

So is it the right thing to do? Do you think it is even possible to scare teachers into this type of paradigm shift in a K-12 setting? Do you see the need for this type of change in thought and instruction? (Floyd, 2006) A lively debate ensued from this post and follow-on questions and Scott’s circle of influence widened as he considered the ethics of using emotion to gain K-12 educators’ attention, and he began to think about “policy” on a more global level. He was concerned, not only with his immediate sphere of influence in his district and in his writing community, but with the national stage as well. Already a lobbyist for a state teacher association, Scott was aware of how policy was made, and his posts encouraged others in the community to begin to engage in this potentially transformational thinking.

Janelle Janelle was a high school French and ELL teacher at a large urban high school in a major metropolitan area in Texas. While Janelle grew up in a privileged education system, attending one of the best college prep high schools in the area and the prestigious Vassar College, she embraced the realities of multicultural education, an immigrant population, and the impact of poverty in her chosen school. Janelle, despite her many gifts and her amazing rapport with her students and faculty, found herself feeling constrained by the system. She wrote about her reaction to Scott’s post on the need for change, and, in her comments, accepted responsibility for lack of change. Of course, I think we need to change, and I wish I could change things as fast as I would like. When I watched the video, I found myself thinking that these are things I am interested in . . . why then, can I not stick to my guns and make the necessary changes?


I would love to continue to blame the administration and their lack of foresight into exactly what could be accomplished with investment in EFFECTIVE use of technology. Of course, this would be an investment in our students... one that would make them competitive and literate in the world they live in, but I can’t continue to merely play the blame game. (Bence, 2006) Janelle’s realization and recognition in her role as a classroom teacher and change agent was a defining moment for her. It began a new stage of her transformation as an educator. She wrote in her interview: The discussion to follow allowed us to ponder our roles as agents of change, and I found the contributors, myself included, questioning how to do this. We motivated one another to meet this challenge. This is a very memorable exchange that I feel molded me as an educator as well as connect with other professionals. That’s what being an educator should be about. (Bence, 2008) What about the virtual learning community environment helped Janelle reach this pivotal point in her thinking about herself (and others) as educators? Janelle in her interview described the conditions that supported her growth: It is the connectedness that it provides. Being in a group of like-minded individuals allows each of us to explore new areas safely. The blog allowed that connectedness to continue after the SI (Summer Institute) for as long as I wanted it to. You have to have that extra level of support even after the event ends. (Bence, 2008) Sergiovanni’s assertions that non-liner and non-hierarchical relationships are essential to a learning community are echoed in Janelle’s acknowledgment that the “connectedness” is so important. We add that it is a connectedness in an environment of shared values, trust and respect.

This kind of connectivity allows people to step out of prescribed roles and routines and move into the future of possibility with their own ideas, backed by theory and practice, and the support of others. Posts in this online learning community also helped ideas and energy flow. Janelle wrote: I think the “nerd” in me got excited with any new application of Web 2.0. Here’s one example in the exchange on June 27, 2006. The discussion was about making online Project Posters, and we were all very enthusiastic about using this in our own classrooms. There are really too many examples to list here because we shared so many apps on the blog. Each new post made me giddy with potential implementation in any classroom. (Bence, 2008) Janelle’s energy and excitement rippled across the whole community as each new idea came up. Podcasting, vodcasting, wikis, movies and many exciting blog posts, articles, and sample products were all posted, causing a veritable flow of energy throughout our learning community. The shared values—or the moral focus—was on what could have the most potential for helping our students learn and our teachers teach. Each reaction formed another reaction that formed an action in the classroom—our “flow” overflowing into the workspace. Janelle, realizing the isolation of teachers and the lack of affirmation that teachers often receive noted in her interview: Since we are like-minded educators, I found us serving as cheerleaders. The comments to this post show contributors acknowledging, supporting, and extending one another’s ideas on becoming visionary educators. (Bence, 2008) Her vision, like Scott’s, was recognized by her school, and she took a special position as a curriculum and technology specialist within her

191


school so that she could help lead others to that vision. Scott and Janelle both continue to blog and both have blogs for their personal and professional use. They embrace the spirit of shared community, opportunities for non-hierarchical relationships that give participants a space to develop “a voice.” They created inviting virtual environments where people with shared values come to extend their own thinking, dip into the spirit of the community, and ultimately contribute to their own and others’ evolution and transformation as educators.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS After our extended experience with the Bluebonnet Writing Project—and now supported by qualitative data on the BWP experience—we as researchers are more convinced than ever that communities of practice—whether on-site, online, or mixed—provide complex, powerful contexts for personal growth and personal transformation. The case studies of Scott and Janelle show, not only developing knowledge and skills about their teaching craft, but, more importantly, a social interchange that affects their “voice” and the professional identity they carry to the outside world. Janelle, at home with “like-minded educators,” brings her energy and excitement—her flow experiences—to the group primarily via Weblog posts, changing her own perceived identity in the process. What started as a professional development experience for a mid-career educator resulted in a powerful new persona of a teacher/change agent in the literacy education field. On the other hand, Scott, already an experienced change agent and technology evangelist in his own school district, found voice and an important role statewide and nationally as a result of his Bluebonnet experience. But his exposure with and on the blogs of nationally-known educational technologists did not occur by chance; Scott cited

192

“lively discussion on the part of the [BWP] community” which fueled his reflection on technology topics, strengthening his confidence as well as his arguments for technology infusion into educational settings. Rehearsed and strengthened internally by this external dialogue, he not only gave expression to his inner thoughts while engaging with the Bluebonnet group, but he transitioned beyond his traditional curriculum coordination role to much larger spheres of influence—curricular decision-making at the school and district level, and advocacy and technical consulting roles in statewide committees and decision processes. Again and again, his posts and writing for the Bluebonnet Writing Project audience show his “flow” and energy, while recounting his first steps toward greater professional responsibility based in part on his more engaged, connected writing and interchange. Wenger (1998) developed the concept of “identity trajectory”—an idea which provides a framework for describing the role changes we encountered in Scott and Janelle. Indeed, Wenger argues that communities of practice and other social learning settings provide a unique milieu in which to affect identity—just the type of deeper outcome we had hoped to find and document. For although he documents trajectories within a community of practice in the shorter term (1999, 154-157), Wenger also notes that changes to our “private selves” are just as present in such settings, as summed up by that author: Because learning transforms who we are and what we can do, it is an experience of identity. It is not just an accumulation of skills and information, but a process of becoming - to become a certain person or conversely, to avoid becoming a certain person. (215) The act of belonging to a community, Wenger contends (174), is a complex one, offering opportunity for imagination—visions of the possible in an arena of practice—and engagement, which


offers shared history of practice, joint practice with other community members, and the building of relationships to support imaginative practice in the future. One could hardly imagine a better complex of outcomes! While this current work highlights two moving stories of professional transformation, research work for the future abounds. Communities of practice and online CoP’s arguably provide a rich social milieu for deep, meaningful engagement by participants, when designed with care. In a setting such as the BWP, this interchange can lead to reflective practice and visible, positive change in participants’ professional voices, resulting in changed personal visions and professional roles for the community’s participants. Future researchers, we predict, will continue to explore the complex social environments that communities of practice and e-communities represent. Moving beyond the transactional (roles of participants, communication categories) to the profound can provide meaningful outcomes. Changes in identity, increased feelings of worth and voice, expanded visions of the possible in the classroom or an educational career, fueled by an environment which fosters constructivist communication and negotiation of meaning—these are among the “gold standards” and hoped-for results from any educational endeavor. Professional literature and other writings on these “higher end” outcomes do exist. Parker Palmer (1980) has most famously outlined teacher growth and transformation in these deep, meaningful ways, as has Fox (2000), cited above, while researchers such as van den Berg (2002) have explored concepts such as teacher identity and identity change. But the psychological literature on these topics remains disconnected, for the most part, from educational scholars exploring the complex environments we now have for learning, personal, and professional growth. Rich research and writing on such broad themes as the role of mentoring and telementoring in teacher development (Wang & Odell, 2002), have already been

embraced by the educational scholarly literature, and can inform future researchers on why communities of practice and e-communities of educators “click” in the most meaningful ways. Scholarly writing in more diverse areas such as complexity theory in education (Johnson, 2008), maturing models of teacher cognition (Kagan, 1990), learning-to-teach studies (Wildeen et al., 1998), and increasingly holistic depictions of teacher effectiveness (Korthagen, 2004) will also more frequently come into play in these discussions. Increasingly too, our conceptions of learning in social contexts continue to mature. Little (2003) continues to inspire with her rich, qualitative research examinations of professional learning communities of educators, searching for those complex patterns and flows of discourse, behavior, and identity among participants. At the same time, Forsyth & Schvarien (2005) have recently argued that today’s technology-supported collectivity in the workplace and elsewhere compels us to view learning, not only as an individual act, but one that deserves a “collective perspective.” Their work challenges us as researchers to consider and document “group (not just individual) learning,” to understand the growth and development of a learning collective. As new ways of describing and analyzing collective learning emerge, scholars will open yet another avenue to the complexity of community and the role it plays for educators at all stages of their careers.

CONCLUSION Struck by the personal and professional transformations we as educational researchers witnessed during successive years of the Bluebonnet Writing Project—a community-of-practice approach to the professional development of literacy educators in Texas—we as authors have devoted several years of professional writing and exploration to the reasons for the BWP’s successes. Transformations such as those presented in this article—the

193


development of a mid-career teacher into a teacher/ change agent and the growth of a teacher/change agent into a statewide advocate and nationally known educational technologist—represent transformations of identity and vision possible only in an environment which can support a complex mix of writing, reflection, and social interaction, Such an environment can nurture profound changes in educators’ professional identity and voice and promote high-energy discussion, oftentimes in a “flow” state, guidance, and mutual support. Environments such as communities of practice and e-CoP’s arguably promise to create exciting, substantial change in the lives and professional practice of educators at all levels.

REFERENCES Barab, S. A., J. G. MaKinster, et al. (2003). Designing System Dualities: Characterizing a Web-Supported Professional Development Community. The Information Society, 19(3), 237. doi:10.1080/01972240309466 Barab, S. A., & Barnett, M. (2002). Developing an Empirical Account of a Community of Practice: Characterizing the Essential Tensions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489–542. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1104_3 Barah, S., & Schatz, S. (2004). Using Activity Theory to Conceptualize Online Community and Using Online Community to Conceptualize Activity Theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25–47. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1101_3

Chapman,C.,&Ramondt,L.(2005).Strongcommunity, deep learning: exploring the link. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 217–230. doi:10.1080/01587910500167910 Chavis, D. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). Sense of community: Advances in measurement and application. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 635–642. doi:10.1002/(SICI)15206629(199911)27:63.0.CO;2F Chee, T. S., & Hedberg, J. G. (2005). A framework for fostering a community of practice: scaffolding learners through an evolving continuum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 159– 176. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00450.x Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science, 31(6), 527–540. doi:10.1177/0165551505057016 Davis, A. (2006). Personal Post. Last retrieved on Sept 4, 2009 from http://anne.teachesme. com/2006/05/31/blogs-and-pedagogy/ Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed, The School Journal, Volume LIV . Number, 3(1), 77–80. Duguid, P. (2005). The Art of Knowing: Social and Tacit Dimensions of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice. The Information Society, 21(2), 109–118. doi:10.1080/01972240590925311 Floyd, S. S. (2006, July 2). Blogging Pedagogy. Message posted to http://txbluebonnetwp.blogspot.com/

Bence, J. Q. (November 24, 2006) Is Anyone Listening? Does Anyone Care? Message posted to http://txbluebonnetwp.blogspot.com/.

Floyd, S. S. (July 5, 2006). Writeboard. Message posted to http://txbluebonnetwp.blogspot.com/.

Bence, J.Q. (2008, August 13). Personal comments.

Floyd, S. S. (November 23, 2006). Is Anyone Listening? Does Anyone Care? Message posted to http://txbluebonnetwp.blogspot.com/

194


Floyd, S.S. (2008, August 13). Personal comments. Forsyth, L., & Schaverien, L. (2005). Emergent collectivity: Teachers as interdependent e-designers of professional development in K-6 Science and Technology. Journal of In-service Education, 31(4), 635–656. doi:10.1080/13674580500200389 Fox, R. (2000). Up drafts: Case studies in teacher renewal. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Glazer, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Promoting Technology Integration Through Collaborative Apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 57–67. doi:10.1007/BF02504685 Goldring, E. B., & Hausman, C. S. (2001). Sustaining Teacher Commitment: The Role of Professional Communities. PJE . Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 30–51. doi:10.1207/ S15327930pje7602_3 Graven, M. (2004). Investigating mathematics teacher learning within an in-service community of practice: The centrality of confidence. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 177–211. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000049277.40453.4b Hirtle, J. (1996). Coming to Terms: Social Constructivism. English Journal, 85(1), 92. doi:10.2307/821136 Hirtle, J., Bence, C., & Quintans, J. (2006). It Takes a Village to Build A Writing Project: A Case Study of a Virtual Learning Community. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp. 2560-2565). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the Job: A Situated Account of Teacher Learning in High School Mathematics Departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207–236. doi:10.1207/ s1532690xci2302_2 Howe, A. C., & Stubbs, H. S. (2003). From Science Teacher to Teacher Leader: Leadership Development as Meaning Making in a Community of Practice. Science Education, 87(2), 280. doi:10.1002/sce.10022 John, P., & Triggs, P. (2004). From transaction to transformation: information and communication technology, professional development and the formation of communities of practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 426–439. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00101.x Johnson, E. S. (2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model of accountability in Education. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 5(1), 1–10. Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419–469. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher. Teaching Education, 20, 77–97. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002 Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. (2002). Untangling the Threads: networks, community and teacher learning in the National Writing Project. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3/4), 295–302. doi:10.1080/135406002100000440 Little, J. (2003). Inside Teacher Community: Representations of Classroom Practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945. doi:10.1111/14679620.00273

195


McConnell, D. (2005). Examining the dynamics of networked e-learning groups and communities. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 25–42. doi:10.1080/0307507052000307777

Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored Learning to Teach According to Standards-Based Reform: A Critical Review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 481–546. doi:10.3102/00346543072003481

Palmer, P. J. (1980). To Know As We Are Known: Education as a Spiritual Journey. San Francisco, CA: Harper One.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Peery, A. B. (2004). Deep change: Professional development from the inside out. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Wildeen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A Critical Analysis of the Research on Learning to Teach: Making the Case for an Ecological Perspective on Inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130–178.

Perryman, J. (2006). Reading Habits Change in New Online Revolution. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1997/07/28/editorial4.html Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197. doi:10.1016/ S1096-7516(02)00102-1 Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? Why is it important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sierra, C., & Folger, T. (2003). Building a Dynamic Online Learning Community among Adult Learners. Educational Media International, 40(1/2), 49. Smith, M. K. (2002, 2008) Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved August 12, 2008 from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gar Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 241–256. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.06.008 van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ Meanings Regarding Educational Practice. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 577–625. doi:10.3102/00346543072004577

196

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Blog: Online web log. CoP (Community of Practice): The process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in some subject or problem collaborate over an extended period to share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations e-CoP (electronic Community of Practice): The process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in some subject or problem collaborate over an extended period to share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations, all this occurring on-line Social Constructivism: Social constructivism is an educational theory of acquiring knowledge which emphasizes the importance of culture and context in and constructing knowledge. Learning Community: A self-sustaining and supporting community focused on acquisition and construction of knowledge in a particular area. Shared values, aesthetics, non hierarchical relationships, and shared opportunities for communication are key elements of learning communities Virtual Learning Communities: Online learning communities supported by social network software.

197

Chapter 12

Could Web 2.0 Technologies Support Knowledge Management in Organizations? Luiz Fernando de Barros Campos Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil

ABSTRACT This chapter investigates whether information technology tools typical of Web 2.0 can support Knowledge Management (KM) practices in organizations. An investigation on the Web is conducted and the appropriate literature examined. The information technology tools employed in organizations nowadays are discussed with the help of three guidelines which each present two opposing ideas: knowledge creation versus knowledge sharing, tacit knowledge versus explicit knowledge and hierarchical KM versus organic KM. It is argued that these tools reveal an innate contradiction: they are based on a centralized conception and production but aim to deal with informal, fluid processes, which resist structuring. The term Enterprise 2.0 is defined and examined, since it brings out a critical view of traditional KM technology. In this context, the prevailing technologies on the Web are described as well as the associated use practices. The technologies and practices highlighted are those that enhance the collective creation of information and knowledge-intensive products and the active, rich user participation which influences the development of own technologies. Subsequently, many Web 2.0 tools and services that are, or could be, used in KM practices are described and the sites that provide them are indicated. It is noted that these new technologies are inducing cooperative and decentralized work processes that lead to emerging products of high quality and complexity. Furthermore, they are characterized by net effects, simplicity, ease of use, low cost and rastreability. Nevertheless, there are some difficulties in the application of Web 2.0 technologies, among them, the attainment of performance requisites, privacy and security, the possible emergence of counterproductive results and the need to motivate people to create content. The challenges and opportunities in the organizational use of Web 2.0 technologies are remarked. Finally, the managerial interventions appropriate to enable the success of KM projects based on Web 2.0 technologies are discussed. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch012


Could Web 2.0 Technologies Support Knowledge Management in Organizations?

INTRODUCTION There is no doubt that Knowledge Management (KM) has a human, social and political nature that goes far beyond the application of technological tools. In some cases, too much emphasis on the technological aspects can impair the implementation of KM projects. Taking into account, however, the pervasiveness of information and communication technologies in all human activities, especially those related to the Internet, one cannot talk about KM without commenting on the technologies that support and enhance it. At the same time, these technologies (understood here mainly as Information Technology – IT – tools and systems based on computers) do not satisfy those who utilize them (Davenport, 2005). Knowledge workers are unsatisfied with the communication channels that are presently employed, especially e-mails, considering that they are overloaded and overused. It is debatable whether KM technological tools are effective in improving the creation and sharing of knowledge; they are, however, hardly used (McAfee, 2006). These tools aim to deal with dynamic and unstructured knowledge, but are themselves rather formal and grounded on a centralized conception and production. Recently, an intense discussion on the new social, economic and technological trends related to Web 2.0 has been going on (O’Reilly, 2005; Nass & Levitt, 2006, 2007; Ragsdale, 2007). The flexible, cooperative and pervasive nature of Web 2.0 has been highlighted. Works that ask if and in what terms Web 2.0 practices and technologies are adequate to KM are starting to appear (McAfee, 2006). In this context, this chapter intends to inquiry whether information technology tools typical of Web 2.0 can support Knowledge Management (KM) practices in organizations. For accomplishing this, an investigation on the Web is conducted and the appropriate literature examined.

198

The first section of the chapter (Knowledge Management and Information Technologies) questions the information technology tools employed in organizations nowadays. They are discussed with the help of three guidelines which each present two opposing ideas: knowledge creation versus knowledge sharing, tacit knowledge versus explicit knowledge and hierarchical KM versus organic KM. Some main categories of technological tools that support KM are briefly examined, which supports the conclusion that very structured tools are employed to deal with inherently unstructured organizational knowledge. Therefore, it is claimed that these tools reveal an innate contradiction: they are based on a centralized conception and production but aim to deal with informal, dynamic processes, which resist structuring. The prevailing technologies on the Web are described in the next section (Web 2.0) as well as the associated use practices. The technologies and practices highlighted are those that enhance the collective creation of information and knowledgeintensive products and the rich user participation. The section is divided in four subsections (The Conception of Web as a Platform, Fostering Collective Intelligence, Innovation in Assembly: Users as Co-builders of Technologies and Rich User Experiences.) Since it brings out a critical view of traditional KM technology, the term Enterprise 2.0 is defined and examined in a separate section (Enterprise 2.0: A Critique of the Technologies that Support KM). The expression, created by McAfee (2006), represents exactly the application of Web 2.0 concepts to the creation of KM technologies in organizations. In the subsequent section (Web 2.0 Technologies Used in KM), many Web 2.0 tools and services that are, or could be, used in KM practices are described and the sites that provide them are indicated. A table illustrates the relations between the tools, KM functionalities and given examples. The approach does not mean to be comprehensive but exemplificative.


The challenges and opportunities in the organizational use of Web 2.0 technologies are remarked in the following section (Challenges and Opportunities). Since Web 2.0 tools involve less planning and unexpected uses of the tools can pop up, there must be trust in users. It is expected that building and sharing a common knowledge corpus will turn out to be more troublesome as an organization ages. The network effects of Web 2.0 can help to solve this trouble (McAfee, 2006). As occurs with all technologies, especially the new ones, there are some difficulties in the application of Web 2.0 technologies. Some of them are more technical, such as questions related to performance, security and privacy. Others are related to the particularities of the use of the technologies, like the emergence of counterproductive results and the necessity of motivating content creation. Finally, the managerial interventions adequate to enable the success of KM projects based on Web 2.0 technologies are discussed in the last section (Final Considerations). Some recommendations are similar to the ones made for KM projects that utilize more conventional tools. However, more specific recommendations for Web 2.0 technologies utilization are made, such as the choice of a unified platform or many platforms connected to organizational units, informal inauguration of KM projects, and a top management policy ready to cope with results that diverge from organizational goals.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES The literature on KM concerns the fundamental role played by information technologies in knowledge practices and processes. Davenport & Prusak (1998), for instance, categorized technologies employed in KM and warned against excessive confidence in technology as the main support of KM projects in organizations. Firestone & McElroy (2001) emphasized the technologies

that ground knowledge production and sharing but remarked that KM processes are inherently human and must be treated accordingly – a point that reached consensus in KM literature. Firestone & McElroy (2001) also reveal a common concern of KM authors that is related to the different emphasis on KM creation or KM transmission/sharing. This was more noticeable in the first years of the discipline. Some theorists like Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) criticized the early reactions, especially in the USA, to fundamental KM works. In their view, the explicit processes of capture and transmission of knowledge have been overemphasized to the detriment of knowledge creation. This argument has since been developed by many researchers, such as Takeuchi (1998), Nonaka & Konno (1998) and Von Krogh, Ichijo & Nonaka (2001), who favor the conditions that facilitate creation and sharing of tacit knowledge instead of the elaboration of better techniques for making knowledge explicit. These dichotomies – creation versus sharing, tacit versus explicit – have an impact on the way in which managers should intervene in KM projects. There are more direct ways of manager interference, like establishing goals and evaluation parameters. Many, however, defend the idea, which is based on complex theory, by which interventions in KM processes should be synchronized not to be destructive, since there is an emergent order in natural systems that is not easily determined (Firestone & McElroy, 2001). Thus, to intervene effectively, one should act on critical points that lead to contexts more propitious for the creation of knowledge. From this contraposition, KM could be polarized between the hierarchical and the organic, as Mac Morrow (2001) observed. A point of particular interest is that in KM the tensions and polarizations illustrated are present when technologies are debated. For instance, Turban, McLean & Wetherbe (2004) instituted two broad categories for technologies that support KM. The first one, the knowledge network model,

199


references the technologies that are not focused on extracting knowledge from people and codifying it, but on enhancing the access to it. This model is akin to unstructured interventions of managers and knowledge creation. The paradigmatic example is the yellow pages. The second one is the knowledge repository model, which encompasses technologies that aim to concentrate knowledge in a more or less structured form in repositories and permit its transit from and to people. This model inclines to a more hierarchical managerial performance and codification/sharing of knowledge. On a conceptual level, therefore, to understand the KM initiatives better, one can transit from the pole organic intervention – knowledge creation – network technological models to the pole hierarchical intervention – knowledge sharing – repository technological models. Of course, these categories appear mixed up in practice but they can be useful for demarcating the trends and main characteristics of KM projects and, in chief, determining ways of incorporating technologies into the projects. The diversity of the technologies that can support KM in organizations have not, however, been expressed until now. Carvalho (2000) created a typology of software tools for KM, partially based on the types of knowledge involved (explicit, tacit) and on KM processes (generation, codification and transfer). We do not intend to describe these kinds of tools in detail but it is important to mention them to illustrate how the technological tools that support KM are understood and characterized, and to discern some underlying principles. Intranet-based systems are used extensively in corporate portals. The basic idea is the aggregation of information, envisaging integration and sharing. Groupware and workflow tools aim to facilitate working in groups. Groupware technologies help people to work together from a distance providing means of communication and cooperation, which are adequate conditions for knowledge creation. Workflow tools support standardized business processes and collective tasks and are thus more

200

focused on codification and transfer of explicit knowledge. With similar focus, Electronic Document Management (EDM) is meant to maintain repositories of explicit knowledge in the form of documents, which are neatly organized to be retrieved and interchanged. The tools classified as Business Intelligence have their roots in systems built for supporting the decision-making of executives and include technologies like data warehouse, data mining or OLAP (On-Line Analytical Processing). Generally, they try to find information amid transactional data and present them in a more comprehensible and visual format. The artificial intelligence-based systems are meant to represent and process knowledge in order to make inferences. This is the case with neural networks and expert systems. They try to encompass explicit and tacit knowledge as well as the processes of creating and conveying it. Knowledge Map Systems do not contain knowledge itself, but point to its location, indicating, for example, the experts in certain topics. This is typical of the network technological models which aim to comprehend difficult codified knowledge by forging access to it. Finally, innovation support tools are common in industrial R&D (Research and Development). They are intended to support the activities of communities of practice and usually provide a technological knowledge warehouse, which does not occur in groupware. The focus is clearly on establishing ideal circumstances for knowledge creation. The description of the technologies related to KM points out their different goals and approaches, but highlights a fundamental point of convergence: all of them are tools produced in a centralized manner independent of their aims, even when these aims are creative and cooperative work and the emergence of tacit knowledge in complex and interactive processes. That is, extremely structured tools are utilized to deal with intrinsically unstructured organizational knowledge. This is


the basis of a critic detailed in a following section. We will examine first the characteristics of processes and technologies that are increasingly used in the Internet today and can be compared with the tools described in this section.

WEB 2.0 Web 2.0 is a term coined by the media company O’Reilly (2005) and is defined by Musser, J., O’Reilly, T., & O’Reilly Radar Team (2007, p. 10) as “a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet – a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects.” The features of Web 2.0 usually mentioned in the literature and discussed here are based on those treated by Musser et al. (2007), O’Reilly (2005), Anderson (2004, 2006), Nass & Levitt (2006, 2007), Ragsdale (2007), and others who treat correlated themes, such as Morville (2005) and Surowiecki (2005). The processes and technologies emphasized are those that result in information and knowledgeintensive products and rich, active collaboration of users, which influence own development of the technologies.

The Conception of Web as a Platform To make Web users cooperate effectively, it was first necessary to overcome time and geographical limitations. As a result of steadily decreasing storage costs, huge databases are proliferating on the Internet and documentation is available indefinitely. Internet users can communicate with peers across continents. The first step in achieving constructive collaboration is to guarantee inexpensive and virtually unlimited exchange of ideas and practices. In this way, reference to the Web as a platform pertains directly to its pervasiveness and range. The idea also counterbalances the uniformity

imposed by the adoption of specific technologies. So, the platform is ubiquitous, interoperable and independent of specific implementations. With a browser, one can access information no matter what its localization and format. Following certain standards, companies can provide services freely. Many data-sharing protocols in the Internet are based on geographical decentralization with digital objects residing in many machines, like pointto-point protocols. The conception of platform involves geographical reach, technology diversity, protocols and communication standardization and flexibility.

Fostering Collective Intelligence Keeping Web users connected at low costs contributed to the appearance of new forms of teamwork. These emergent forms of collaboration are not anticipated: they evolve naturally from diverse uses. Additionally, since users started to produce content intensely, they subvert the traditionally fixed roles of working on networks, undermining centers of know-how and intelligence. Therefore, it is convenient to adopt a metaphor of intelligence that is created and sustained collectively. Collective intelligence or the ‘wisdom of crowds’ (Surowiecki, 2005) is increasingly employed in the Internet. The expression refers to an architecture of participation in which the user collaboration aggregates value. The value can be created in a direct, explicit fashion, as in the virtual communities. In them, the content is provided by users, who upload files in sharing areas, comment, filter, recommend, search, talk online, interact and create links to others’ content. Since publishing on the Web is easier, many communities have been created around frequently-published diary notes or ‘blogs’. Some collective works of unexpected quality have appeared such as Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. In this context, the lines between users, information organizers and tools creators are blurred. One example is the appearance of the ‘folksono-

201


mies’, which are taxonomies engendered by users when they generate labels for categorizing and retrieving content published on the Web. Sites like del.icio.us and Flickr pioneered their utilization. These sites provide, respectively, social bookmarking services (which consist fundamentally of storing and sharing preferences) and photopublishing and sharing. Nevertheless, the value of the architecture of participation is also created in an indirect, intrinsic manner, without necessarily involving a virtual community. One example of this is the Pagerank algorithm. It takes advantage of the link structure of the Web, which is constructed by users as a result of their natural and quotidian activities on the network. Pages to which many links point receive many ‘votes’ and are considered important or popular (which, in practice, assumes the role of a relevance indicator). Another example of the implicit construction of ‘intelligence’ are the metadata created and enriched by users, like the products evaluation in the commercial site Amazon, which implements a word-of-mouth virtual recommendation system, or the shareable news indications in the site Digg. There is also the case of user profiles and application use statistics, which constitute contextual information that could be used to improve Web search engines. This practice is termed rastreability and occurs, for instance, with data about previous searches or relations of most visited sites. User participation is magnified by network effects. According to Musser et al. (2007, p. 16), the Metcalfe law states that the utility value of machines connected on a network – like telephones or computers – do not increase linearly, but proportionally to the square of node number of the network. Also, the Reed law postulates that the value of applications that facilitate the formation of sub-groups on networks, such as the social network service provides Orkut and Myspace, increase even more speedily, following the exponential rate of 2n. These observations and empiric laws establish that the utility of networks

202

grows faster than the quantity of nodes, which is particularly true in the case of networks that involve cooperative work. Taking advantage of these facts, Web companies tend to enhance user cooperation by providing initial advantages and significant contexts for creating content (adequate tools, personalization, aggregation, recommendation filters, etc.), trusting users and facilitating the emergence of functionalities by allowing, within certain limits, unforeseen uses.

Innovation in Assembly: Users as Co-Builders of Technologies One of the most remarkable trends on the Web is the creation of services, protocols and applications by the community of users. Generally, this has been demanding highly technical specialization of the users. A transformation of the business models on the Web is related to this trend. When adopting older business models, companies try to protect their intellectual software rights. In the context of Web 2.0, however, there is a tendency for open standards, protocols and software to be used. The structure of these technologies is known. The source code is publicly available and can be altered by anyone, under certain conditions. Most of these technologies are products of a collective intelligence based on structured cooperation, which guarantees quality and broad use. There are many operational systems, Web servers and programming languages in this situation. Sites have evolved from a static structure, which exposes a specific set of information, to a dynamic content that is presented according to users’ demands. Dynamic sets are usually supported by a database that is accessed by means of a protocol or a programming language. Nowadays, these sites have progressed far beyond that and can no longer be characterized as information reservoirs, still dynamic, but as ‘platforms that provide data and services to facilitate entire new ecosystems’ (Musser et al., 2007, p. 24).


However, the most productive facet of innovation in the use of Web technologies is the affordability of products and services that can be altered by users without deep technical knowledge. Products and services can be made available in an adaptable fashion by, for instance, the creation of an Application Programming Interface (API), a set of routines with known functions and entry points, to be freely used. APIs are being integrated in business practices. For example, Amazon created APIs that allow other companies to search its catalogue and provide shopping cart functionalities. The companies receive from Amazon a small percentage of the sales originated. Besides APIs, easier-to-use, small and reusable components are available, widgets or gadgets, which allow multi-source content to be integrated without programming effort. The use of APIs and widgets creates business partners and clients in an automatic, scalable, cheap and transparent way. The so-called mashups are akin to these technologies. A mashup is a combination of easily-integrated services that combines content from many sources. Presently, the commonest mashups on the Web are constructed by combining the Google Maps API with other information sources, say property data. All these technologies, along with the various conceptions of their uses, allow innovations to be generated at low cost and with little programming effort since standardized and reusable components are easily assembled.

Rich User Experiences Expanding the scope of the Web and allowing users to collectively create and transform technologies are trends related to more resourceful user experiences. The advance of Web 2.0 technologies engenders richer user experiences in many levels. The first level is an immediate result of technological advances. As larger bandwidth is available and storage is cheaper, content is increasingly reproduced in rich media, like sophisticated graph-

ics, elaborate figures, sounds, videos and songs, accompanied by more numerous users and more varied applications. A new level of user interaction is achieved when there is transference of applications from the desktop to the network environment. The advantages of desktop applications – rich interactivity, high user engagement, fast performance – are combined with the strong points of online software – collaboration, platform independence, ubiquitous access. The applications move from desktop to browser. Officer applications, like text editors or spreadsheet applications, which function online and store user data, are provided already on the Web. The applications are no longer artifacts but continuous services, termed ‘software as a service’ (SaaS). Technologies like Ajax make possible data exchange between the server and the client browser without refreshing the page, which facilitates the implementation of advanced, highly interactive graphical interfaces in browsers. Web 2.0 interfaces aim to enhance simplicity, usability, personalization and findability (Morville, 2005). The paradigm ‘the page metaphor’ has been abandoned. This means that content is no longer connected to a specific page address, which derives from the more intense use of dynamic content. Sites therefore worry about providing addressability for users. Often, personalization comes together. This is the case with the site Amazon, which generates dynamically most of the pages asked, adjusting them to the user’s preference and previous purchases. On the one hand, users can specify the page layout as well as, frequently, their own particular content, creating pages compatible with their interests. On the other hand, applications ‘learn’ from the user behavior and are able to anticipate needs, remember personal preferences and adapt when necessary.

203


ENTERPRISE 2.0: A CRITIQUE OF THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT SUPPORT KM Given the consolidation of a culture around the emergent and dynamic use of the propagative Web 2.0 technologies, the natural question is whether these tools would be useful in organizational environments, supporting KM processes and remedying the deficiencies of the tools currently used. This is the context of the term ’Enterprise 2.0‘, coined by McAfee (2006) to designate the Web 2.0 platforms that organizations can construct or build in order to make visible the practices and outcomes of their knowledge workers. McAfee (2006) argues that the information technologies currently employed by knowledge workers fall into two categories. The first one is channels, like e-mails and person-to-person instant messaging, which can be created by anyone but have a low degree of commonality of information. The second one comprises platforms like intranets, corporative sites or information portals, and, generally, all the tools described in the second section, which related KM to information technologies. Contrary to the first category, production of the tools is centralized in spite of the high degree of commonality of information. KM, however, aims to reach both commonality and decentralized cooperative production. According to McAfee (2006), this is the space that can be filled by Web 2.0 technologies, which focus not only on the creation of knowledge but also the practices and outcomes of the knowledge workers. Nass & Levitt (2007) particularly criticize the corporative portals, probably the most discussed of the old KM technologies. According to them, the many applications keep their own interfaces and repositories in spite of being gathered on the common interface of the portal. The criticism of the centralized production reappears, since it is a technical team who, on the basis of organizational politics, personalize the data presentation

204

for the whole workforce. Furthermore, integration is essential but is complex, expensive and time-consuming. As regards business intelligence tools, the authors argue that it is difficult to install, configure, maintain and use them despite their spreading throughout the workforce, not just among managers. Thus, Nass & Levitt (2007) emphasize ease of use as an essential condition for facilitating the spread of KM technologies in organizations. Ragsdale (2007) advises that content should be looked for no matter where it is. Generally, KM tools deal with authorized content, situated behind firewalls, with the exception of intelligent agents. The content search should be extended to virtual communities with specific interests, business associations and even blogs and sites previously authorized. Here, this is a convergence with the concept of platform and a claim for its expansion in business environments.

WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES USED IN KM Many features of the Web technologies analyzed previously are conducive to the improvement of KM in organizations. Some of them are recurrently considered as appropriate to remedy the weaknesses of the current use of technologies in KM, as it is by McAfee (2006), Nass & Levitt (2007) and Ragsdale (2007), whose arguments were pointed out in the previous section. Web 2.0 technologies basically: • • • •

go beyond traditional time and special limits; are easy to use; provide means to collectively alter their outcomes; interface with users by means of personalized, interactive and multimedia resources.


In organizations, technologies that stress these characteristics are denominated Enterprise 2.0 technologies. McAfee (2006) highlights six components of Enterprise 2.0 technologies: (1) the links structure on the Web, where people’s ability and freedom to build links is of the utmost importance; (2) information search, whose performance is improved by the use of keywords instead of directories; (3) authoring tools, like blogs and wikis, which are focused, respectively, on information aggregation and interactivity; (4) categorization processes by means of tags and folksonomies; (5) extensions, namely recommendations systems; and (6) the means to signal and disseminate up-to-date information (RSS). All these technologies were explained and contextualized in the section about Web 2.0, except the sixth one, which deserves some consideration. RSS is an acronym for Really Simple Syndication. Syndication is the process of making informa-

tion published in one site available to other sites and applications. The use of RRS feeds allows a person to be up-to-date with his/her preferred information sources automatically, without manual checking. There is a class of applications called aggregators, which can be desktop software or Web services. Their basic functionality is to direct information published in many sites toward only one point, regularly checking the existence of new content. Table 1 distinguishes some typical Web 2.0 technologies that were identified during research on Web services and sites, relating them to some ordinary KM functionalities. Of course, completeness is not a goal, but some interesting observations can be made from the tools identified. To a certain extent, there is a tendency to implement, under Web 2.0 precepts, KM tools which are already in use in organizations, especially those that have functionalities of

Table 1. Association between typical Web 2.0 technological tools and KM functionalities Tools

Functionalities

Examples

Search mechanisms partially based on the Web link structure Search mechanisms specialising in all kinds of media Hypertext

Information search and access

Google Google Images Kartoo8 (cognitive interface in a visual meta search engine) Technorati9

Customised Web portals

Information and knowledge aggregation, integration and sharing

Cyn.in

Wikis

Collaborative publishing and links creation

Wikipedia

Weblogs

Publishing, storytelling

Blogger

Social Bookmarking

Categorisation (tagging) Taxonomies creation (folksonomies)

Digg del.ic.ous10 flickr

RSS services News Reader Mashups

Signalling and disseminating up-to-date knowledge and information

Bloglines Feedreader Netvibes11

Collaborative Work software

Planning and management of collaborative projects

Wrike Cyn

Social Networks Virtual communities

Connecting/associating people in communities of practice

Orkut Linked In12

Mashups

Knowledge and information combination Reusability Cooperative work Personalisation

Netvibes Pipes13

205


corporate portals, workflows, groupware, project management and publishing. Considering their affinity with Web 2.0 principles, we cite as main examples Cyn.in and Wrike. Cyn.in1 is an application provided as a service that can be used to publish content on specific work team areas, company intranet area or publicly accessible Web area. Notes are published, to which files can be attached. There is a simple categorization system by means of tags that can arrange the notes in a tree structure. All content can be disseminated by RSS feeds. Like Cyn.in, Wrike2 is a service on the Web that focuses on collaborative work and controls its fluxes. Tasks are created and shared between work groups. The tasks and groups can be created automatically by e-mails. Basically, the service differs from a common workflow by virtue of its simplicity. There are many other examples. In Central Desktop, public and private workspaces of many types can be created (such as wikis, databases, corporate blogs or user forums) or a meeting hosted. The project management unity records tasks and milestones, maintains a calendar, combines access to documents and discussion in a tab, provides an overview of the project and can use tools such as Messenger, Google Talk and ICQ3, to detect user presence. BoxesOS from Epazz4 is basically a portal to provide a unified access to emails, agenda and integration to CRM (Customer Relationship Management), ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), and other backend organizational systems. Liferay5 provides three products: a portal, a journal and a collaborative suite. The portal uses technologies such as Java and Ajax. It has a built-in CMS (Content Management System) and a collaboration suite. A site taxonomy is generated dynamically. All web content can be tagged and dynamically published. The interface is based on gadgets (called portlets). The portal portlets offer data in microformats aiming integration to Yahoo or Technorati, among other resources. Many functions are implemented, such as blogs,

206

blogs aggregation, RSS, wikis, message boards and instant messages. Mindtouch6 is a wiki for authoring, aggregating, organizing, and sharing content. It is also a platform to create collaborative applications. There is an intuitive page creation functionality, a tool to compare pages and a system of permissions. The use of tag folksonomies is allowed. Pages are created and grouped according chronologies. Drupal7 is an open source content management platform. It provides a blogger API support, content syndication with a function that exports content in RDF/RSS format and a news aggregator. The application is multi-platform (Apache or IIS) and can utilize open source data management systems such as MySQL or PostgreSQL. We noticed that generally most KM tools have a set of bundled functionalities such as: • •

• • • • • • • • •

Document management or content management; Web publishing (and other tools for extending Knowledge Management across organizational boundaries); Workflow; Project management; Online communities support; Taxonomies use; Portals; Storytelling and narratives use; Search engines; Content Visualization; Communication (e-mails, discussion boards, etc).

These functionalities are provided with a focus on the ways the user-friendly tools are employed to produce the desirable outcomes, emphasizing cooperation and ease of use. They also try not to impose a strict structure on the manners the tasks are accomplished.


CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Given the novelty of the application of Web 2.0 tools in KM, enquiry about their advantages and disadvantages is certainly useful. Table 2 summarizes the main challenges and opportunities in using Web 2.0 technologies in KM projects. Most advantages have been already discussed. The main point to be emphasized is the balance between structured and unstructured ways of working. More unstructured approaches favor creativity, collaboration and unexpected outcomes, but may detract from organizational goals and objectives. Opportunities and threats are inherently situational. Less structured tasks, which involve creativity and breakthrough concepts, can benefit more from the highlighted features of Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Also, these technologies can support structured and crystallized business tasks, providing a means of necessary innovation. Some characteristics of Web 2.0 technologies are desirable in all circumstances. Low cost, simplicity, intuitive use and ease of use make these technologies accessible to all, and can lower training costs. Rastreability, which involves detecting and recording patterns of use, can be very effective for the improvement and evaluation of the tools. There are technical difficulties. Web 2.0 applications are simple, lightweight and loosely coupled. Achieving stricter requirements of performance, privacy and data security can be challenging. There are difficulties related to the uses and goals of Web 2.0 tools, including the affinity between these tools and unstructured data. One of many possible solutions is the adoption of markup languages to build resources like microformats, which are small portions of semistructured information (such as a card or an address) that are embedded in web page codes and can be understood by many applications. Another important point that must be remembered is that

Table 2. Challenges and opportunities of employing Web 2.0 technologies to support KM processes in organizations Opportunities Low cost Simplicity Ease of use Software as a service Less training is necessary Intuitive use Emergence (emphasis on use, not on structure; less planning) Intrinsically collaborative mechanisms Rastreability Challenges Dealing with structured data Motivation to produce content Spontaneity (necessity of inducing emergence) Attainment of performance, security and privacy requisites Emergence of counterproductive results

content creation must be induced. Web content is vastly consumed but produced by a minority. The knowledge workers must be motivated to utilize Web 2.0 tools more actively. This involves enhancing organizational strategies and culture, which should fit the Web 2.0 technologies in use and induce their use. Previously, we mentioned that one of the advantages of Web 2.0 tools is less planning and structuring, which results in unexpected emergent uses. The other side of the coin is that these uses can sometimes hinder organizational goals. In these circumstances, prompt and adequate managers’ reactions are crucial to the success of a KM project. Errors should be accepted as natural, not condemned. Rules to assess unexpected outcomes should be established and made clear. Also, naturally, the most fruitful outcomes should be rewarded, clearly divulging the top management policies and organizational objectives.

207


FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Knowledge Management transcends technological aspects but, in practice, deals with information technologies all the time, trying to enhance the benefits derived from their uses. There are, however, limits. The technologies currently used in KM reveal an innate contradiction. They depart from a centralized conception and production but aim to treat informal, fluid processes that resist being structured. Web 2.0 technologies may be a means of diminishing this difficulty. As one can see when studying their uses on the Web, these technologies are inducing cooperative and decentralized work processes that lead to emerging products of high quality and complexity. In a situation the opposite of what happens with the traditional technologies employed in KM, the Web 2.0 tools projects involve less planning and centralization, which implies trust in users as creative and unforeseen uses are allowed. Usually, one assumes that creating and sharing a common knowledge basis will turn out to be more difficult as an organization grows. The network effects of Web 2.0 can be a response to this challenge (McAfee, 2006). Other characteristics of Web 2.0 are also desirable, like simplicity, ease of use, low cost and rastreability. Nevertheless, there are difficulties to be faced in the use of these technologies. Some of them are more technical, like questions related to performance, security and privacy. Others are related to the particularities of their use, like the emergence of counterproductive results and the necessity of motivating content creation. One could add that successful cases reported in the literature are still rare. As with implementation of all KM practices, managers’ interventions are a condition of success. Some recommendations are similar to the ones made for KM projects that utilize more conventional tools. A culture more receptive to innovations must therefore be stimulated. The

208

participation and support of high-ranking managers are decisive factors but more specific recommendations for Web 2.0 technologies utilization should be made. One such involves the choice of a unified platform for the whole organization or many platforms directed at departments or work teams. In a case study in a European bank, there was the option for a unique platform aiming the emergence of unexpected collaborations (McAfee, 2006). Another recommendation is an informal inauguration of KM projects, which would avoid the a priori establishment of rules and enhance the maturation of more natural uses of the technologies. A somewhat hierarchical structure could function as a starting-point. Finally, as mentioned, results that diverge from organizational goals can appear. A well-balanced and transparent reaction from the leaders can create an internal environment appropriate for the continuation of the project.

REFERENCES Anderson, C. (2004). The long tail. Wired, 12.10. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://www. wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html Anderson, C. (2006). A cauda longa – do mercado de massa para o mercado de nicho. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Elsevier/Campus. Carvalho, R. B. (2000). Aplicações de Softwares de Gestão do Conhecimento: Tipologia e Usos. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Information Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performances and Results from Knowledge Workers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Conhecimento Empresarial: Como as Organizações Gerenciam o Seu Capital Intelectual. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Campus.


Firestone, J. M., & McElroy, M. W. (2001). Key issues in the New Knowledge Management. Boston: KMCI/Butterworth-Heinemann. Gottlieb, S., & Dunwoodie, B. (2007). What is Web 2.0 Content Management? (Part 2). Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://www. cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/what-is-web-20-cmpart-2-001223.php Hewitt, H. (2007). Blog – entenda a revolução que vai mudar seu mundo. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Thomas Nelson Brasil. Koenig, M. E. D. (2002). The third stage of KM emerges. KMWorld, 11(3), 20–21. Mac Morrow, N. (2001). Knowledge Management: An Introduction. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 35, 381–422. McAfee, A. P. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: the Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 21–28. Morville, P. (2005). Ambient Findability. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Musser, J., O’Reilly, T., & O’Reilly Radar Team. (2007). Web 2.0 – Principles and Best Practice, Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Nass, G., & Levitt, M. (2006). Getting results by empowering the information worker: what web 2.0 offers beyond blogs and wikis. IDC. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://myworklight.com/ pdf/IDC%20Whitepaper.pdf Nass, G., & Levitt, M. (2007). Consumerizing the Enterprise: Worklight Inc. Offers Web 2.0 Benefits to the Enterprise. IDC. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://myworklight.com/pdf/Consumerizing%20the%20Enteprise%20Serendipity%20 Technology.pdf

Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of ‘Ba’: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). Criação de Conhecimento na Empresa. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Campus. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228 Ragsdale, J. (2007). Knowledge Management 2.0: SSPA Member’s Choice Topic. SSPA News. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://www. thesspa.com/sspanews/_07May/article3.asp Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. EUA: Anchor. Takeuchi, H. (1998). Beyond Knowledge Management: Lessons from Japan. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://www.sveiby.com/ Portals/0/ articles/LessonsJapan.htm Turban, E., McLean, E., & Wetherbe, J. (2004). Tecnologia da informação para gestão, Porto Alegre, Brazil: Bookman. Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2001). Facilitando a criação do conhecimento: reinventando a empresa com o poder de inovação. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Campus.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Findability: Used to qualify the Web, information architectures or information, refers to the property of being located or navigable. Knowledge Management: A range of guidelines and practices used in organizations to enhance the creation and sharing of insights, experiences and knowledge.

209


Rastreability: The capability embedded in the new Web technologies of detecting and recording patterns of use to improve their future utilization. Collective Intelligence: The shared or group intelligence created by many individuals accomplishing common tasks by collaborating and competing. Folksonomies: The collaborative final-user practice of creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content on the Web. Network Effect: The effect that one user of a product or service has on the value of that resource to the other users. Software as a Service (SaaS): A model of software deployment where an application is licensed as a continuous service. RSS: A set of standardized feeds formats used to publish frequently updated resources (such as news and blog posts) on the Web.

210

ENDNOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

http://cyn.in/ http://www.wrike.com/ http://www.icq.com/ http://www.epazz.com/ http://www.liferay.com http://wiki.mindtouch.com http://drupal.org/ http://www.kartoo.com/ http://technorati.com/ http://delicious.com/ http://www.netvibes.com/ http://www.linkedin.com/ http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/

211

Chapter 13

E-Learning Design for the Information Workplace Colleen Carmean Arizona State University, USA

ABSTRACT Anytime and all-the-time access to electronic resources, artifacts and community have changed learning practices in the workplace as surely as it has changed the workplace itself. Learning today is measured not by what we know, but by how successfully we tap into our network to find the information we need in the moment we need it. The business environment now demands anytime and just-in-time answers at all levels of the organization. In response to new expectations within the information-rich workplace, the organization must look to a new practice of comprehensive design for a shared knowledge architecture that can leverage the digital tools, methods and effective practices now available. To understand not simply technology but the affordance (Norman, 1988; Carmean & McGee, 2008) and effective use of each technology now available, a new design practice is needed. Current digital learners seek practices, resources and help in navigating the shared knowledge flow and have little training or support in understanding the network of information available. If anytime, anywhere, and from any source is a new e-learning paradigm in the digital workplace (Cross, 2006), then the challenge for a new breed of designers will be to help the digital learner to find, understand andcreate the shared knowledge embedded within local and global networked resources.

INTRODUCTION “In the connected world, experts are people who know where to find information, how to make sense of it and what to do with it” claim Rennie DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch013

& Mason (2004, p. 42). In the workplace, this expertise is now demanded of office workers as it becomes increasingly crucial to enterprise success. Unlike the worker’s educational experiences, the demands of the digital workplace are creating practices that increasingly reject a formal learning experience and look to just-in-time or immediate,


E-Learning Design for the Information Workplace

applied answers to real world needs. Practice that includes finding, creating, sharing, vetting and synthesizing is a new and little understood learning paradigm for dynamic, distributed and interconnected organizations (Allee, 2002; Cross, 2006; Siemens, 2006). Along with providing the technology and anytime access to needed information, enterprise learning models have shifted from valuing information receipt in a taught environment to looking to a communal and immersive culture of independent discovery (Reiser & Dempsey, 2002). Learners no longer need to wait for training and formal knowledge transfer to come to them. With its vast volumes of information, affordable storage, reliable search logic and high-speed connection to a distributed community of practice, the Internet has changed how, where and when we learn (see Brown, 2000; Norris, Mason, & Lefrere, 2004; G. Siemens, 2005). The digital worker, connected to networked decisions and responsibilities, no longer has the time or luxury for just-in-case learning. Instead, workplace expectations include the demand for dynamic collaboration, solutions and real-world applied knowledge. The digital worker now looks for digital resources to be available within and beyond the enterprise network. In response to this need, organizational support for learning must rethink the tools and services provided. A digital learning architecture must ensure that the independent learner has the skills and resources needed to adapt to a new learning paradigm.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Access to people, solutions, ideas and file sharing now requires a sophisticated skill set to make effective use of the inherent capabilities of the network. Brown (2000) suggests that our ability to use the Web to find information and build from it to create something more is a practice of bricolage in cobbling together an understanding from pieces

212

known. This distributed e-knowledge practice defines a shift in learning and knowledge creation where knowledge is seen as an act of finding what is needed, rather than being expected to know. In this author’s research in knowledge architecture, Carmean (2008) explores the emergence-based properties of this new paradigm and proposes a new practice in knowledge management that includes a systems design for shared knowledge to better prepare learners for effective practice in learning bricolage. To effectively use the tools and practices within shared knowledge architecture, stronger information literacy would be expected of the learner. New skills in digital collaboration will be increasingly demanded in the next generation workplace (Carlile, 2002). Monitoring, contributing and synthesizing information are core skills expected but not yet taught in the connected information age. Similarly, learning design for this self-directed and just-in-time practice is a relatively unexplored framework within the traditional performance metrics found in the workplace. Face to face or online, trainers, knowledge managers, and learning designers seldom step outside the instructor-led experience despite an industry desire for learning to more strategically “happen within the flow of work through the tools used in the workplace” (McStravick, p. 7). In the workplace, support for distributed, solutions-based learning is still a relatively unexplored field of inquiry and many questions remain regarding effective learner participation, collaboration, evaluation and outcomes (Nworie & Dwyer, 2004; Sims, 2006; Kays & Sims, 2006). Much research needs to be done on the effective use of tools, practices and processes that better enable creation and support for anytime, collaborative learning and shared knowledge (Kozma, 2000; Gold, 2001; Grudin, 2006; Braun, 2006).


THE CASE FOR A SHARED KNOWLEDGE ARCHITECTURE Numerous enterprise researchers believe that incorporating the disciplinary practices of instructional systems design into informal learning environments would provide a framework for better learner outcomes in organizing, managing, creating and reusing organizational knowledge (Nworie & Dwyer, 2004; Reiser & Dempsey, 2002; Cross, 2006). At the same time, the workplace is increasingly becoming an environment where information, expertise and knowledge are determined dynamically by the collective. A new design practice is needed for digital learning design that supports informal learning (Cross, 2006). Instead of designing the ordered learning experience, expertise is needed in selecting the appropriate technology, collecting and evaluating resources, supporting the learner, and assessing results. Many have claimed (see Hutchins, 1995; Kays, 2004; Irlbeck, 2006; Gunawardena et al, 2006) that this undertaking would demand skills not yet understood in creating a digital environment built on collective inquiry and shared outcomes. In the information workplace, where shared knowledge is now needed to be effective, communities of learners seek self-directed and collaborative access to the knowledge objects, practices and processes of daily work (Allee, 2000; Pantazis, 2002). Designers of workplace learning need a better understanding of how to use technology to capture and evaluate the shared knowledge residing within a community (Brown & Duguid, 2000). Design for informal, anytime, persistent learning would support collaboration, creation, synthesis and management of changing information. Whether or not an organization chooses to understand, model and support this change in learning practice, it seems that the learners are already finding and choosing an anytime model of information exchange. Attendance and participation in traditional or just in case training

programs is down in enrollment as learners look to a more personal experience, embedded in their own daily workflow (McStravick, 2007). Learners are seeking out their own solutions in creation of a shared, everyday workplace learnscape (Cross, 2008) that allows for emergent, community-based learning. This framework, when supported by the organization, would ideally provide solutions, expertise, answers, access to experts, conversations and networks of knowledge. The challenge for the enterprise is to provide effective tools, support and practices that make the learner’s journey a successful one. Designers understand that locating and shaping enterprise knowledge will take more than putting a Google™ search box on the intranet Web. The new learning environment, despite the wealth of information now readily available via the Internet, will only be successful if careful attention and research is paid to assessing and meeting the needs of the individual. New requirements on learners demand not just technical skill, but a new understanding of reliability and usefulness of the knowledge in use. Assessment questions would include whether all members of the community are able to effectively find, access and use the variety of digital tools available; determining whether the right tools for a given learning community are in place; and finally, assessing whether the community know how to create, find, share and evaluate the information that the tools provide. To even begin to answer these questions, a new breed of learning designer – a digital knowledge architect less interested in content and more focused on affordance and use– is needed to construct the enterprise learning environment being sought by the digital worker.

Potential Tools Within the Knowledge Architecture A change in the learning framework and in expectations of the learner happened not only due

213


to the shift from an industrial to a digital age in the enterprise environment, but because this age brought about a change in the learner’s perception of access. With ubiquitous access and connection tools, it is no longer about just connecting to the grid, but connecting within the grid. Social technologies became disruptive ones (Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1997) at the point where people realized the answer was at their fingertips, within the collective and often instantaneous. Everyone, working together, became experts able to solve problems without assistance. Individuals no longer needed to wait for the expert or teacher to provide knowledge. Within the collective rested all the expertise needed, and new social technologies would enable access to this distributed expertise.

E-Mail Some might claim that e-mail was the beginning of this just-in-time shift, whether the solution needed was sent out to one or many. E-mail began the process flow where one could reach out without inherent interruption in the receiver’s day. One didn’t necessarily have to interrupt a conversation or the receiver’s schedule and others were able to answer when and if they were able. To this day, despite the numerous competing tools available for dynamic exchange of information, e-mail is an invaluable learning tool within the workplace learnscape. In a dramatic, Web 2.0 focus on a distributed information channel, the workplace is seeing a shift away from e-mail and toward a more fluid, social flow of information. Evidence of this shift may be seen in recent advocacy for more diverse broadcast tools, including radical calls for a ban on workplace email (Suarez, 2008) or open access e-mail (Rangaswami, 2008). Tools that are less intrusive in inherent demand for response and more inclusive in broadcast that allows the reader to come to the collective pool of information on their own schedule are now preferred by many

214

seeking distributed knowledge, if not dynamic solutions. Proposed tools for sharing information, as needed, include organizational Blogging, Wikis, posting to solution stores, and team spaces. Tools for locating dynamic knowledge include expertise locators, skill profiles, recommendation and organizational evidence skill stores. These tools, as well as permitting workers to access outside resources, implement RSS feeds, etc allows both internal knowledge management and external knowledge acquisition. If anything, the complexity occurs in sorting the abundance of digital knowledge now available.

Social Technologies Perhaps because of the increasing frustration with the overloaded inbox in the e-mail communication flow, new tools and technologies are being embraced in the business environment for creating ranked information within the community. Advantages include better tagging of meta-data and applied denotation of use in sharing information, documents and solutions. One tool that is seeing rapid adoption and a new industry of support and development is Microsoft Sharepoint™ as a portal for collaboration. For those workplace environments that have used design principles to analyze the workflow, this is the most widely used of a number of new enterprise-level technologies providing quick access to the digital knowledge of the organization. Project teaming and management are made simpler through searchable access to all relevant information on a project, product, person or function within the enterprise. Even where implemented out of the box, a digital portal such as Sharepoint™ provides document storage, deep search technology, a team collaboration space, project tracking, workflow tools and business intelligence reports. Competitors in the collaboration portal market continue to grow and depending on size and intention, might include as diverse of offerings as Lotus Notes™, Epsilen™, Plone™, and a growing set


of collaboration tools that users have found to promote sharing artifacts, ideas or schedules. New tools, seeing rapid adoption outside and slowly being embraced as ‘early adopter’ technologies for shared resources and understanding within the enterprise include wikis, shared bookmarks, shared RSS/Atom feeds, group meeting tools, people and skill locators, and shared concept maps (Shared Knowledge Project, 2008). Understandably within the enterprise environment, tools that have found some degree of success in the open Internet are being more conservatively embraced than the enterprise tools implemented to reside behind firewalls. An organization might use a Blog as a ‘public face’ marketing tool as Microsoft originally used Robert Scoble’s pioneering effort at transparency, Scobleizer (http://scobleizer.com). Widely acclaimed for transparency and quick reaction, Microsoft successfully used Scoble’s public work to promote open discussion and honesty about technology. The value of the format, as opposed to static Web pages and new releases, resided in creating an immediate flow of information and responsiveness to customer concerns in an informal, but informed environment. A current example of keeping both internal and customer readers informed via Blogging might look to ELSUA (http://elsua.net), an open Blog by IBM’s technical evangelist Luis Suarez. Not only does Suarez keep a global community of practice informed of company strategy (and thus promotion) regarding IBM services and technologies, he does so through a stream of feedback, community building, and linking to numerous other open, social networks where he participates and shares ideas with the technical community. As dynamic a shift as this is in public promotion and presence, this marketing strategy in use of social technologies is very different than promoting Blogging amongst employees to promote the capture, comment and critique of organizational knowledge and little of this is being seen – openly or behind the firewall – to promote ideas. Celebrity Blogging that represents the enterprise brand

does not represent or allow for the cultural change within the organization that Drucker (1994) early on claimed would be needed in a new generation of knowledge workers. The role of design based on new technologies that pull the reader into the frame will continue to redefine knowledge and brand within the enterprise, but only by incorporating a new knowledge architecture and support for digital learners will the digital learning initiatives within the enterprise succeed. Even then, only if this architecture includes an organizational culture change effort will the organization see the benefits of technology that supports knowledge architectures (Barnett, 2006). For Blogging (or any other form of distributed post) to be used in making explicit the product and ideas of an individual or group workflow, and then encouraging others to comment on that information, a shift will need to take place in the organizational culture. Some aspects of this shift would include acceptance of mistakes, trust, support, willingness to trust, and removal of constraints that prevent sharing of corporate information (Shared Knowledge Project, 2008). It is not the presence of the technology alone that can create the environment that enables and encourages distributed knowledge, but the shift to emergent and distributed understanding it brings about in the process of knowledge acquisition and management.

Qualitative Analysis Another interesting set of tools being explored in the creation of organizational knowledge on large stores of qualitative data is text visualization technology. The most prevalent tool now in use is the tag cloud technology that allows the reader to visualize the data via single words or phrases ranked thru font size, color or layout. An example of a tag cloud, produced through IBM’s Many Eyes™ site (services.alphaworks. ibm.com/manyeyes/) and using the text of this

215


Figure 1. Tag cloud of the chapter using two-word compilation

chapter can be found in figure 1. One can see the key concepts and ideas visually emerge from the text. Tag clouds and more often now, word trees, where phrases and ideas can be located and read in context as a tree trace throughout the document, create new ways to visually synthesize complex qualitative data. More information on word trees can be found at the Many Eyes™ site. Coupling new numeric and qualitative approaches with time-tested tools for desired outcomes assessment, sense-making and support may provide a rich, conceptual framework for inquiry and practices in new learning design.

Assessment Within this conceptual framework for shared knowledge rests the challenge of assessment. Informal, as-needed learning does not lend itself to standardized testing, counts or measures. An earlier focus on predetermined training materials can no longer serve learners that choose to be creators of shared knowledge. Assessment is a challenge when the outcomes depend on justin-time resolution of individual needs. It is this assessment of individualized need that Kelly (2003) believes to be the driver for a new approach to instructional design. Deep evaluation

216

techniques related to the context, to performance, to consensus-building and to organizational value are a more viable approach in creating meaningful assessment of understanding (Gardner, 1999) and contribution to shared meaning (Gardner, 2002). Knowledge designers may become the analysts that make sense of increasingly complex data, supporting tools that allow for synthesis and sense-making as well as being the creators of summative knowledge by using the tools available to auto-summarize, rank and prioritize information hidden within the network. One of the promising analytic technologies related to evidence for a meaningful assessment of competency, knowledge, contribution, and organizational value may be found in the use of social network analysis (SNA) technologies that captures difficult to identify organizational knowledge. Using this methodology, neither qualitative nor quantitative but numeric (Barabási, 2002), learning designers and researchers can systematically determine, assess, rework and support strategically important collaboration and knowledge identification within a community. An SNA analysis of knowledge, expertise and value within a knowledge community gives the learning designer a powerful tool for rethinking need, materials, and evaluation of the learn-


ing environment (R. Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002). Using this tool to find knowledge buried within the organization provides new possibilities for design never previously considered by those that package what is known for training and documentation. Karen Stephenson, a social network analyst working with organizations to make hidden resources and knowledge explicit, has posited that new organizational strategy will evolve from understanding social networks within the enterprise (Kleiner, 2003). For Stephenson, knowledge management depends on finding, understanding and strengthening communication channels within the organization. Social network analysis finds new ways to make trusted, internal knowledge explicit and available throughout the distributed network. Figure 2 demonstrates a social network analysis of centrality and trust within a knowledge management community and visually makes apparent where the strongest (black nodes) are found within the community.

The SNA can be run with names of only the black nodes displayed. The deepening understanding of information synthesis, whether that information is buried within the network, within the large stores of organizational data, or within the larger Internet community makes for the need for a new practice of analysis to mature within the daily workflow. Skills for doing this analysis may be the new information literacy demanded of the knowledge worker. Chatti (2007) states that this skill set includes the “ability to identify connections, recognize patterns, and make sense between different knowledge sources: as well as having the tools and ability to “locate the person or the community/communities with the required know-how that can help achieving better results” (Blog post). The role of the digital knowledge architect may be to both provide the tools, provide complex synthesis for priority organizational data, and to provide the education in data analysis that digital workers are not getting in

Figure 2. Social network analysis of centrality and trust

217


the traditional higher education model of analog, non-collaborative learning (Szulik, 2006). Shared knowledge architecture demands a focus not only on tools for finding and understanding information, but in creation, collaboration and sense-making in making meaning of what is found.

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS IN DESIGN AND SUPPORT In exploring a shared knowledge architecture that defines a new learning and knowledge management paradigm, researchers must determine effective practice within a social knowledge community. Issues of skill, delivery, validity, trust and distribution arise when considering the creation of an anytime, all-the-time learning architecture. Several areas of inquiry must be addressed in the future: 1. 2. 3. 4.

What might the most effective next generation learning environment look like? How do we best capture and evaluate distributed knowledge? What practices encourage or hinder successful contribution to shared knowledge? What tools and resources best support emergent learning practices?

flow would allow for this tacit knowledge capture (see Braun & Schmidt, 2006; Rheingold, 1993). Problems previously introduced regarding the failure of technology to address social aspects of knowledge creation (Brown & Duguid, 2000) may best be resolved through use of emerging technologies that support and encourage the social and shared construction of knowledge (Madden & Fox, 2006). All of these problems depend on new understanding and practice in learning design. If the capture of shared, emergent or tacit knowledge is crucial, then a rich field of inquiry in knowledge architecture design is demanded. Determining tools, processes and practices that reveal the knowledge hidden within the collective experience is needed – including location of people, stories, digital artifacts and solutions. Understanding new collaboration technologies is crucial to the practice of this shared knowledge creation. Finally, research on new practices in analyzing social networks in large or shared information stores also has great value to enterprise, to the understanding of the distributed learning community, and to the field of digital learning design. Next generation knowledge needs will demand understanding the affordances of a new generation of tools and a new practice in digital and distributed knowledge architecture.

REFERENCES In the information economy, sharing knowledge is inherent to success. The need to compare, understand and capture organizational knowledge is becoming increasingly evident as our ability to rapidly learn and exchange information will impact effectiveness within and without the organization (Pratt, 2006; Senge, 1990). It has been argued that learning design most valuable to performance will reside in creating digital environments that make tacit or difficult to document knowledge (how as opposed to what) more explicit and distributed. Others claim that understanding of social, distributed or emergent knowledge and information

218

Allee, V. (2000). eLearning is not knowledge management. Line Zine, 2000(Fall), 2/9/06 from www.linezine.com/2.1/features/vaenkm.htm Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design. [TOCHI]. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 84–113. doi:10.1145/344949.345015 Barabási, A. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub.


Barnett, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0 and culture change. Retrieved 11/11/2006, 2006, from http:// tinyurl.com/63o78w Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Business Review, January-February. Braun, S., & Schmidt, A. (2006). Socially aware informal learning support: Potentials and challenges of the social Dimension. Karlsruhe, Germany: FZI Research Center for Information Technologies. Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change, 32(2), 10–20. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Carlile, L. W. (2002). The value of collaboration. Performance Improvement, 41(4), 37-43.Cross, J. (2006). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Carmean, C. (2008). E-Learning 2.0: Emergence, connected networks, and the creation of shared knowledge. Dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. Carmean, C. McGee, P. (2008). A singular affordance model for emerging technologies (unpublished manuscript). Retrieved April 25, 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/SAModel Chatti, M. (2007). Technology enhanced learning: From knowledge worker to knowledge networker. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://tinyurl. com/5mqewo Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46. Drucker, P. F. (1994). The age of social transformation. Atlantic Monthly, 274(5), 53–80. Fischer, G. (2001). Lifelong learning and its support with new media. International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 13, 8836-8840. Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructionaldesign theories and models, volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gardner, H. (2002). Intelligence in seven steps. In D. Dickinson (Ed.), CREATING THE FUTURE: Perspectives on educational change (pp. 6). Seattle, WA: New Horizons. Gold, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214. Grudin, J. (2006). Enterprise knowledge management and emerging technologies. System Sciences, 3(4), 57. Gunawardena, C. N., Ortegano-Layne, L., Carabajal, K., Frechette, C., Lindemann, K., & Jennings, B. (2006). New model, new strategies: Instructional design for building online wisdom communities. [Electronic version]. Distance Education, 27(2), 217–232. doi:10.1080/01587910600789613 Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective? Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 56–59. doi:10.1145/505248.505273 Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

219


Kays, E., & Francis, J. (2004). Emergence and E-learning design: From artificial to natural selection. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Washington, DC, (pp.1286-1289). Kays, E., & Sims, R. (2006). Reinventing and reinvigorating instructional design: A theory for emergent learning. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Who’s Learning? Whose Technology? Sydney, Australia, (pp. 409-412). Kelly, H. (2003). Education for tomorrow needs innovation today. Carnegie Rep, (Spring), 44-45. Kleiner, A. (2003). Karen Stephenson’s quantum theory of trust. Strategy Business, 29, 2–14. Kozma, R. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. [Electronic version]. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5–15. doi:10.1007/BF02313481 Madden, M., & Fox, S. (2006). Riding the waves of web 2.0. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project. Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://www. pewinternet.org/PPF/r/189/report_display.asp Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (89): 25. doi:10.1002/ ace.5 McStravick, P. (2007). Training industry in 2007: A look ahead (Vol. 1, No. 205243). Framingham, MA: International Data Group (IDC). Microsoft. (2008). What is Microsoft Office SharePoint server? Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://tinyurl.com/63bnob Norman, D. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.

220

Norris, D., Mason, J., & Lefrere, P. (2004). Experiencing knowledge. Innovate, 1(1). Retrieved November 17, 2005, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=5 Nworie, J., & Dwyer, F. (2004). Knowledge management and instructional design: Optimizing organizational knowledge. Performance Improvement, 43, 27–32. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140430709 Pantazis, C. (2002). Maximizing E-learning to train the 21st century workforce. International Public Management Association for Human Resources, 2002(1), February 20, 2006 Pratt, S. P. (2006). A framework for the ontological representation of organizational memory. Ph.D Thesis, Walden University. Rangaswami, J. P. (2008). Confused of Calcutta: A blog about information. Retrieved November 24, 2008 from http://confusedofcalcutta.com/ about-me/ Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2002). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Rennie, F., & Mason, R. (2004). The connecticon: Learning for the connected generation. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. New York: Addison Wesley. Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2002). Handbook of online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world class e-learning: How IBM, GE, Harvard business school, and Columbia university are succeeding at e-learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Century Business. Sharma, R. K. (2003). Understanding organizational learning through knowledge management. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 2(4), 343–352. doi:10.1142/ S021964920300053X Siemens, G. (2002). Instructional design in elearning. elearnspace. Retrieved on April 8, 2005 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/ InstructionalDesign.htm Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 8. Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1–8. Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge-building. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2000), Ann Arbor, MI (pp. 70-77). Retrieved September 23, 2006, from http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/ publications/conferences/2000/icls/ Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Affordance: Inherent usefulness of an object or tool related to those actions or possibilities which are readily perceivable by the user. Bricolage: The construction of work or understanding, cobbled together from a diverse range of unrelated resources. Emergent Knowledge: Understanding based on independent exploration and conclusions of agents operating in a learning environment; knowledge formed bottom-up and thus allowing more complex understandings as a collective. Informal Learning: Self-directed, often justin-time and applied knowledge acquisition. Using the resources at hand to find what is needed to be known when it’s needed. Knowledge Architecture: Construction of a digital environment designed to best capture, share, create a body of knowledge. Organizational Knowledge: The body of knowledge contained, but not categorized, within the members of an organization. Social Media: Participatory software and technologies; also referred to as social technologies, Web 2.0, collaboration technology. Social Network Analysis: The study and mapping of social structure through nodes and their ties. SNA is a numeric way to quantify connectivity for nodes (generally individuals or organizational entities) via specific ties to one or more types of interdependency (trust, values, affiliation, etc). Tacit Knowledge: Knowledge which is only known through action by an individual and that is difficult to communicate to others; knowledge learned through experience.

221

222

Chapter 14

The Impact of Information Communication Technology (ICT) to the Greek Educational Community Paraskevi Mentzelou Alexander Technological Educational Institute (A.T.E.I.) of Thessaloniki, Greece Dimitrios Drogidis School Consultant of Primary Education, Greece

ABSTRACT The aims of Greek education system is to give to students the ability to develop the required skills, character and values that will enable them to contribute to the prosperity of Greek Society, Greek Nation and humanity. The fulfillments of these aims require a dynamic educational system with the potential of incessant adjustment emanated from the interaction between national education and societal needs and demands. Living in an information and knowledge society where quality is its goal, Greek education system has to be enriched with all the characteristics and means that specify educational quality. In a framework, where educational changes are unavoidable due to the entrance of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and especially the use of World Wide Web in Greek education system, an effort to present the current impact to Greek Educational community is attempted.Specifically in this chapter there is a reference on ways, efforts, stages and methods that have been set for the application of ICT to Greek education system and presents effects, issues, trends and utilization of World Wide Web by the Greek educational community.

INTRODUCTION Computer revolution, multimedia advancement together with the combination of speedy, effective and without barriers communication in relation with the

tremendous amount of information have set a new base for co-operation, collaboration and teamwork at national and international levels. During 1990s, the advent of the World Wide Web (WWW) had opened up new possibilities in the education sector as it became one of the most important delivery medium.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch014


The Impact of Information Communication Technology (ICT) to the Greek Educational Community

Any type of learning that utilizes a network (LAN, WAN or Internet) for delivery, interaction or facilitation, falls in e-Learning type of learning. ELearning gives new opportunities based on a more individualized type of teaching, where pupils and students are able to control their learning process and teaching has to be organized in the form that learners learn to learn and also understand that they have the responsibility of their learning progress. The greatest achievement, that the combination of technology and information has brought, is the delusion of “being there” in “cyberspace” which is a “non-physical” place. Nowadays, it is worldwide accepted that the role of Information and Communication Technology in society’s development is continuously increasing and the meeting of its requirements demands an active reaction to the challenges that information society generates. As our society becomes more and more dependable on information and knowledge processing, it is required by individuals to have a concrete and wide educational basis over which they will be able to build the new knowledge. It is generally accepted that “today students” who are the “tomorrow citizens” should be “digitally literate” and this can be achieved only if they have already gained the basic skills that will allow them to take the advantages of equal chances in a world where digital functions are diffused. Consequently, educational systems have to offer to its candidates the demanded opportunities for “not to be left behind” in our “Knowledge Society”. This following up of scientific, technological and socio-economic developments generate the need for the acquisition of specific knowledge and training according to individual needs (Race, 2000). The traditional educational forms are not adequate to meet these demands so the adaptation of innovative educational or training forms is required to be set in action (Hanseth & Monteiro, 1996; Barak, 2007). The most common one which can satisfy this demand of continuous learning process is Distance Learning or Distance Education or Tele- Education, where its application

is based on ICT and more specifically on World Wide Web. This new form of education where its fans and devotees are increasing globally, gives the opportunity to individuals to be educated according to their time schedule, their careers’ needs and the most important in their places. Of course, this means that the individual who will use this new educational form has already gained the basic required skills (Mungania, 2003). It is a fact that in Greece, the applications of technological developments in all sectors including the educational one arrived with a little delay. During the last twenty years the Greek Governments have identified the important role that ICT plays at all society’s levels and sectors and they are investing heavily in the promotion and application of ICT in Greece. Nowadays, despite the enormous efforts that Greek Government is applying the progress rate of the use of ICT is very low in comparison with other developing countries. World Economic Forum in its Global Competiveness Report points out that Greece in Networked Readiness Index is the 56th among 131 developing countries (World Economy Forum, 2007-2008). A digital environment requires availability of computers, Internet connections and ICT skills and this environment becomes an effective one only when individuals know how to master them. A study that has been conducted by European Commission- Information Society and Media Directorate General under the title “Benchmarking Access and Use of ICT in European Schools 2006” which included statistical data relative to computer availability, internet connection and ICT use in classroom for subjects’ teaching it pointed out that the Greek figures were very low (European Commission, 2006) in comparison with the other European countries. According to this study: •

The number of computers per 100 pupils: ◦ Greece 6 computers/100 students while Denmark 27 computers/100 where 26 have Internet connection.

223


•

•

The European average was 11 computers/100 students of which 10 were internet computers Use of computer in classroom: ◦ Greece 20% while United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland etc 80% ICT use as part of teaching subjects: ◦ Greece 42% while United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland etc 94%

Unfortunately the aim of e-Europe that all education sectors in Greece up to 2001 will be able to have access to Internet, multimedia tools and support services through World Wide Web has not been performed according to the proposed time table (Papakonstantinou, 2001, p.2203) During 2003, a study that has been conducted by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training-CEDEFOP concerning individuals ICT skills, use of ICT in work placement and ICT training, indicated that there is a need for a more systematic approach for the implementation of ICT in Greece. According to the results only 37,2% of the individuals have gained the required ICT skills where only 30,8% are able to use them in their workplace. As ICT is a new area of specialization for most of the people then the key factor for the acquisition of the required skills is training. As far as training concerns in the same CEDEFOP’s study reported that only 17,7% of the individuals have already some type of training and education on ICT while 42,6% were not interesting on ICT and 20% answered that they did not want to take any further education in future (Papatheodorou, 2003). Reasons for these low figures may be countered on the few small group seminars, trainees’ physical presentation in training centers, lack of time, family obligation and work commitments. Similar to CEDEFOP study results presented by another study that has been conducted three years later in 2007 by the Observatory of Information Community. This study was based on the use of ICT by Local Authorities and Municipalities

224

employees and the outcome of this study showed that the digital gap among the employees is analogous to their age. According to the collected data the younger in age employees were more familiar with ICT and a great number of them have already gained the required ICT skills. The most important output of this study is that 86% of these employees agreed that the use of ICT is essential for the effective accomplishment of their duties (Kakaris & Fotiou, 2007). These studies generally concern employees either from the private sector (CEDEFOP) or from the public sector and give a clear picture of the current level of Greeks’ ICT skills included educators. This lack of ICT skills qualification means that individuals during their studies have not followed any ICT subject. ICT inclusion in school curriculum either as a separate subject or as part of other subjects started during the last fifteen years. Consequently, the finding that the “digital gap” is analogous to age was an expected result. Every study, survey or research that has been conducted up to end of 2007 converges to the point that a more systematic approach is required for the diffusion of ICT in Greece. It is obvious that Greek Government has to apply more thorough actions and activities for the achievement of the required ICT application goals. These actions and activities have to overcome the: • •

•

weak points that governs business and market environment (SEV, 2004), absence of a quality enhancement collaboration between Higher Education and business (Provata, 2006), absence of a national system for supplying the dedicated and required digital goods to all Government sectors.

Government in order to motivate individuals to gain the basic ICT skills has added to the national hiring system, which deals with work placement in public sector, ICT skills certifica-


tion to be one of the compulsory qualifications. Due to this request, a number of private tutorial units has been established across Greece offering seminars either through e-learning process or with student physical presentation and these seminars are preparing individuals for the recognized by public authorities ICT certifications. In the private sector the situation is different as companies that have already invested on ICT are providing seminars in situ. In the case of teachers and academic staff ICT basic skills certification still is not a prerequisite qualification for their hiring by the public sector. Furthermore, a number of intervention programs have been set in order to assist individuals to gain ICT skills and a number of these programs are delivered through World Wide Web. During 2008 an application under the name “e-educated” initiated. This new activity was addressed to students that have already entered tertiary education during 2005-2007 and wanted either to acquire ICT skills or to improve them and this activity was for 60,000 students of tertiary education. This program was funded 80% by the European Union and 20% by national funds. In this activity were allowed to be enrolled 20% of the best students of each course or department. The Government for each enrolled student covered 90% of the total cost with a maximum level of 600€ for normal students and for special needs students, the maximum level was 1200€. In three months time 49,746 students have been enrolled to 3,177 ICT educational packages. These ICT educational packages were delivered either in certain areas and places or through e-learning processes (e-ducate action, 2008).

BACKGROUND In Greece, in order to reach the required level of ICT integration in educational sector, a swift based on knowledge production and to pedagogical and structural innovation has been set. Toward to this

direction education policy in Greece is now based on ensuring that: •

•

Information Communication Technology applications are integrated in all activities and levels in education sector and School students or Higher Education ones are active receivers who develop an active and critical attitude to developments and not persons who passively allow technological development to set the pace.

The achievement of these aims requires a continuous and an up-to-date development of ICT skills from pupils, students and educators who have to interpret that ICT is a valuable learning tool for them. The integration of new pedagogic opportunities is required by everyone a non-stop informing, exploration and assessment of the continuous emerging of new forms of communications across the educational sector and in accord, lifelong learning have to be accepted that is part of their lives (Conford, 2002). This new reality develops a new more fair educational system which offers equal opportunities to young people and it is inextricable connected with ICT. Furthermore individuals have to realize that ICT is a part of their every day educational activities. Consequently, ICT and especially World Wide Web do not only eliminate inequalities but on the contrary, through its enormous abilities of direct communication and its access to information sources withdraws a number of inequities which exist in Greek Education system (Virkus, 2003). In Greece, as the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs directs, controls and funds all the national educational units and the integration of ICT in Greece, it is impossible to start without its permission and according to its given rules, instructions, operations and orders. The national education system in Greece constitutes of Higher Education Sector, School Sector which includes kindergarten, elementary education, high school

225


education and Lyceum (General or TechnicalVocational), Vocational Training Sector which constitutes of Institutes national or private and finally Greek manpower employment organization. Private educational units exist in all educational levels except in Higher Education one. Independent from the type of school (private or national ones) the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs directs and controls syllabus and curriculum (Law 1566/1985). The only difference between public and private educational sector is that in most cases private schools are better equipped and organized than public ones. Any innovation, that is going to be requested for application in any educational sector and especially in primary and secondary education, must have the approval of the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs and in some cases, according to the type of requirements, from other Ministries too. Consequently, all the actions that have been applied relative to the application, use and diffuse of ICT in Education were totally dependable on the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs.

2000). Under this scope the Greek Government established the Greek Observatory for Information Society. This is a non-profit organization placed under the supervision of the Ministry of Economy & Finance and the Ministry of Interior, Public Administration & Decentralization and its mission is to measure and to evaluate the level of national progress towards the accomplishment of IS strategic goals (Law 3059, 2002). The successful application of such programs requires two elements: a) ICT infrastructure and b) individuals who will use and operate ICT. It does not matter how perfect an infrastructure is if there are not individuals who have the knowledge to operate or to use it and this type of infrastructure requires “skilled citizens” in order to be this emprise successful. Consequently, independent form the specialization or work placements of each Greek citizen, the ones that are not “skilled” are not able to operate in this “new form of community”. It is important not to underpin the important contribution of Higher Education to individuals’ skills because: •

It plays the key role in education, training and research Its graduates are the individuals who serve as scientists, researchers, teachers, entrepreneurs and also as skilled workers too. They are the ones that contribute to national economic prosperity through their skills. Through these skills they are able to serve with an unparallel knowledge and practical know-how to the “knowledge society, economy and infrastructure”.

ICT ENVIRONMENT IN GREECE

•

During 1999 Greek Government’s major priority for Greece, in order to avoid the isolation of Greece from European Community’s countries, was the alignment of Greece in the Information Society (IS) of the European Community. The achievement of this aim required a comprehensive strategy and more intensive intervention programs and actions. The approval of a separate program under the name Operational Program (OPIS) has been introduced in the framework of the 2000-2006 European Union Structural Funds developments. The aim of this program was to set a strategy where the promotion of Information Society could be achieved in a consistent and integrated manner (Office of the Greek Prime Minister, 1999; Council Regulation 1260, 1999; Law 2826,

New digital economy calls Higher Education in Greece, not to play only the role of offering to its graduates up today knowledge and technological skills, but also, to offer them all the required qualifications for using and applying ICT effectively. This means that University is not limited only in education but also in serving community and economy operating mechanisms actively.

226


During the last twenty years Higher Education started to offer a number of special formal and non-formal activities for a continually upgrading individual’s ICT knowledge and skills. This is achieved through post graduate studies, seminars, programs, workshops and etc. and in most cases graduates acquire the required new skills and knowledge which are vital for their greater efficiency and productivity after graduation. A more systematic approach of lifelong learning started during 2000-2006 in some Higher Education Establishments where e-learning courses for citizens and Higher Education students and graduates were provided. Up today, the traditional Higher Education establishments are national without any type of tuition fees and students are enrolled through the national examination system. Higher Education Establishments operate as Legal Persons of Public Law under the supervision of the Hellenic State, as exercised by the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs. Consequently, Higher Education funds for modernization are coming from the Ministry Education and Religious Affairs. Additional funds that they may have come from: • •

Research programs assigned from Government or Industry. European Union through the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs by taking part through successful proposals.

In both cases the educational and administrational staff pays nearly 22% to the University. During the last twenty five years European Union supports economically Higher Education through the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs by providing additional funds for Universities modernization. Consequently, through these funds efforts to equip all Higher Education Establishments with all the necessitate means and tools for the effective use of ICT in their education and administration sectors have been

set. The effective use of ICT requires from education and administration members to have at least the basic computer skills. It is well understandable from Higher Education administration and educational staff that the participation in, and development of, pedagogic and organizational initiatives by Higher Education Institutions predefines a satisfactory integration of ICT in all of its divisions. Since the beginning of 80’s Degrees relative to Computer Science and Information Technology have been delivered to a number of Higher Education Establishments either as single courses or as combined ones. During the middle of 80’s all the departments across Universities started to update their curriculum and to add computer studies as a separate subject in all specializations. But the integration of ICT on courses and subjects across Higher Education Establishments was initiated in early 1990’s. For this delay there are a number of reasons like Greek educational system, traditional way of learning, lack of specialists, language barriers, economic and social structure and the initial belief that Information Technology is for vocational education. One factor, that had played an important role to the smoothly application of ICT in Higher Education, was the establishment of new Academic Institutions where many members of hired academic staff had studied abroad for their Degrees and in most cases ICT was part of their studies. This experience that has been gained by them together with their absence of language barriers has accelerated the application of ICT in tertiary education. Furthermore European Union programs like Socrates and Erasmus assisted to the introduction of ICT in Higher Education as many members of the academic staff went to European Union Universities as visitors and during their visits have been informed about the positive influence of ICT operation on Education and Administration University’s sectors. Nowadays, ICT syllabus exists in every course of Higher Education and students, after the

227


completion of their studies, are getting an extra certificate which declares if they have already gained fully or partially ICT skills.

•

ICT in Higher Education

•

During 1997 the eLearning process made its official entrance in Higher Education through an activity called “Distance Learning Studies”. This project has been developed by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and it was co-funded by the Ministry of Education and by European Union. It lasted three years from 1997 up to 1999 and its activity was “Education and Specialization of Graduate Students with Distance Learning Methods” and it had set the base of Aristotle University Telecommunications Centre. This Centre manages and administrates the operation of the University’s digital telecommunications network and it offers advanced services to all users of the academic community, while it constantly upgrades its current services and deploys new ones, in order to assist academic and administrative functions of Aristotle University (Kolitsis A. et al, 2001). During 2000 Greek Government assisted the establishment of a non-profit civil company called “ACADEMIC NETWORK” (GUnet) where its base is in Athens and its members are all Tertiary level Academic Institutes. Its main aim was to serve Greek academic community’s research and education needs in the framework of Information Society. The services that this network offers to the academic community are: •

•

228

the development, support and management of the academic network for all Tertiary Education Establishments in Greece, the coordination in diffusion and promotion as well as the development of advanced network services and applications in the broad academic and research community of the country and via this the general improvement of the education and research processes,

•

the provision of network services to its members and third parties (institutes, foundations) whose activities aim at servicing research and education, the participation in developmental, educational and research programs with regard to network technologies, services and applications aiming at the maintenance of the academic network at the peak of technology, the development of collaborations with respective academic, research, educational networks of other countries.

The greatest innovation that ICT brought in Greek Higher Education is the establishment of the Hellenic Open University (HOU) (Law 2552, 97). HOU has been established by the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs and it is mainly for adults over 23 years old. Studying in HOU is taking place exclusively through distance learning and the application of a modular system for courses delivering is taking place through a flexible form which can be easily altered, according to students’ time, social and educational needs. It operates as a Legal Person of Public Law under the supervision of the Hellenic State, as exercised by the Minister of Education. HOU develops and implements appropriate learning material and methods for teaching processes, it promotes scientific research and the scope of HOU’s objectives is to develop relevant technology and methodology for the application of distance learning. It is the only National University that has tuition fees in its undergraduate sector. HOU brought a number of innovating interventions to whole educational grid as its students can be enrolled only by filling an application form for the course of their preference without taking part to the national higher education entrance examination system. In the case where there are too many candidates for a course, individuals are entering in HOU through an official lottery system. This new way of students’ entrance in


tertiary education promotes the perception that all persons have the right to be educated and education may be performed whenever an individual needs it or wants it. This approach gives a second chance for further education to all citizens who have successfully completed their primary and secondary education. It is obvious that this new way of receiving a University Degree has totally reversed the traditional educational processes that dominate primary, secondary and tertiary education. It has introduced new principals of study organization as its education processes and activities are offered in students’ area. Furthermore this type of education includes time flexibility, self-control of study and knowledge advancement derives from the ability of exploitation of teaching and training materials under the terms of completeness and fulfillments. The success of HOU and in parallel communication, collaboration and partnerships among national and international institutions and research centers through World Wide Web influenced traditional tertiary education’s organization and operation. Nowadays, nearly all Higher Education Institutes have created e-learning areas in order to support their horizontal educational activities. Many Academic Institutions have already established technological infrastructure for synchronous and asynchronous distance learning courses but up to now the exploitation of this infrastructure concerns their students, educational staff, Hellenic conferences, training of educators and lectures for Institution’s staff. These Institutions do not offer any type of formal certifications but they only offer affirmations of attendance for their studying or training programs. The most important distance learning program is the e-University program which has been established during the period 2000-2006 by the University of Crete. This project has been financed 80% by European Union and 20% by national funds. The project’s name was “Integrated elec-

tronic services of Crete University” and its cost was approximately 725,335 Euro. Its main goal was the offering of high quality digital services to University educational and administration staff and its most successful and important electronic services were: •

•

•

StudentWeb which provides immediate electronic services to student by allowing them to communicate through Web with their department secretariat and gives them the ability to be enrolled, to see their subjects’ mark and to make a number of required applications. IVR - Interactive Voice Response which is based on Computer Telephony Integration (CTI) allows users to store, to extract and to manage information from a data base through telephone line network. ClassWeb is an application that allows students and educational staff to have a more efficient communication through Web and the abilities of this system are: reports relative to student progress, students list, management of teaching and exams program, students’ classes per subject, management of students’ absences, statistical reports, communication with students through messages, announcements, presentation of historical elements of learning subjects, direct input of examination and assignment marks.

The successful operation e-University convinced the rest of Higher Education Establishments to follow this innovated process and in the following year nearly everyone will run e-University operations. Projects like e-University are more acceptable by the academic community of the traditional Higher Education Establishments but Degree delivery through Distance learning courses has not been performed by any Academic Institution. Greek individuals are able to follow Distance

229


learning programs that are offered by Universities from other countries but there are a lot of regulations that these Degrees have to be fulfilled in order to be recognized by Greek Educational Authorities as equal to Greek Higher Education Degrees (Law 3328/2005). These regulations are:

is taking place through the traditional way and in defined examination centers. It is obvious that for the academic staff of Greek Higher Education still dominates the model that education can only be in the classroom.

ICT in Schools • •

•

•

The existence of this course in HOU All the e-learning activities should take place directly from the University that offers and not through any intermediate center. Only the examination process may be in Greece but only in defined places. The study duration of the course, the assessment terms, yearly advancements and graduation have to satisfy HOU requirements. Especially this program has to satisfy the following requirements or conditions: ◦ Written or Oral examination in presentia (except assignments) where appraisal and examinations should be performed by the scientific staff of the University that offers the course. ◦ The professors/academic staff/supervisors of the courses have to be members of the academic staff or external partners of the University.

Distance Learning Degrees from other countries are accepted as Equivalent and Correlated to the Greek Higher Education Degrees only when there is a corresponding course in HOU and its syllabus is very close to the corresponding course of HOU. Independent from the existed technological infrastructure, ICT knowledge and the positive contribution of ICT to Greek Higher Education the belief that traditional educational system offers higher quality education in tertiary education than distance learning ones, has not been extirpated. Probably this is why none of the traditional Higher Educational Establishments offer Distance learning Degrees. Even in HOU subjects’ examination

230

In schools, the introduction and use of Information and Communication Technology either as specialization or vocational rehabilitation or as part of the curriculum or as a component of teaching and learning process totally depends on the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs and the Pedagogical Institute. The Greek curriculum is mainly directed from the Ministry of Education and particularly by the Pedagogical Institute which is the formal scientific body that plans, organizes and decides what objects and materials have to be taught and mastered, what knowledge is valuable for students and also the Pedagogical Institute designs, develops and delivers all the required supported materials and means to schools for teachers and students for free. Consequently, the application of any type of innovations, like ICT implementation in schools is not depending on teachers or schools desires and decisions, but it totally relies on the decisions that the Ministry of Education and the Pedagogical Institution perform. This is the reason why all the efforts through studies and programs for the effective implementation of Information Communication Technology in schools are directed, controlled and funded by them. The application and effective utilization of the ICT in schools requires the understanding and interpreting on how the developments of Information and Communication Technology serve teaching and learning processes. There are three main factors that influence the application of ICT in schools: infrastructure, curriculum and educators. These three factors are inter-connected and dependable to each other.


Figure 1. Pan-Hellenic School Network operations

Effective application of ICT in schools requires:

The introduction of ICT in Greek schools started in secondary education first and then in primary education.

In 2002 the Ministry of Education in the frame of the strategic educational plan restructured the educational operation services and has moved on to the design and application of an advanced technological educational network, the Pan-Hellenic School Network, for teachers and students. The aim of this network was not only to be an area for education and administration purposes but also to be a “place” where the exchange of ideas, thoughts and experience for subjects that in a broad sense fall in the concern or interest of the educational community. This network offers Basic Operations, Communication Operations, Web Hosting, Advance Services, Complementary Services, and Central Infrastructure Services (Figure 1).

•

•

•

• •

• • • • •

Computer laboratories, network connection-access to Internet, educational software etc, Curriculum that fits this new teaching and learning environment Experienced and skilled teachers on using ICT during teaching and learning processes.

1983 ICT introduced in vocational lyceum as a separate course of specialization without any previous pilot study and under the belief that ICT is only for vocational lyceums. 1990 ICT introduced as part of high school curriculum 1997 United framework Program of study 1998 ICT as part of General Lyceum curriculum 2000 as part of primary school curriculum In 2005 as part of kindergarten curriculum

•

•

Basic Operations include: connection of schools, Libraries (national and private ones), Educational Authorities and General State Files. They also include web access control, Portal, Student Portal, automatic enrollment of students and educators. Communication Services include: e-mail with spam and virus protection, web mail, listserv, forums and teleconference. Web Hosting allows schools to have their own web site and it gives support through

231


•

•

•

electronic manuals for automatic web site generation, dynamic web pages (php), data base, educational blogs, and school e- magazines. Advance Services provide: video on demand, live broadcast of activities, synchronous and asynchronous e-learning, electronic class operation (e-class) and Software database of Greek Educational Software and Open Source Software. Complementary Services contain the electronic magazine e-emphasis which informs the school community for activities that are taking place by the Ministry of Education and the Pan-Hellenic Network based on the effective utilization of ICT, electronic cards and Virtual Drives. Central Infrastructure Services include: distributed help desk, LDAP, School GIS system, DNS, online statistics etc. According to 2007 statistical data 66 school subjects were on Pan-Hellenic Network where 75 educators created them and nearly 40% of educators used this service. Finally for assessment purposes there were quizzes and exercises where up to now only 3% of educators have elaborated them.

Additionally, it is believed that this network may motivate school students and teachers to explore Internet and particularly for school students to be a tool for information retrieval and part of their daily life in school. This new generation of students and educators in Greece are between traditional and new developments stage. The only factor that has a beneficial influence on developments is the high speed that Internet offers where its information provision is close connected with knowledge quality and education enhancement. It is obvious that ICT can contribute to the quality improvement of the learning process only when teachers are using ICT under a pedagogical accepted way and also the evolved teachers have already gained the re-

232

quired ICT skills. There is a big variety of levels concerning the ICT skills of teachers (Walster & Honkaranta 2007) and this situation can not be ignored in a country like Greece where educational community involvement in Information Communication Technology happened only recently. This delay was depending to a number of causes where the most common ones were: •

•

Language: as most of Internet educational content and required information were mainly in English language and some in French, German or Italian and only very few of them were in Greek language. Lack of educational software suitable for the Greek curriculum

During the last eight years the arithmetic increment and the enrichment of computer laboratories in schools, the massive and qualitative educational seminars to educators which were not only based on the acquisition of basic computer skills but also on informing educators the strengthens and general advantages of ICT was a positive step towards to the application and use of ICT in elementary and secondary education sectors effectively. In cases where educators are facing problems with this new educational environment, support is taking place through the “Information Community”. Another step that the Ministry of Education will perform in order to close the digital gap” is the establishment of 1,233 “intelligent schools” across Greece. Also it has been announced that there are going to be changes in school curriculum based on the areas of: human-center and environmental education, multilingualism, Hellenic learning, digital converge, culture and athletics. This change is toward the motto “Greek, Greek of Europe, and Greek of the World”.

The Educational Portals Nowadays, the interactive relation of teacherstudent is changing continuously and teachers


are required to be continuously informed not only on developments that are relative to their subject content but also they have to be informed on social, political and cultural activities that are taking place and in parallel to update their knowledge on ICT on a continuous base in order to use it effectively in their every day class activities. Consequently, they need a service that will provide them with all the required support based on the provision of information relative to their needs (digital or traditional one) and on training too. The Minister of Education and Religious Affairs by following the example of other European countries created the “Educational Portal” in order to cover the needs of the educational community. The establishment of the Office of the Educational Portal has been prescribed through the identification and classification of educational community’s certain needs. An example is the collection of the educational material of applied teaching proposals derived from programs that have been set by the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs. These materials needed to be collected, stored and in parallel to be easily accessible from teachers that are needed them. In addition, there was a request from rural areas educators to have them on time together with all the required information relative to the existing educational software. The educators of the rural areas demanded access to the educational software and their support was one of the basic aims of this Office. In this framework belongs the effort for broaden the educators distance learning processes and to give them the required additional training for the effective use of ICT in their classrooms. It is obvious that for the effective use of ICT by educators it is required to supply them with all the required digital material. One of the basic advantages of World Wide Web is Internet where information and Communication are its main strengths. Greek teachers, in the last ten years are using it for certain subjects’ areas without distracting the current curriculum content, also they are using it for communication and col-

laboration purposes in a number of educational areas subjects, activities, teaching and learning processes. This frequent use of online technologies by the interesting parties and the sharing of information, concepts or issues between users enhance knowledge management (Ruppel & Harrington, 2001) and allow organizational members to perform their tasks outside the formal settings and also when these tasks are required (Scott & Timmerman, 1999). As more and more Greek individuals, are developing web sites with educational materials and useful services for the educational community, a need for the development of a “place” for this information to be in an integral manner emerged. During 2005 eleven educators of primary and secondary education with a long presence on Internet had summed their efforts and created the Hellenic Education Portal and their main aim was to gather and to classify Greek web sites with rich digital educational content. This Portal serves as a “point of reference” for subjects that falls in the interests of the educational community (students, educators and parents). The goal of this portal is the provision of continuous, authoritative and reliable support to the interesting parties in sectors like digital educational material, articles with pedagogical content, educational links, lists of school projects, software and hardware support, teachers’ forum, distance learning through the distance learning portal and teaching geography through Internet for the elementary school teachers and students. This portal serves as complementary to Educational Portal and has a large number of members who are using it as their meeting place.

Teachers Training On the ERI SEE expert seminar “ICT in Education: The Role of Teachers and Teacher Training in ICT” it has been mentioned that “is easier to buy computers and software; it is hard to train and use the human resources in the most efficient

233


way” (ERI SEE, 2005, p. 3). Teachers are the ones that use the educational system and they have to be assisted in order to understand that technology tools as text, sound, pictures and film can be combined and diffused in a integrated manner during their teaching, learning and in their every day class activities. Towards to this direction the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs organized two training programs for teachers. The first one was during 2001-2005 under the title “Teachers Training for the effective use of ICT in Education” where 86,315 teachers enrolled and the second one which was the continuity of the first one was “Training of Primary and Secondary Education Teachers to basic educational ICT skills” and it is expected to train 35,000 teachers (Pedagogical Institute, 2008). A study in order to assess the impact of the first training program has been conducted by National Kapodistrian University of Athens where it has been reported that this first massive training approach was a successful one as nearly 62% of the teachers gained the acquired training skills (Pedagogical Institute, 2008). For automatic and effective handling of information and digital data it is prerequisite ICT knowledge and experience and in turn this requires teachers to be informed on any new ICT developments and applications. The Pedagogical Institute, in order to support this process of continuous advances of ICT in education, created the “Center of Distance Learning”. This Center offers inside school services and distance learning to primary and secondary school education teachers. The services that this center offers are: •

•

234

Self-education: Access to educational and information material for a number of educational subjects and general subjects that fall in the interest of educators, parents and students. Collaboration learning: Communication and participation to subject chat and

•

to announce and elaborate cooperative activities. E-Class: A real time series of interactive lessons through primary ISDN connection.

Curriculum and Educational Software For the efficient application of ICT in primary and high school levels, the Cross Thematic Curriculum Framework has been introduced for the efficient use of Information and Communication Technology. The educational aims are achieved through the infusion of ICT into the other school subjects. The learning model is the “holistic model”. The combination of ICT curriculum and ICT infusion on curriculum topics has been processed according to grade level on the basis of content guiding principles and according to pupils’ age and cognitive ability. In addition general goals are grouped according to three guiding principles: Knowledge and Methodology, Cooperation and Communication and Science and Technology in everyday life. The innovation that Cross Thematic Curriculum Framework brought was the implementation of the Flexible Zone Program for Kindergarten, Primary and High School levels which substantially promotes a cross-thematic approach to learning and is supported by specially designed educational material. The educational software that Greek school uses is falling in two main categories: a) software that has been created by software houses for dedicated subjects or b) market software that has been modified according to curriculum needs. Teachers can be informed about all existing software that may use in classroom or for their work from the Education Portal.

Solutions and Recommendations ICT and especially World Wide Web have influenced the educational community in many ways.


Firstly, it has introduced the lifelong learning process, then it has influenced class teaching and learning activities and finally it has influenced the way of communication between teacherstudent, teacher-teacher and teacher-educational authorities. In the case of life long learning process educators realized that in order to be able to meet the “digital era” demands accepted that learning is not only for their students but for them too. Consequently, an endlessly knowledge update is required to be performed by them as new knowledge elements are appearing continuously. The Government toward to this process initiated massive ICT training courses as ICT for most of them is totally unknown. These seminars had two draw backs:

imperative process. Consequently, the establishment of courses according to trainees’ level and specialization is required. This requirement leads to the design of personalized form of training programs which under the current traditional design process is hard to be accomplished. Accordingly as flexibility is requested, e-learning may be the most appropriate one for them because as learners (teachers) may be able to select the most suitable for them course (Jolly, & Clark, 2002; Karen, 2007). This e-learning process can be performed through Pedagogical Institute’s “Centre of Distance Learning”. Also this approach can serve as:

1.

•

2.

Since prior to their enrolment has not been conducted any type of survey relative to their level of ICT skills, needs and interests, all trainees followed the same program framework. Training program’s duration was only 48 hours and this duration was too short for teachers without any previous knowledge or experience on ICT so it was too hard for them to reach the expected training level. Also, due to the small duration of training programs there was not enough time to cover the whole range of curriculum and it was impossible for each trainee to get the required assistance during program operation. Since there was not any homogeneity to trainee groups according to their specialization, educational software has not been taught adequately. Furthermore the teaching approach of educational software was limited on its operation and not on how to use it for educational purposes.

•

During the design process it has to be identified the learners’ profile and needs, and what this training program may offered them. Also guidelines from other successful similar programs can not be adapted without any modification as educational situations often vary significantly (Pohl, 2004). Since 2003 educational software became part of the classroom activities and the types of educational software that schools are using are only the ones that have been prescribed by the Minister of Education. Regarding its educational affectivity software evaluations prior, during or after implementation has not been ever performed. The phases that software evaluation may take part are: a) during software design and development and b) during implementation (Shelly, Cashman, Rosenblatt, 1998; Ruckhaus, 1999). The involvement of teachers in educational software can be: •

As teachers play the key role for the effective application of ICT in schools, the need for getting the adequate training and knowledge of how to apply ICT effectively in classroom is an

Complement to training programs by adding a large amount of instructions in online form Preparation class for training programs.

During software design and development: software can be tested if it meets end- user needs. End-user may be teachers or students according to the needs that it is going to serve. In both cases it is very important

235


•

for the educator to take part during design and development processes because educator can clearly define software nature, scope, what it should or must do and how it will be done. During implementation: to take part on testing, documentation, operational documentation, procedures and assessments based on system operation and learning requirements.

Teachers are able to use Internet technology in order to evaluate students learning outcomes. This can be achieved if the used educational software keeps tracks relative to students’ progress (Smith, 1999; Mentzelou, 1998). Also, through this activity students’ learning profile can be studied and in turn the required actions can be set according to their needs. The availability of ICT equipments and means is very low in Greece. All high schools and lyceum have computer laboratories but in elementary education sector only 50% of schools have a computer laboratory and this means 3 computers /100 students while the national mean is 6 computers/100 students (Dimolaidou, 2008). In Greece, great efforts are taking place for the filling of the “digital gap”. This is performed through a number of actions and activities but unfortunately this is not enough. A question that arises here is: how these elementary schools which do not have at least a computer laboratory are following the Cross Thematic Curriculum Framework? These elementary schools in order to follow the Cross Thematic Curriculum Framework are using the only computer that exists in school which is for administration purposes. As students from these schools are impossible to cover the curriculum properly then the approach to rent computer laboratories near their schools can be a solution. Places like Internet café or tutoring schools, which are equipped with computers may be a suitable solution. But these solutions can not be applied easily; they need a special approval from

236

the Ministry of Education and from the Ministry of Economic and Finance.

FUTURE TRENDS Nowadays, all the educational processes and efforts are totally depending on effective ICT use. This requires a well structure strategic plan where the educators will be able to achieve the maximum of their potentials. ICT through its facilities had altered the whole Greek educational philosophy on teaching and on curriculum application. So, from the teacher-center learning process started to move to the student-learner one and from the closed curriculum (with a finite amount to learn) to the open one, where the doors of opportunity for investigations are opened and the teachers have the ability to teach subjects with up today content. The elimination of the “digital gap” between Greece and the other developing countries, in the school sector, requires from all schools to be facilitate with computers and access to Internet, teachers to be trained not only on what technology is, but also why it is used and how it can be used. From Higher Education point of view the digital gap has been eliminated significantly as during the last two years all the efforts in Higher Education are addressed to technology enhancement. But it is required from academic staff to overcome their prejudice on distance learning and this can be achieved only when: •

•

There will be a more thorough study on how distance learning will meet their requirements. They will take part on the design of the Framework of how Distance will be applied more effectively by them.


CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

The continuous hearing that we live in the age of “global information”, which is named by most people “digital age”, is a commonality. What really matters is to apply effective actions for students’ preparation in our new knowledge society. The load of the execution of these actions totally falls on “teachers’ shoulders” as they have to equip their students with all the required credentials for new era’s challenges. The successfulness of this approach in Greece requires for educators to take full advantages of the potentials that ICT offers to teaching and learning. Also, demands to make the necessity alterations and modifications for the entrance of educational processes into new era’s environment. World Wide Web which forms the “virtual window to the world” has been seen by Greek educators as the “area” where partially or fully their hopes, expectations and educational advancements can be accomplished but this can be achieved only when they will learn to master it, to follow its advancement and the most important of all is to gain all the fundamentals ingredients that will allow them to achieve a full swift from the traditional educational model to the digital educational one. Greek school educational community operation is totally dependable from the Minister of Education and some times this dependency does not let a “real space” for the teachers to act on time and effectively because everything they do is either prescribed or requires permission. ICT gave them a partial freedom to act for the best for their students as they can use ICT as an auxiliary mean according to classroom needs. In Higher Education the influence of ICT has changed its operation and assisted its advancement as it has offered the benefit of communication, collaboration and knowledge update to its members.

Barak, M. (2007). Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Computers & Education, 48(1), 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.004 Conford, I. (2002). Learning to Learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning. Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(4), 357–368. doi:10.1080/02601370210141020 Council Regulation 1260 (1999). Laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds. Official Journal of the European Communities. Dimolaidou, G. (2008, January 16). To innovation, to new technologies and to knowledge invests the political headquarters of the Ministry of education. MAKEDONIA, (p. 5). e-ducate action (2008). New Digital Activity for pupils and students. Observatory for Information Society, e-ducate. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.observatory. gr/page/default.asp?id=4 ERI SEE. (2005). Education Reform Initiative of South Eastern Europe REPORT. On the ERI SEE expert seminar “ICT in Education: The Role of Teachers and Teacher Training in ICT”, 2-3 December 2005, Zagreb, Croatia. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from http://www.see-educoop. net/graz_2003/downloads/REPORT_ICT%20 in%20Educat_1205.pdf European Commision-Information Society and Media Directorate General. (n.d.). Lisbon Strategy and Policies for the Information Society Lisbon Strategy and i2010. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/ eeurope/i2010/docs/studies/final_report_3.pdf Global Competitiveness Report. (2008). World Economic Forum. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from http://www.gcr.weforum.org/

237


Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1996). Information infrastructure development: The tension between standardization and flexibility. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(4), 407–426. doi:10.1177/016224399602100402

Lowyck, J. (2002). Pedagogical Design. In H.H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, J.M. Pawlowski (eds.), Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training, (pp.199-217). New York: Springer.

Jolly, D., & Clark, F. (2002). Intergenerational Learning: A Model for Teacher Preparation. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 1349-1350). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Mentzelou, P. (1998). Computer Assisted Learning Reading (CALR) for the Greek deaf children. Bristol, UK: Bristol University.

Kakaris, N., & Fotiou, O. (2007). Use of New Technology from Local Authorities and in Municipalities. Study of Observatory for Information Society for the Digital Community, Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.observatory. gr/Files/press_releases/071125_PR_OTA.pdf Karen, L. J. (2007). The Advantages of eLearning. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Advantages-ofeLearning&id=603386 Kolitsis, A., Baziakos, G., Agorogiannis, A., Goudos, S., Chilas, K., & Tsimpoukis, Th. (2001). The Role of New Technologies to Distance Learning in Communication Environment. In Hellenic Open University (Ed), Proceedings of the 1st Panhellenic Conference for the Open and Distance Education 2001 (pp. 837-852). Patra, Greece: Hellenic Open University. Law 1566 (1985). Structure and operation of Primary and Secondary Education. Law 2552 (1997). Hellenic Open University. Law 2860 (2000). Management, Observation and Control of Council Support Framework and other Arragements. Law 3059 (2002). Constitution of Legal Person under the name Hellenic Observation for the Digital Community.

238

Mungania, P. (2003). The Seven E-learning Barriers Facing Employees:a research report Funded by the Masie Center. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.aerckenya.org/docs/ ElearningReport.pdf Office of the Greek Prime Minster. (1999). GR: Greece in the Information Society - Strategy and Actions. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http:// www.epractice.eu/document/2885 Papadiodorou, B. (2003, June 2). Six out of 10 Greeks are digital illiterate. Eleftherotipia-Ent, 3. Papakonstantinou, G. (2001). The Business Program “Digital Community” and its meaning to Greek business. New Internet Economy and e-Commerce. Greece: Kerkira. Pedagogical Institute. (2008). Teacher TrainingTotal Assess Report. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/ktp/ Pohl, M. (2004). Guidelines for E-Learning - Advantages and Disadvantages. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004, (pp. 4827-4830). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Provata, A. (2006). The European decisions and the advancement of European integration through citizen and University mobility (1992-2006). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www. elemedu.upatras.gr/eriande/synedria/synedrio4/ praktika1/provata.htm


Race, P. (2000). 500 Tips for Open and Flexible Learning. London: Kogan Page Limited. Ruckhaus, E. (1999). A Monitoring Program for Evaluation of Educational Software on the World Wide Web. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 1999 (pp. 1402-1403). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2001). Sharing knowledge through intranets: A study of organizational culture and intranet implementation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44, 37–52. doi:10.1109/47.911131 Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, C. E. (1999). Communication technology use and multiple workplace identifications among organizational teleworkers with varied degrees of virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, (42): 240–260. doi:10.1109/47.807961 SEV. (2004). Positons for the National Action Plan of Association of Greek Industrialists (SEV) of Work 2004, September 2004. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from http://www.sev.org.gr/online/ viewPos.aspx?id=39&mid=&lang=gr&Code= Opinions Shelly, B. G., Cashman, J. T., & Rosenblatt, J. H. (1998). Systems Analysis and Design. USA: Course Technology. Smith, S. (1999). Qwhiz: An Interactive Tool For Math And Science Learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Mathematics / Science [Chesapeake, VA: AACE.]. Educational Technology, 1999, 166–170.

Vircus, S. (2003)Information literacy in Europe: a literature review. Information Research, 8(4) paper no. 159. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://informationr.net/ir/8-4/paper159.html

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Distance Learning: The type of learning where ICT is its main mean for content delivery, interaction and facilitation and it can be either asynchronous or synchronous. Education: The process where through activities, instruction and training knowledge is acquired, it uses any mean that can promote the learning process and its formal structure is divided in three levels, Primary education, Secondary education and Higher Education. Information Communication Technology: Term that presents the integration of information technology and communication and includes the processes that are relative to the transmission, manipulation and presentation of data and information. Computer Skills: The ability to use a computer and to operate computer software applications. Lifelong Learning: The continuous process for knowledge update or for the acquisition of new skills; a nonstop improving of knowledge, skills and competencies. Educational Software: Software written for educational purposes. Pedagogical Institute: National body for primary and secondary education curriculum development and responsible for teachers training and professional development.

239

Section 4

Professional and Disciplinary Implications

241

Chapter 15

Faculty Use and Perceptions of Web 2.0 in Higher Education Richard Hartshorne University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Haya Ajjan University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Richard E. Ferdig University of Florida, USA

ABSTRACT In this chapter, the authors provide evidence for the potential of various Web 2.0 applications in higher education through a review of relevant literature on both emerging educational technologies and social networking. Additionally, the authors report the results and implications of a study exploring faculty awareness of the potential of Web 2.0 technologies (blogs, wikis, social bookmarks, social networks, instant messaging, internet telephony, and audio/video conferencing) to support and supplement classroom instruction in higher education. Also, using the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior as the theoretical foundation, the authors discuss factors that influence faculty decisions to adopt specific Web 2.0 technologies. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the study and recommendations for future research.

INTRODUCTION In recent years, the design and delivery of courses in colleges and universities has been significantly influenced by the immersion of technology into numerous facets of society. For example, the emergence of technologies such as e-mail and learning management systems has resulted in new ways in which content is accessed, shared, and delivered DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch015

throughout a traditional course (Barnett, Keating, Harwook, & Saam, 2004). More recently, Web 2.0 applications have emerged with the potential to further enhance the teaching and learning environment in higher education. Contrary to past models of using Internet technologies as a method of accessing course-related information, students can now use various Internet technologies to connect and share with others. Rather than being passive recipients of content and information, students can become actively involved with accessing and connecting


Faculty Use and Perceptions of Web 2.0 in Higher Education

information from multiple sources and creating new, sharable knowledge through social interactions (Maloney, 2007). Are these Web 2.0 technologies beneficial to learning? A number of recent publications have cited ways in which Web 2.0 applications enhance teaching and learning (Alexander, 2006; Franklin & Van Harmelen, 2007). From the current body of research related to the use of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning, we do know that these technologies have many affordances to improve teaching and learning. These affordances include the ability to support scaffolding and active learner participation, provide opportunities for student publication, feedback, and reflection, and the potential for development of a community of learners (Ferdig, 2007). However, while students today are immersed in a culture of cell phones, text messaging, YouTube, wikis, social networks, and other Web 2.0 applications, many faculty still have not made the switch to these emerging technologies and often use course websites and e-mail as their predominant means of connecting with their students (Maloney, 2007). Are faculty members missing out on the opportunity to improve student achievement and better connect with their students by not utilizing the Web 2.0 tools available today? What are faculty perceptions of the role and benefits of Web 2.0 technologies to supplement teaching and learning? The purpose of this chapter is to assess faculty awareness of the potential of Web 2.0 technologies to supplement classroom learning and to assess faculty adoption of such technologies using the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior as the theoretical foundation (Taylor & Todd, 1995). In this chapter, the authors will report about the evidence for the potential of Web 2.0 applications in higher education by providing a review of the relevant literature from the fields of educational technology and learning theory, focusing on the pedagogical potential of Web 2.0 applications in higher education. Additionally, this chapter will discuss the results of a study assessing faculty

242

awareness of the pedagogical benefits of Web 2.0 tools and factors that influence faculty decisions to adopt these tools. This discussion will include a brief overview of the theoretical framework (Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior), methodology, data analysis and key findings of the study, implications of study results, as well as recommendations to faculty and university administrators concerning the use of Web 2.0 in higher education. We are just now at the cusp of researching the potential of Web 2.0 to improve the teaching and learning in higher education. This chapter reports on some of the early research of Web 2.0 in higher education, the results of some emerging research on Web 2.0 applications in higher education, and is a call to further investigate the use of Web 2.0 applications in higher education, both today and in the future.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE By changing the manner in which data, information, and documents are created, manipulated, and distributed, Web 2.0 applications provide users with opportunities to take control of their own content, as well as afford users opportunities to interact with services and share content with other users and participants (Madden & Fox, 2006; Maloney, 2007). While these new tools are not a new idea, they do provide a new openness, which has changed the way we do things. These new technologies are emerging in many facets of society and make sharing vast amounts of content among users and participants much easier and much more frequent than in the past. In the past few years, tools such as Skype (a popular Internet telephony application), Facebook (an online social network), Flickr (an online photo sharing tool), and YouTube (an online video sharing tool), have afforded users around the world numerous new methods of exchanging personal information, photos and videos, as well as promoting a con-


tinually increasing need for new tools that allow users and participants to quickly create, analyze, and exchange vast amounts of information. These issues have fueled a surge in the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies (Dearstyne, 2007).

Pedagogical Affordances of Web 2.0 While many Web 2.0 tools were not developed specifically for educational applications, many of them are rooted in strong pedagogical underpinnings of constructivism and possess many characteristics that promote their use in teaching and learning environments (Ferdig, 2007). First, Web 2.0 technologies can support active and social learning (Boulos & Wheelert, 2007; Franklin & Van Harmelen, 2007; Klamma et al., 2006; Sturm, M., Kennel, T., McBride, M., & Kelly, M., 2008), processes which many constructivist theorists and researchers avow as a critical component of effective learning environments (Bruner, 1966; Ferdig, 2007; Johnson and Johnson, 1986; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Linn, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). Unlike many traditional web-based technological applications which focus on the dissemination and delivery of content, Web 2.0 applications are more driven by user contributions and interactions, providing arenas for social connectivity and collaborative efforts that support effective teaching and learning environments posited by many constructivist theorists. A second rationale for the use of Web 2.0 applications in higher education is that they provide various opportunities and venues for student publication, which has a number of pedagogical benefits. Past studies have cited increased motivation, more positive attitudes toward the content area, and increased student achievement among the numerous benefits of the publication of student work (Dixon & Black, 1996; Riley & Roberts, 2000; Routman, 1991; Schofield and Davidson, 2002). Moreover, Web 2.0 applications support other pedagogical benefits, such as promoting reflection regarding individual growth and de-

velopment, providing opportunities to examine problems in new and different ways, providing a clearer, more purposeful visualization of one’s work, and sharing work and solutions globally (Simões & e Gouveia, 2008; Maloney, 2007). For example, social networks such as Facebook and MySpace promote self identity exploration, student creation and student experimentation within massive communities of practice. While there is limited empirical data supporting these notions, these theoretical considerations suggest Web 2.0 tools can and should be explored by educators. A third rationale for the implementation of Web 2.0 applications in teaching and learning environments is the role they might play in providing feedback to learners. While Web 2.0 tools are not necessarily designed as tools for faculty to provide feedback to students, many Web 2.0 applications can provide authentic, social environments which allow students to receive feedback from their instructors as well as external social networks. Finally, the social networking aspect of Web 2.0 tools provides opportunities to scaffold student learning in the student’s Zone of Proximal Development (Brown & Ferrara, 1985; Vygotsky, 1978). Not only do Web 2.0 tools provide opportunities for more interaction between teacher, student, and content, but they also allow for an increased role of interaction with other students, parents, and even the computer. To date, most studies exploring the pedagogical benefits and use of Web 2.0 applications in teaching and learning environments have been comparative in nature and have focused more on tools in extracurricular contexts (Maloney, 2007; Pence, 2007; Rollett et al., 2007). Also, while the use of Web 2.0 applications is ubiquitous among “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), this is not necessarily the case with faculty in higher education. Thus, faculty perceptions of the teaching and learning implications of Web 2.0 applications and the usage of Web 2.0 applications to support teaching and learning are important issues to explore. In

243


this chapter, we explore faculty awareness of the potential of Web 2.0 technologies to supplement the classroom learning experience as well as factors that influence the adoption of such technologies, using the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior as the theoretical foundation (Taylor & Todd, 1995).

DECOMPOSED THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR The study presented in this chapter uses the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1) as the theoretical framework for exploring factors that influence faculty intentions to utilize Web 2.0 applications in teaching and learning (Taylor & Todd, 1995). An extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior asserts that behavior is a direct function of behavioral intention, which is, in turn, a function of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. In addition, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls are all direct functions of lower level belief constructs (Todd & Taylor, 1995). This additional decomposition provides researchers with a more thorough understanding of the impact of specific variables on behavior and behavioral intention, as well as the relationship among these variables. Thus, the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior provides an excellent framework for the study presented in this chapter to uncover specific factors that impact on the adoption or use of new technology (Taylor & Todd, 1995).

Behavioral Intention Ajzen (1991) suggests that behavioral intention, which is strongly aligned with motivational factors contributing to performance or non-performance of an action, is the most important determinant in predicting actual behavior. This aligns with many past studies that have used the close relationship

244

between behavioral intention and actual behavior to predict specific actions (Ajzen, 1991; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988).

Attitude As illustrated in Figure 1, attitude, or the extent to which a behavior is favored by an individual, is one of the three determinants for behavioral intention. In the context of this chapter, attitude is defined as faculty desire to utilize Web 2.0 applications to support teaching and learning. Past research has provided strong empirical support illustrating a positive relationship between attitude and behavioral intention (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Taylor & Todd, 1995). This study focuses on the decomposition of attitude into three components--perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and compatibility--in order to generate more specific information about the influence of determinants of attitude on behavioral intention, thus providing more explanatory power and predictive validity of the explored behaviors (Taylor & Todd, 1995). Previous research has found that perceived usefulness, or the extent to which an individual believes that the use of technology will enhance performance, has a positive influence on behavioral intention as a determinant of attitude (Davis, 1989; Rogers, 2003; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). In the context of this chapter, perceived usefulness is defined as the extent to which faculty feel that specific Web 2.0 applications will enhance teaching and learning. The greater the perceived usefulness (or perceived advantage) of a technological application, the more likely it is for the individual to use the new technology (Rogers, 2003). Previous research has also shown that perceived ease of use, or the degree to which the use of a particular technological application is free of effort, has been found to influence the technology adoption decision as an important determinant of attitude (Davis, 1989). In the context of this chap-


Figure 1. Faculty adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom— based on the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior

ter, perceived ease of use of Web 2.0 applications is the extent to which faculty members feel that the use of specific Web 2.0 tools would require limited effort. Applications that are perceived to be less complex to use have a higher possibility of acceptance and use by potential users. Compatibility, or the degree to which an innovation fits within an individual’s existing behaviors, has also been shown to influence the adoption of new technological applications (Rogers, 2003). In the context of this chapter, compatibility is the extent to which the use of Web 2.0 applications fit within the current role and responsibilities of faculty. While mediated by attitude, Tornatzky and Klein (1982) found that adoption of an innovation is more likely to occur when the innovation aligns with both the job responsibilities of an individual, as well as with their value system.

Subjective Norms Subjective norms refer to various social pressures that influence an individual’s actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Taylor & Todd, 1995). Because different social groups within one’s circle of influence might view the adoption of a new innovation in varying ways, this study considered the social pressures of three groups: students, peers (other faculty), and superiors. With the tendency of students to be more experienced and comfortable with the use of Web 2.0 applications, they would most likely be more supportive of faculty use of these tools (Prensky, 2001). Other faculty, however, might view the adoption of new Web 2.0 applications in courses as an unwelcome change in the current process and, consequently, might be less supportive of the adoption of these tools.

245


Superiors, on the other hand, might feel that the adoption of various Web 2.0 tools might improve student learning. Consequently, they might be more supportive of the adoption and use of Web 2.0 applications in courses.

Table 1. Profile of respondents Variable

Value

Frequency

Percentage

Gender

Male

62

43

Female

82

57

Age

Perceived Behavioral Control Perceived behavioral control is the extent to which an individual feels they have control over their behavior, and can be influenced by two factors: self efficacy and facilitating conditions (Ajzen, 1991). Self efficacy refers to a faculty member’s view of their own competence and ability in using Web 2.0 applications as tools to support teaching and learning. Previous studies have found that the higher one’s self efficacy, or comfort level with an innovation, the more positive the influence on behavioral intention and actual usage (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Taylor & Todd, 1995). Further, facilitating conditions refer to the presence of various resources that support the implementation of an innovation (Triandis, 1979). In relation to this study, facilitating conditions include the availability of appropriate Web 2.0 technologies, time, money, and support. Past studies have found that the greater the presence of these facilitating conditions, the more positive the effect on behavioral intentions and actual usage (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Todd & Taylor, 1995). Conversely, the absence of facilitating conditions has a negative influence on behavioral intention and actual use (Taylor & Todd, 1995).

METHODS Participants The participants in the study presented in this chapter consisted of instructional personnel at a large university in the southeastern United States. Participation in the survey was completely voluntary and was open to all clinical, visiting, assistant,

246

Role at university

Under 30

3

2

30-39

49

34

40-49

33

23

Over 50

59

41

Lecturer

28

20

Assistant Professor

53

37

Associate Professor

35

25

Professor

16

11

Other

12

7

associate, and full professors at the university. In sum, there were 144 participants (Table 1), comprised of 62 males (43%) and 82 females (57%). Ages of participants varied significantly. Two (2%) of the participants were under 30 years of age, 49 (34%) were between 30 and 39 years of age, 33 (23%) were between 40 and 49 years of age, 59 (41%) were over 50 years of age. Twenty percent of the responding faculty members were lecturers, 37% were Assistant Professors, 25% were Associate Professors, and 11% were Full Professors.

Instrument A survey instrument (Appendix A) was designed using the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior as its guiding framework. Items were adapted from previous studies (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Davis, 1989; Taylor & Todd, 1995) and divided into three sections. The first section includes demographic items for respondents, including items such as age, gender, years as a faculty member, and faculty role. The second section included items exploring the participants’ comfort level with Web 2.0 technologies (blogs, wikis, social networking, social bookmarks, instant messaging,


internet telephony, and audio/video conferencing), classroom use of specific Web 2.0 applications, as well as the participants’ expected benefits due to using specific Web 2.0 technologies. The third section included a series of five point Likert-scale items (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) examining factors that influence faculty intentions to utilize Web 2.0 technologies in their courses and were specifically aligned with the various determinants addressed in the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior.

DATA ANALYSIS Given the multivariate context of the study variables, path analysis models were used to explore variable relationships. Using path analysis, real effects can be isolated from spurious effects. Path analysis is also useful for determining the significance of the linkage between variables, which can be important in providing information regarding underlying causal processes (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Descriptive Statistics The faculty respondents felt that the use of different Web 2.0 technologies to supplement in-class learning could provide their students with benefits (see Table 2). In terms of Web 2.0 technologies

that would improve students’ learning, faculty felt that blogs, (47%), wikis (42%), audio/video conferencing (36%) held the most potential. Conversely, few faculty felt that social bookmarks (7%), Internet telephony (9%), instant messaging (14%), and social networks (16%) could improve student learning. About 46% felt that the use of blogs would increase the interaction between faculty and students. Less than one-third of all respondents felt the same benefits would be attained using audio/video conferencing, instant messaging, wikis, social networking, internet telephony, and social bookmarks. In terms of improving students’ satisfaction with the course, faculty viewed blogs as having the most potential (39%). Again, less than one-third of the respondents felt that the use of any of the other Web 2.0 applications would result in improvement of student satisfaction with a course. About 41% of the respondents felt that the use of blogs would improve students writing. Less than 30% of the faculty respondents felt that wikis, social networks, instant messaging, audio/video conferencing, social bookmarks, and internet telephony would improve student writing. Lastly, 46% of faculty respondents felt that the use of blogs could be easily integrated into existing course materials and content, while 38% felt that wikis would be easy to integrate into current courses. However, less than 30% felt that the use of instant messaging, audio/video conferencing, social networks,

Table 2. Faculty perceptions of the pedagogical benefits of Web 2.0 applications Improve student learning

Increase student-faculty interaction

Increase student-student interaction

Improve student satisfaction with course

Improve student writing

Easy to integrate

Blogs

47%

46%

52%

39%

41%

46%

Wikis

42%

23%

20%

22%

29%

38%

Social Networks

16%

16%

56%

32%

8%

23%

Social Bookmarks

7%

7%

25%

13%

1%

12%

Instant Messaging

14%

32%

55%

28%

7%

29%

Internet Telephony

9%

13%

19%

15%

1%

11%

Audio/Video Conferencing

36%

33%

26%

26%

5%

28%

247


social bookmarks, and internet telephony would be easy to integrate into current courses. While many faculty respondents felt that Web 2.0 technologies held potential to provide numerous pedagogical benefits, only few chose to use them (see Table 3). In fact, only 14% currently use blogs, 24% use wikis, 16% use audio/video conferencing, 14% use instant messaging, 7% use social networking, 7% use Internet telephony, and 5% use social bookmarking. In addition, the majority of all respondents do not use and do not plan to use any of the Web 2.0 applications addressed in this study. One potential explanation for lack of faculty use of Web 2.0 applications illustrated by the study results is the faculty comfort level with technology. Most of the respondents have never used some of these Web 2.0 technologies (see Table 4), with 81% having never used social bookmarks. Respondents were most familiar with wikis, with only 28% having never used them. Only limited numbers of faculty considered themselves either

competent or proficient with these tools. While almost half (45%) of faculty respondents felt either competent or proficient in using wikis, these feelings were significantly less for the other Web 2.0 tools. For example, only 12% felt either competent or proficient at using social bookmarks, 19% at using Internet telephony, 23% at using blogs, 24% at using social networks, 35% at using audio/video conferencing applications, and 37% at using instant messaging. While faculty realize that the use of many of the Web 2.0 applications entail various pedagogical benefits for their students and could enhance the teaching and learning environment, the lack of experience with most Web 2.0 technologies examined in this study could be a driving factor in faculty avoidance of the adoption of Web 2.0 tools. In order to better understand additional factors leading to the adoption and use of Web 2.0 technologies, we used the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior.

Table 3. Faculty use of Web 2.0 applications Don’t use and don’t plan to use

Don’t use but plan to use

Use occasionally

Frequently use

Blogs

62%

18%

9%

5%

Wikis

56%

13%

20%

4%

Social Networking

74%

14%

6%

1%

Social Bookmarking

80%

8%

4%

1%

Instant Messaging

73%

7%

8%

6%

Internet Telephony

76%

13%

4%

3%


53%

25%

13%

3%

Table 4. Faculty comfort levels with Web 2.0 applications Never Use

Novice

Competent

Proficient

Blogs

56%

21%

13%

10%

Wikis

28%

26%

27%

18%

Social Networking

59%

17%

13%

11%

Social Bookmarking

81%

6%

6%

6%

Instant Messaging

42%

22%

18%

19%

Internet Telephony

69%

12%

9%

10%


39%

26%

25%

10%

248


Path Analysis The Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior was useful for explaining much of the variance in the use of Web 2.0 technologies by faculty (see Figure 2). Additionally, most paths in the model were statistically significant (see Table 5).

Decomposing Behavior and Behavioral Intention Behavioral intent is the single determinant for behavior. From the path analysis results, behavioral intention (β=0.666, t=9.991) had a very significant effect on actual behavior. In decomposing

behavioral intention, there are three determining factors: attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norm. The path analysis found that attitude (β=0.830, t=12.334) was the only determinant that had a very significant effect on behavioral intention. While the perceived behavioral control (β=0.128, t=2.218) had a significant effect on the behavioral intention, the third determinant of behavioral intention, the subjective norm (β=-0.060, t=-.0952), had no significant effect.

Decomposing Attitude Using the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior, there are three determining factors for attitude:

Figure 2. Path analysis of factors that influence faculty adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom

249


Table 5. Path analysis of factors that influence faculty adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom R2 (adjusted R2)

Beta (t-scores)

Behavior (B) B=I I

0.442 (0.437)

0.666 (9.991) ***

Behavioral Intent (I) I=A+SN+PBC A SN PBC

0.760 (0.754)

0.830 (12.334) *** -0.060 (-0.952) 0.128 (2.218) *

Attitude (A) A=PU+PEOU+C PU (Perceived Usefulness) PEOU (Perceived Ease of Use) C (Compatibility)

0.806 (0.801)

0.615 (7.604) *** 0.144 (2.125) * 0.190 (2.546) *

Subjective Norm (SN) SN=SI+PI+SUPI SI (Student Influence) PI (Peer Influence) SUPI (Superior Influence)

0.641 (0.632)

0.356 (5.235) *** 0.205 (2.344) * 0.396 (5.114) ***

Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) PBC=SE+FC-R+FC-T SE (Self Efficacy) FC-R (Facilitating Conditions--Resources) FC-T (Facilitating Conditions--Technology)

0.534 (0.522)

0.518 (6.125) *** 0.185 (1.321) 0.098 (0.706)

Equation

Notes: Figures shown are beta coefficients, t-values in parentheses. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001

perceived usefulness, compatibility, and perceived ease of use. Examining the path analysis results, perceived usefulness (β=0.614, t=7.604) of Web 2.0 technologies had a very significant effect on attitudes toward these tools. Additionally, path analysis results indicated that both compatibility (β=0.190, t=2.546) of Web 2.0 technologies with existing technologies and perceived ease of use (β=0.144, t=2.125) had significant effects on attitudes. Attitudes (β=0.830, t=12.334), in turn, had the greatest effect on behavioral intention.

resources, facilitating conditions—technology, and self efficacy. From the path analysis results, self efficacy (β=0.518, t=6.125) was the only determinant to have a significant effect on perceived behavioral control. The other two individual determinants, facilitating conditions— resources (β=0.185, t=1.321) and facilitating conditions—technology (β=0.098, t=0.706) had no significant effects on the perceived behavioral control. Perceived behavioral control (β=0.128, t=2.218), however, did have a significant effect on behavioral intention.

Decomposing Perceived Behavioral Control

Decomposing Subjective Norm

The Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior includes three determining factors for perceived behavioral control: facilitating conditions—

There are three individual determining factors for subjective norm in the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior: superior influence, student

250


influence, and peer influence. Examining the path analysis results for each of the individual factors, superior influence (β=0.396, t=5.114) and student influence (β=0.356, t=5.235) both had very significant effects on subjective norm. Additionally, path analysis results for the third individual determinant, peer influence (β=0.205, t=2.334), indicated that it had a significant effect on subjective norm. However, subjective norm (β=-0.060, t=-.0952) did not have a significant effect on behavioral intention.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS In this study, the actual use and implementation of Web 2.0 tools, as well as actual methods of use, were not examined. Thus, more research that explores the instructional usage of Web 2.0 applications and “best practices” of each of these tools is needed. While there are many affordances of Web 2.0 tools that provide pedagogical benefits, more research exploring uses and benefits of specific applications (social networks, blogs, wikis) in specific content areas and contexts is necessary. Also, it is important that the application and appropriateness of Web 2.0 tools be examined in various learning environments (online, face-toface, blended). While these issues were beyond the scope of this study, the results of this study can serve as a basis for the development of future programs focusing on the development of faculty technology skills, as well as a guide for the programs and procedures for new faculty members. With the increasingly ubiquitous nature of Web 2.0 applications, as well as a renewed focus on the development of 21st century skills at the K-12 level (which align with Web 2.0 tools), it is expected that students will be entering colleges and universities with increasingly more familiarity with these applications, as well ways to use them to support their learning. Thus, it is critical that future faculty can effectively integrate these emerging technologies into their courses. By highlighting the use of Web

2.0 tools in higher education, as well as factors that influence faculty use, the results of this study can influence policy and procedures related to the use of Web 2.0 applications in higher education programs to support the use of Web 2.0 applications by faculty. Future research could define effective integration techniques of utilizing Web 2.0 technologies to improve teaching and learning process; and to better support active, social, and engaging learning environments. Additionally, future research should explore specific methods of faculty professional development and support services related to the implementation of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION Social networking, photo and video sharing, blogging, and social bookmarking are all activities that are ubiquitous among “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001). Concurrently, the web is transforming from a tool used primarily as a source of information to a community, where individuals create and share new information and content with others. While both of these issues provide potential benefits for teaching and learning in higher education, it is necessary to continue to explore the extent of the impact of tools that support these tasks in higher education (Maloney, 2007; Rollett et al., 2007). The study presented in this chapter set out to address this issue by continuing the discussion regarding issues related to the integration of Web 2.0 applications in teaching and learning environments. Based on the findings presented in this chapter, it appears that while many faculty acknowledge the benefits of Web 2.0 technologies to assist in students learning process, few choose to use these tools to support their teaching practices. The results show that this pattern might be explained by faculty’s low familiarity of how to utilize these tools. Consequently, administrators interested in promoting the use of Web 2.0 applications might

251


provide faculty training sessions that focus on “how to” issues related to utilizing Web 2.0 applications (setting up a blog, establishing a social networking group, etc.), as well as methods for the effective and appropriate integration of Web 2.0 applications in the classroom. Additionally, the results of the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior help us understand factors important to faculty when deciding whether or not to use this tool. The results indicated that faculty attitudes toward Web 2.0 technologies, as well as their perceived behavioral control, play an important role in determining behavioral intention to use Web 2.0 technologies as a supplement their in-class instruction. Exploring these findings from an administrators’ perspective in higher education might indicate that professional development opportunities and support services should highlight the perceived usefulness, ease of use, compatibility (with teaching practices), and faculty’s self efficacy related to Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning. As previously mentioned, future research is needed to develop “best practices” models to facilitate the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies as tools for improving the teaching process in higher education. Due to long exposure to new technologies, students entering the higher education setting have a different set of technological skills and are much more prepared to use new technologies than most faculty members (Prensky, 2001). Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) describe the net generation students as digitally literate with the ability to use the Internet with ease, as highly connected using networked media, and as highly attracted toward activities that promote social interaction such as blogging and IMing. Faculty that are seeking to add value to student education at relatively low cost are likely to increasingly utilize Web 2.0 technologies to support in-class learning. Web 2.0 applications could help increase responsibilities of students, enable them to learn outside the classroom, and enhance the critical utilization of social networking applications (Rollett et al., 2007). This

252

chapter investigated factors influencing actual faculty use of several Web 2.0 technologies, their comfort level, and expected benefits of using Web 2.0.technologies. In addition, the study identified determinants of Web 2.0 adoption by faculty. As Web 2.0 tools become increasingly ubiquitous, this study presents a first step in understanding factors leading to faculty Web 2.0 adoption and methods of fostering support for faculty use of Web 2.0 applications.

REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/07495978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Alexander, B. (2006). A new way of innovation for teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32–44. Barnett, M., Keating, T., Harwook, W., & Saam, J. (2004). Using emerging technologies to help bridge the gap between university theory and classroom practice: Challenges and successes. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 299–314. Baylor, A., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classroom? Computers & Education, 39(1), 395–414. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00075-1 Boulos, N. K., & Wheelert, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23. doi:10.1111/j.14711842.2007.00701.x


Brown, A. L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In J.V.Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273-305). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Fiedler, S., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E. T., et al. (2006). Social software for professional learning: Examples and research issues. Proceedings of the ICALT-2006 Conference, The Netherlands, (pp. 912-914).

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. doi:10.2307/249688 Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–339. doi:10.2307/249008 Dearstyne (2007) Blogs, mashups, and wikis: Oh my! Information Management Journal, 41(4), 24-33. Dixon, S., & Black, L. (1996). Vocal Point: A collaborative, student run online newspaper. In E. J. Valauskas & M. Ertel (Ed.), The Internet for teachers and school library media specialists: Today’s applications tomorrow’s prospects (pp. 147-158). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc. Ferdig, R. (2007). Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 5–10. Franklin, T., & Van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education. London: Joint Information Systems Committee. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31–32.

Linn, M. C. (1991). The computer as learning partner: Can computer tools teach science? In K. Sheingold, L.G, Roberts, & S.M. Malcolm (Eds.), Technology for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Madden, M., & Fox, S. (2006). Riding the waves of “Web 2.0”: More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined. Pew Internet Project, 1-6, (Unpublished). Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 25(18), B26. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net Generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation. Educause 2005, http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/ Pence, H. E. (2007). Preparing for the real web generation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 347–356. doi:10.2190/7116G776-7P42-V110 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 Riley, R. W., & Roberts, L. G. (2000, December). Putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children: The national educational technology plan. eLearning. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education.

253


Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., Gisela, D., & Tochtermann, K. (2007). The Web 2.0 way of learning with technologies . International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87–107. doi:10.1504/IJLT.2007.012368 Routman, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Toronto, Canada: Irwin Publishing. Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing the internet to school: Lessons from an urban district. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–343. doi:10.1086/209170 Simões, L., & Gouveia, L. (2008). Web 2.0 and higher education: Pedagogical implications. Higher Education: New Challenges and Emerging Roles for Human and Social Development. 4th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education Technical University of Catalonia (UPC). Sturm, M., Kennel, T., McBride, M., & Kelly, M. (2008). The pedagogical implications of Web 2.0. In M. Thomas (Ed.) Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 367-384). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144

254

Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoptionimplementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), 28–45. Triandis, H. C. (1979). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 195-259). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557–585.

ADDITIONAL READING Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical Tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71–80. doi:10.1016/j. iheduc.2008.05.002 Alexander, B. (2006). A new way of innovation for teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32–44. Alexander, B. (2008). Web 2.0 and emergent multiliteracies. Theory into Practice, 47(2), 150–160. doi:10.1080/00405840801992371 Barnett, M., Keating, T., Harwook, W., & Saam, J. (2004). Using emerging technologies to help bridge the gap between university theory and classroom practice: Challenges and successes. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 299–314. Berg, J., Berquam, L., & Christoph, K. (2007). Social networking technologies: A “poke” for campus services. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(2), 32–44.


Carr, N. (2008). The big switch: Rewiring the world, from Edison to Google. New York: W.W. Norton.

Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 25(18), B26.

Christensen, C., Johnson, C., & Horn, M. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw Hill.

Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional, 9(4), 34–41. doi:10.1109/ MITP.2007.78

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93–106. doi:10.1080/09523980802107179 Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–339. doi:10.2307/249008 Ferdig, R. (2007). Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 5–10. Friedman, A., & Heafner, T. (2007). You think for me, so I don’t have to. [Online serial]. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 7(3). Available http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/ iss3/socialstudies/article1.cfm. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall. Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E. H., & Kravcik, M. (2007). Social software for lifelong learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 72–83. Linn, M. C. (1991). The computer as learning partner: Can computer tools teach science? In K. Sheingold, L.G, Roberts, & S.M. Malcolm (Eds.), Technology for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Available: http://www.oreillynet.com/ lpt/a/6228 Pence, H. E. (2007). Preparing for the real web generation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 347–356. doi:10.2190/7116G776-7P42-V110 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently? Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424843 Prensky, M. (2008). Backup Education? Too many teachers see education as preparing kids for the past, not the future. Educational Technology, 48(1), 1–3. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Shiue, Y. S. (2007). Investigating the sources of teachers’ instructional technology use through the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 425–453. doi:10.2190/A407-22RR-50X6-2830 Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144

255


KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Behavioral Intention: A user’s readiness to carry out a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Subjective Norm: The perceived expectations from others that influence a user to perform a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Perceived Behavioral Control: A user’s perceptions of the availability of required resources and opportunities to perform a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Attitude: The degree to which an individual favors a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Blog: A contraction of the term “web log”; a blog is a website maintained by an individual and may include regular posts, picture and other media, RSS feeds, and commentary from guests or visitors to the blog. Popular blogging tools include WordPress, Blogger, and LiveJournal. Wiki: A web-based application that allows multiple users to create and edit content, which can include text, hypertext, audio, video, and more. Popular wiki tools and applications include SeedWiki, Wikipedia, and WetPaint.

256

Instant Messaging: A web-enabled text-based form of synchronous communication between two or more people. Popular Instant Messaging applications include Windows Live Messenger, Tencent QQ, Jabber, and AOL Instant Messenger. Internet Telephony: Also known as voiceover IP (VOIP), Internet telephony allows for synchronous audio or video communications between two or more people utilizing the Internet. Popular VOIP applications include Skype, NetMeeting, and CoolTalk. Social Bookmarks: A web-based application which allows users to search, store, rate, manage, and share websites and website collections. Popular social bookmarking applications include Delicious, Digg, Reddit, and StumbleUpon. Social Networks: A web-based application that focuses on creating communities of individuals with shared interests, providing numerous methods of interaction between network participants. Popular social networks include Facebook, Friendster, Orkut, and MySpace.


APPENDIX A Investigating Faculty Decisions to Adopt Web 2.0 Technologies Section 1: Background Information 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

Gender ◦ Male ◦ Female Age ◦ Under 30 ◦ 31-39 ◦ 40-49 ◦ 50-59 ◦ Over 60 University/School: Role at University/School ◦ Lecturer/Visiting Professor ◦ Assistant Professor ◦ Associate Professor ◦ Professor ◦ Graduate Student ◦ Other College/Department:

Section 2: Web 2.0 Technologies 6.

7.

Please list your comfort level with the following Web 2.0 applications (Never Use, Novice, Competent, Proficient) ◦ Blogs (Blogger, WordPress) ◦ Wikis (Seedwiki, Wikipedia) ◦ Social Networking (Facebook, MySpace) ◦ Social Bookmarking (Digg, de.licio.us) ◦ Instant Messaging (MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger) ◦ Internet Telephony (Skype) ◦ Audio/Video Conferencing (DimDim, FlashMeeting) To what extent do you use the following Web 2.0 applications to supplement your in-class lecture (Don’t use and don’t plan to use, Don’t use but plan to use, Use occasionally, Frequently Use, Always Use, NA) ◦ Blogs (Blogger, WordPress) ◦ Wikis (Seedwiki, Wikipedia) ◦ Social Networking (Facebook, MySpace) ◦ Social Bookmarking (Digg, de.licio.us) ◦ Instant Messaging (MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger)

257


8.

◦ Internet Telephony (Skype) ◦ Audio/Video Conferencing (DimDim, FlashMeeting) What are, in your opinion, the advantages of using each of the following Web 2.0 technologies? (Blogs, Wikis, Social Networking, Social Bookmarking, Instant Messaging, Internet Telephony, Audio/Video Conferencing) ◦ Improve students’ interaction with faculty ◦ Improve students’ learning ◦ Improve student’s satisfaction with the course ◦ Improve students’ interaction with other students ◦ It could be easily integrated into my course ◦ Improve student’s writing ability

Section 3: Web 2.0 Technologies Adoption 9.

258

Thinking of that Web 2.0 technology you use most frequently in your classroom (based on question 11) to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Don’t Know) ◦ I believe that I could communicate to others the consequences of using Web 2.0 in the classroom ◦ I would have no difficulty explaining why Web 2.0 technologies may or may not be beneficial ◦ I plan to use Web 2.0 technologies in my classroom ◦ I intend to use Web 2.0 technologies within the next semester ◦ I will add Web 2.0 technologies to my class next semester ◦ Web 2.0 is useful in my teaching ◦ The advantage of using Web2.0 outweighs the disadvantages of not using it ◦ Using Web 2.0 is a good idea ◦ I feel that using Web2.0 will be easy ◦ I feel that using Web 2.0 will be easy to incorporate in my classroom environment ◦ I feel that using Web 2.0 will help my students learn more about the subject ◦ I feel that using Web 2.0 will improve students’ satisfaction with the course ◦ I feel that using Web 2.0 will improve students’ grades ◦ I feel that using Web 2.0 will improve students’ evaluation ◦ To help my students better learn the material, I will incorporate Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom ◦ My peers think I will benefit from using Web 2.0 technologies in my classroom ◦ My peers are using Web 2.0 technologies in their classroom ◦ My superior confirms my ability and knowledge to use Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom ◦ My superior thinks it is important I use Web 2.0 technologies in my classroom ◦ Using the Web 2.0 technologies is entirely within my control ◦ I have the knowledge and ability to use Web 2.0 ◦ Peers who influence my behavior would think that I should use Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom


◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦

Peers who are important to me would think that I should use Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom My superior, who influences my behavior, would think that I should use Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom My superior whom I report to would think that I should use Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom Using Web 2.0 technologies is compatible with the way I teach Using Web 2.0 technologies fits well with the way I teach I can use Web 2.0 technologies using any computer connected to the Internet The Web 2.0 technologies are compatible with the computer I already use in the classroom I know enough to use Web 2.0 technologies I could easily use Web 2.0 technologies on my own I would feel comfortable using Web 2.0 technologies

259

260

Chapter 16

Librarian as Collaborator: Bringing E-Learning 2.0 Into the Classroom by Way of the Library Susanne Markgren State University of New York Purchase College, USA Carrie Eastman State University of New York Purchase College, USA Leah Massar Bloom State University of New York Purchase College, USA

ABSTRACT In this chapter, the authors explore the role of academic librarians in the e-learning 2.0 environment. Librarians are excellent partners in developing e-learning 2.0 spaces with faculty, because they are already familiar with many web 2.0 technologies being used in these environments. The authors explore how libraries and librarians have traditionally served their patrons, and how the library is currently becoming a collaborative technology center serving increasingly tech-savvy students. With this in mind, the authors define e-learning 2.0 and examine the history behind the development of the concept. They also address the librarian’s role as it pertains to information literacy on campus and collaboration with faculty in order to facilitate the e-learning process. The chapter concludes with a focus on how librarians can help bring e-learning 2.0 into the classroom through faculty workshops, consultations, and embedding of librarians within classes.

INTRODUCTION: LIBRARIES BRIDGING THE TECHNOLOGY DIVIDE Academic libraries are critical to the success and growth of their institutions and have often been referred to as the heart of the college or university. Traditionally the academic library was the place on DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch016

campus where scholarship occurred. It was where students and faculty went to do research, to find a quiet place to study, to check out materials, and to get assistance from a librarian in order to locate bits and chunks of information hidden away on dusty shelves or tucked into squeaky microform drawers. The library served the campus and its constituents as a sacred repository of the printed word and the academic librarian was its loyal custodian. Fifty


Librarian as Collaborator

years ago students most likely viewed the library as a necessary burden, a solemn and unsocial place to be visited when required by their professors and dictated by their assignments. [t]he Library has no outward and visible reward to offer its devotees. Even to many who might become devotees it seems like a cold and dusty place, where the books are locked away in distant ‘stacks’ which the student cannot visit, and which are too often presided over by male or female dragons whose obvious aim seems to be to protect them from those who wish to use them (Tinker, 1955, p. 167). Today, much has changed in regards to the library as place and the role of the librarian. The academic library still holds and preserves the printed word and still exists as a venerated place of scholarship, but it has shaken off its dust and attempted to transform into the new social butterfly on campus. In the past two decades, the academic library has rapidly evolved into a warehouse of technology, a center for digitization, a multimedia hub, and a rejuvenated space for collaboration and exploration. This process, still taking place in academic libraries across the world, has unquestionably led to the sacrifice of numerous traditional spaces, heaps of print volumes, and loads of shelving in order to make room for more collaborative and social spaces such as computer labs, cafes, media/listening rooms, auditoriums, learning centers, information commons, study rooms, and classrooms. The library is adapting to meet the needs and the demands of its newest generation of users. Freeman, talking about library as place, says that in order to remain a vital presence on campus, the library must support its members in new and experimental ways. It must be flexible in order to accommodate evolving information technologies and must be able and willing to become a laboratory for new ways of teaching and learning. “Rather than threatening the traditional concept of the library, the integration of new information technology has actually become the catalyst that transforms the library into

a more vital and critical intellectual center of life at colleges and universities today” (2005, p. 2). As libraries change to meet the needs of the students and the academic community, so must the roles of the librarians. Librarians have had to adapt to the ever-changing library landscape by continually reinventing their roles and keeping their skills up-to-date and in-tune with new technologies, tools, resources, and services. And, in turn, they need to be able to educate their users in navigating this new landscape while promoting new services and resources across the campus. Librarians are no longer dragonish guardians of the printed word. They are teachers, technologists, innovators, and campus advocates who are focused on meeting student needs, supporting faculty in the classroom, and maintaining a vital presence on campus. Academic librarianship has excelled at grasping the significance and potential of technology as a powerful force in transforming our profession and what we contribute to higher education. Librarians are in every sense of the word, technologists. Yet, we have largely maintained what is referred to as the “high touch,” the ability to balance technology with humanism and an overarching focus on student-centered service (Bell & Shank, 2004, p. 373). Most traditional students entering college today are considered to be digital natives (Prensky, 2001). They have grown up with digital technology, computers and the Internet and they expect to be able to communicate and socialize online at any time and in any place. They are mobile and connected at the same time, texting, chatting, emailing, searching the web, streaming audio, and often doing all of this from the same device. These students expect to be able to customize, configure, format, download and move seamlessly from one place to another, and one application to another, without restrictions. “Technology is something that adapts to their needs, not something that requires them to change” (Roberts, 2005, 3.2).

261


As more and more digital natives enter college, the greater the digital divide becomes between the faculty member and the student. It can be easy for faculty members to feel overwhelmed with the onslaught of technological change and feel isolated when attempting to keep up with new tools and resources. “Students live in a separate reality from faculty members, who are typically not motivated or rewarded by institutional incentives to change their practice” (McGee & Diaz, 2007, 30). Although most campuses utilize and support some technology in the classroom (e.g., course management systems, web pages, interactive white boards, presentation tools, video), many do not encourage or train faculty to use or experiment with emerging technologies or web 2.0 tools. Like libraries, academic departments and faculty members need to remain relevant to their students by incorporating new technologies and tools into the classroom that will facilitate the teaching – learning process, and, in essence, make learning fun and engaging. The library, as the newest technology hotspot on campus, and the librarians who work there, are logical intermediaries to bridge the knowledge gap between faculty and students when it comes to emerging technologies and web 2.0 tools because libraries and librarians are already using them. In order to do this, librarians need to market their resources and their services more directly to faculty members and academic departments, and the faculty should think of librarians as learning facilitators and important allies in educational technology who maintain and support: new collaborative spaces, computers and printers, a wide variety of software programs and networked equipment, and secure wireless internet access along with all of the subscription-based and freely available online resources and tools needed for doing research and instruction today. Henry Wriston, writing about the nature of the liberal college more than 70 years ago, states that, “Aside from the faculty, the most important single instrument of instruction in the college is its library” (1937, p. 64).

262

BACKGROUND Definition and History of E-Learning 2.0 E-learning is understood today in relation to online courses, but it is really much broader than that. Holmes and Gardner would like to open up the definition completely to “online access to learning resources, anywhere and anytime” (2006, p. 14). This definition, however, seems a little too broad, and noticeably leaves out the actual act of learning. Holmes and Gardner overlook the fact that their definition only refers to access and makes no attempt to define how users would actually learn anything from these resources. Littlejohn suggests that this is e-dissemination, not e-learning, and a frequent mistake among those attempting to define e-learning. “E-dissemination is commonly used as a means of enabling students to access and download electronic learning resources” (2005, p. 72). Without the learning element in e-learning it is not e-learning at all. So how are we defining e-learning 2.0? While we agree e-learning does involve e-dissemination, it goes beyond that to include some fundamental ideas about learning. E-learning becomes e-learning 2.0 by merging with the concepts of web 2.0, which can be defined as “ …changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aim to enhance creativity, information sharing, and collaboration among users” (Wikipedia, 2008). So, e-learning 2.0 exists in an online environment where learning resources and web 2.0 resources are accessible at any time and are used to enhance the teaching-learning process. This environment may take on many forms, depending on how the instructor and the students choose to structure it. In this environment students can engage with the information provided by the instructor or their classmates in a variety of ways. Students may be asked to read materials, perform tasks, write and post assignments, communicate with classmates, or take quizzes. They may even


create original ways to use the information they have learned and share their ideas with the class, within their e-learning environment. As a result, they are not only learning from the instructor, but they are also learning from their classmates by actively crafting the learning environment. And this environment is built upon the learning outcomes the instructor wants the students to acquire. Without this acquisition of knowledge in a highly collaborative online environment, there is no e-learning 2.0. E-learning has been a notion in educators’ minds, as we understand it today, in one form or another since the emergence of personal computers in the 1960s and 70s (White, 2007). Gardner and Holmes would like us to believe that learning with technology began in the 1920s with Sydney Pressey and his testing machine, which helped to develop the idea of programmed learning (2006). Early on, e-learning was more about learning to use the equipment itself and how to run the software (Tastle, White, & Shakleton, 2005). As technologies have developed and changed, e-learning has evolved to include significantly more options and opportunities. And, as we have moved into the twentieth century and developed our 2.0 sensibilities, the scope of e-learning has come to be almost limitless in its possibilities. In the 1980s, educationalists started to lobby for what they felt were the best ways to teach computing skills and started to share ideas of how to use computers for teaching (Gardner & Holmes, 2006). With the emergence of the Internet in the 1990s, the more traditional ideas and tenets of e-learning began to transform into an entirely new concept. “Although educational software is popular in its own right, it is the interconnectivity supplied by the Internet, and the huge resources made available through the World Wide Web, that are the primary underpinnings of e-learning” (Gardner & Holmes, 2006, p. 46). This is the kind of e-learning we are faced with today, one with a rich history developed by technologists and educators, and

one that has become highly interactive, while being shaped not only by instructors but by the students themselves.

Information Literacy on Campus With the increased popularity of e-learning and web 2.0 tools, it is even more important for students to know how to find, evaluate, and use information. This concept is known as information literacy. “To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information” (American Library Association’s Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, 1989). This definition serves as the basis for the highly influential Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000), but it is certainly not a new concept. Or, as Middle States (2003) put it, “[t]he principles underlying information literacy are as old as higher education itself” (p. 1). Similarly, it is not new for librarians to be involved in teaching students these skills. Even as far back as 1900, academic institutions expected librarians to provide instruction to students in using the library and its resources (Rice-Lively & Racine, 1997). Originally, this instruction focused on training students to find books and articles. In a pre-web world, this was sufficient because the easiest information source was the library, and most of the materials available in the library were appropriate for students’ research (Swanson, 2004). However, libraries do not have a monopoly on information anymore; students can now access vast quantities of information without ever entering the library.An OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) survey conducted in 2005, found that 89% of college students said their online information searches typically begin with a search engine, while only 2% said they typically begin with the library website (DeRosa, Cantrell, Hawk, & Wilson, 2006).

263


The drastic increase in the availability of information online has made it crucial to teach students more than just how to locate materials, but also to teach how to evaluate information sources (Swanson, 2004). This is becoming even more important with the rise of web 2.0 technologies, which “facilitate creating, sharing, and interacting with information” (Lorenzo, Oblinger, & Dziuban, 2007, p. 8). Web 2.0 technologies include blogs, wikis, social bookmarking sites, social networking sites, and others (see Key Terms & Definitions). When students use a major search engine, like Google, they are likely to encounter results from these web 2.0 tools, such as Wikipedia articles and/or blogs in the first page of search results. Since anyone who registers with the site can create and edit Wikipedia articles and anyone can create a blog, this means that many of the sources students are likely to encounter first are not necessarily vetted at all. Plenty of these sites will contain accurate and useful information, but many will not. The ease with which people can create content and the collaborative nature of web 2.0 technologies mean that information is increasingly created by amateurs rather than experts (Lorenzo, Oblinger, & Dziuban, 2007). For example:

Are Students Using These Sources?

•

•

•

•

•

264

As of July 2008, there were more than 2.47 million articles in English on Wikipedia (Wikipedia, 2008). As of 2006, Wikipedia was the seventeenth most popular site on the internet and received more daily traffic than the online versions of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal combined (Schiff, 2006). One popular blog search site, Technorati, searched 112.8 million blogs as of July 2008. Technorati (2008) reports that there are more than 175,000 new blogs every day, and that bloggers update their blogs regularly with more than 1.6 million posts per day, which is more than 18 updates a second.

Yes. In addition to anecdotal evidence from faculty members who report that students frequently cite Wikipedia in their papers, empirical data supports the statement that college students are reading and creating web 2.0 content: •

•

•

In a 2008 survey of more than 27,000 students at 90 four-year and eight two-year U.S. colleges, the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) found that 34.1% of respondents contribute content to blogs, 38.2% contribute content to wikis, and 46.6% contribute content to photo or video websites (Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2008) In a survey of college students in six countries in 2007, OCLC found that 59% of college students reported having read someone else’s blog in the past 12 months (De Rosa, Cantrell, Havens, Hawk, & Jenkins, 2007). The ECAR survey found that 85.2% of respondents used social networking sites, with 56.2% of respondents using one or more of these sites daily (Salaway, Caruso, Nelson, & Ellison, 2008). In a survey of future students – teenagers between the ages of 12 and 17 – the Pew Internet & American Life Project found in 2006 that 64% of online teens and 59% of all teens said they had participated in at least one of the following five contentcreation activities: shared their own artistic creations online; created or worked on webpages or blogs for others; created their own journal or blog; maintained their own personal webpage; or remixed content they found online to make their own creations (Lenhart, Madden, MacGill, & Smith, 2007).


Much research has shown that students are not as tech savvy, and particularly not as net savvy, as we assume. In 2007, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran a story on this issue (Foster, 2007). And, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) released preliminary findings of its Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy Assessment in 2007, indicating that students are not necessarily fluent in these skills or areas. When students were asked to evaluate a group of websites for objectivity, authority, and timeliness, only 52% correctly judged the objectivity of the sites, 65% correctly judged the authority, and 72% correctly judged the timeliness. However, only 49% of the test-takers identified the one website that met all of those criteria. In addition, when asked to narrow an overly broad search, only 35% of students selected the correct, or preferred, revision while another 35% selected a revision that only marginally narrowed the search results (Educational Testing Service, 2007).

What Does this Mean for Information Literacy? With students encountering and even creating so many kinds of information sources, they need to be able to determine which sources are appropriate for which information needs. Not all research papers need to include only scholarly sources, but students need to be able to determine which other sources are appropriate. To do that, they need to understand what each type of source is. Is a wiki an appropriate source for an academic paper? It might be, depending on the topic of the paper and who has been editing the wiki. Is a YouTube video accurate and reliable? Maybe, or maybe not. Is a blog authored by an expert? Maybe, but not necessarily. The content found on a New York Times blog is not the same as that found in the organization’s regular news articles, but it is sometimes similar to the type of content found in Times opinion columns. Readers’ comments added to blogs are an entirely different type of source.

These information management and evaluation skills are certainly useful for academic research, but may become even more important when students leave college and enter the work world. In many fields, including business, education, medicine, the arts and others, students will need to create digital content in the form of documents, graphics, videos, multimedia presentations and podcasts. Tasks such as these require use of various types of sources, such as background information, images, and primary materials, and then require evaluation of the sources to appropriately integrate them into a coherent product (Lippincott, 2007). While searching for sources for these projects, students may encounter blogs, wikis, and social networking sites, as well as traditional websites authored by a range of “experts.” Students also may be asked to create and maintain blogs, wikis, and other web 2.0 tools in their professional lives. They may be asked to find a solution to a workplace problem for which one of these tools might be perfect. Even in their personal lives, students may need to evaluate many sources of information. As Barbara Fister, a librarian at Gustavus Adolphus College, pointed out on ACRL’s blog: They may have to find out whether that claim a presidential candidate is making about immigration has merit or not, even if they don’t have a degree in immigration studies. They may have to decide whether the treatment their doctor is recommending for their cancer warrants a second opinion. They may want to make a good case before their city council that the coal-fired power plant down the block is a health risk or that the effectiveness of the reading program being used in their fourth-grader’s class is not only confusing the heck out of their child, but isn’t supported by research. They may want to be able to think for themselves (Fister, 2008). In addition to increasing the importance of evaluation of information, the web 2.0 world offers ways to help students become more information literate. The ACRL Standards require students to

265


be able to manage information in addition to evaluating it. Standard two of performance indicator five requires that an information literate student “extracts, records, and manages the information and its sources.” RSS feeds and social bookmarking tools can help with this. These tools can be commercially developed or created at the local level, such as the University of Pennsylvania’s PennTags. This tool and similar social bookmarking sites that allow users to locate, organize, and share online resources, directly support the ACRL information management performance indicator (Allen & Barnhart, 2008). None of this negates the basic definition of information literacy, but it requires an expansion of the scope of the definition. A variety of definitions of information literacy, or similar terms, have emerged. The Report of the 21st Century Literacy Summit explains that “21st century literacy” includes fluency with more than just textual forms. It includes sound, still and moving images, interactive components and more. Therefore 21st century literacy includes the ability to create and interpret information in these new forms (New Media Consortium, 2005). Similarly, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) defines “ICT literacy” as: [t]he ability to use digital technology, communication tools, and networks appropriately to solve information problems in order to function in an information society. ICT literacy includes the ability to use technology as a tool to research, organize, evaluate, and communicate information, and the possession of a fundamental understanding of ethical/legal issues surrounding the access and use of information (Educational Testing Service, 2007, p. 3). Beyond the need for students to gain modern information literacy skills for their academic work and the rest of their lives, regional accreditation organizations have expressed interest in the skills associated with information literacy. The agencies expect colleges and universities to develop information literacy skills in their students and

266

to demonstrate the effectiveness of instruction in those skills (Saunders, 2007). As accrediting agencies have begun to pay more attention to information literacy concepts, several of them have noted that information literacy should be integrated into the curriculum (ibid). This includes moving beyond library instruction sessions for students in select classes, and working toward complete integration of the principles of information literacy into assignments and courses. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2006) explains that achieving true integration should involve collaboration among librarians, faculty, and administrators. Focusing on this concept in a web 2.0 world, Lorenzo, Oblinger, and Dziuban (2007) explain that the library can be the campus “hub” for ensuring students have the information skills they will need in the 21st century. To integrate today’s concepts of information literacy into the curriculum, faculty will need to be fluent in web 2.0 tools so they can help students navigate the increasingly complex world of user-generated, collaborative content. In fact, a popular concept, known as “blended librarianship,” includes in its tenets the principle that librarians should work with faculty to assist them in integrating technology and library resources into their courses (Bell & Shank, 2004). We believe that librarians are uniquely positioned to assist faculty in this endeavor.

CURRENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Librarians can bring e-learning 2.0 into the classroom through instruction, collaboration and support, and embedding. In this section, we will look at how librarians are teaching e-learning technologies to the faculty so that they gain a strong understanding of what these tools have to offer them and their students. Next, we will look at ways librarians can support and collaborate with


faculty as they explore e-learning technologies and integrate them into the curriculum. And finally, we will discuss how librarians and faculty can enhance the use of e-learning tools by embedding the librarian in the class itself.

Workshops for Faculty We know students are turning to technology and the web more and more as a way to meet their educational needs. Why should they go to a class on a campus somewhere if they can attend the same class, or access similar information, through the web? In today’s consumer-centered society, higher education has come to recognize the need to meet students where they are and allow them to take more control of their own education. “[L] earners are taking greater responsibility for the construction of their own learning programmes, and are developing higher expectations of being able to dine and choose courses which meet their own specific learning needs, in a form which suits their own context” (Johnston, 2001, p. 2). As practitioners of higher education, librarians see the need to reach students through institutional websites, blogs, wikis, course management software, social networking sites, and even virtual worlds – to go where the students are. And certainly there are many faculty members who have started to integrate e-learning 2.0 into their existing classes, or sought to create an exclusively e-based learning environment for a particular class. However, there is a major concern about the additional time and work this approach would create, as well as the potential support (or lack thereof) from the institution. If e-learning is to become a wide-scale reality for academia, faculty development in this area must exist. E-learning initiatives, regardless of how small or large, cannot be sustained unless the faculty has support from institutional staff and administration. In most institutions, the faculty members are overwhelmed by teaching, research, and campus committee obligations. Adding intensive technol-

ogy training to that mix is virtually impossible for most of them. But taking time to enhance their technology skills through brief workshops could prove to be advantageous to their students and their departments, and could even save them time in the long run. Many librarians have engaged in training to assist faculty in assignment development, class augmentation and/or class development collaboration. They have also crafted their training in many different ways. For example, Julie Chapman and Michelle White (2001) held a series of grantsponsored workshops at Valdosta State University. These workshops taught faculty how to use the library’s electronic resources and assisted them in developing effective research assignments. At Texas A&M, Pixey Ann Mosley collaborated with the Center for Teaching Excellence to teach faculty how to design library assignments. Through interactive workshops, Mosley learned how to better engage with faculty and was able to correct some misconceptions about what the library has to offer students, as well as how librarians help students get what they need (1998). In an effort to reach distance faculty, the library at Regis University collaborated with the Professional Studied Distance Learning department to create an online course in WebCT. The purpose of this was to “raise faculty awareness of library resources and services and to train them to integrate library activities into the courses they teach” (McCaffrey, Parscal, & Reidel, 2006, p. 279). Many more examples exist, but we would like to describe our training efforts to our readers. We developed a series of campus workshops to introduce freely available web 2.0 tools to faculty and staff of the college, and offered to assist them in integrating these tools into their classrooms or into their professional lives.

267


Social Networking Tools for Professional Development: A Class at Purchase College We developed and taught a class for faculty and staff of Purchase College that we launched in the 2007–2008 academic year. The class, which is part of a professional development series on campus, is an introduction to free social networking tools and a demonstration of ways to use the tools (e.g., in the classroom, for collaboration and communication with students and colleagues). The class was offered once in the Fall semester and twice in the Spring semester, with a total attendance in all three sessions of 40. We introduced the following tools: MySpace, Facebook, Blogger, Wordpress, PBWiki, Delicious, Google Reader, and Flickr (see Appendices for more information), and focused on how to use these tools in the classroom and for professional development purposes. As many of the attendees were seeing some of these tools for the first time we provided plenty of time for questions and individual exploration in the hands-on classroom. At the end of the workshop we offered our services, as trainers and collaborators, and we were pleased that several faculty and staff members contacted us afterwards to meet and discuss their specific ideas and to get more in-depth training. In the Summer of 2008 we surveyed all the participants in order to get a better understanding of what they might use in their classes and in their professional lives, and what they would want to see in successive classes. When asked how and why librarians should collaborate with faculty and staff in an effort to promote e-learning within the classroom one faculty member in the Art + Design conservatory answered, “Real commitment and partnering with faculty. However, not all faculty members can find time or have the skill set and/or interest in going digital. I think the library should slowly reach out to the degree that the staff can handle the workload.” Another faculty member, in Continuing Education, answered, “It keeps us all more current in a rapidly changing online world.”

268

This workshop, from our perspective, and from the feedback we received, was an obvious success. We offered the introductory class again in the Fall of 2008 with 13 attendees, and we also offered a more focused, hands-on session on creating wikis and blogs with 16 attendees. We will continue to develop additional classes, and revise existing ones, with the primary goal of assisting faculty in using and promoting e-learning 2.0 tools and resources in the classroom.

Librarian as Consultant Collaboration, in any form, between teaching faculty and librarians is critical to the success of every information literacy program and crucial to teaching students how to be successful in their research. There has been a big movement in recent years for the library, and the librarians, to become more integrated into the curriculum in an effort to enhance information literacy. This has resulted in many different forms of collaboration between faculty and librarians including one-shot instruction sessions, co-teaching or team teaching, involvement in learning communities, and cooperation in the development of content, exercises, and resources in specific courses (Arp & Woodward, 2006). One of the simplest and most non-intrusive ways that a librarian can collaborate with faculty is as a consultant – someone who can serve as a knowledgeable resource for the faculty; someone who knows the research tools, technology, and databases available to the students; and someone who can work with the faculty to create assignments that will get the best results and allow the students to discover and effectively use the library’s resources. One frequent complaint among librarians is the common lack of consideration, on the faculty member’s behalf, of the resources available when assigning research papers or projects. “Rogue assignments can be recycled from a different time or place, referencing research tools that were discontinued years ago, or worse, were


never in the library to begin with” (McHale, 2008, p. 254). The author suggests that librarians should be proactive in preventing these types of assignments and should market their services – as “assignment consultants” – and the library’s resources to the members of the faculty. To counter these rogue assignments, librarians should work with the faculty in a collaborative environment in order to update faculty members on new and evolving information resources, promote improved communication, and ultimately build better research assignments that will make the research process much more palatable for the students and the end product much more gradable for the faculty. The librarian-as-consultant can be effective in the e-learning process in other ways as well. Any good consultant will reach out to his clients to find out their needs and desires. Too often the disconnect between the faculty and other departments (library included) on campus results in missed opportunities and unforeseen partnerships. Librarians should reach out to faculty, find out what they would like to accomplish primarily in the context of information literacy and information technology, and then offer to assist the faculty member in introducing a new e-learning tool into the classroom. Examples of this might include creating online lists of resources for specific classes using a social bookmarking tool such as Delicious, creating a class blog or wiki, or creating a learning tool (or set of tools) specific to the needs of a department or a course. Many libraries have started to post promotional and instructional videos on YouTube. This platform allows for any-time access, and makes it easy for users to add videos to blogs or other websites, and send videos to cell phones. It also allows for comments, links, and RSS feeds (Webb, 2007). Other libraries and librarians are hosting programs, presenting open lectures, posting resources, and collaborating with faculty in Second Life (Second Life Library Blog, 2008). Librarians are aware that each faculty member has different needs and wants for his or her

students and courses. What faculty members may not be aware of is that most libraries have already created a plethora of digital research and instructional tools (tutorials, videos, wikis, resource lists, Facebook pages, blogs, etc.) that can easily be modified to suit the needs of a specific class or department. Librarians can serve as consultants for the campus at large by creating, or assisting in the creation of, tools that will enrich and enhance the teaching-learning process.

Embedding Another way for librarians and faculty to collaborate and increase student information literacy skills is to “embed” librarians in classes. The term is taken from the practice of embedding journalists into military units during the Iraq war (Dewey, 2004). Embedding a librarian in a class can range from a librarian participating in courseware to traveling with a class.

Examples of Embedding a Librarian in a Course In many settings, from distance courses to regular in-person courses, librarians have embedded themselves in courseware such as WebCT, Blackboard, ANGEL and others. Embedding a librarian in courseware can include creating pathfinders or lists of resources specific to a class. Other ways of embedding a librarian in courseware include adding an “Ask the Librarian” link to the course page, creating citation guides, sending messages to students with tips on databases and other resources, and more. There are many descriptions in the literature of endeavors such as these. For some examples, see Bell and Shank (2007), Shank and Dewald (2003), and Matthew and Schroeder (2006). Many librarians and faculty members have worked to embed librarians in other aspects of courses as well. Hearn (2005) describes a course where a librarian provided eight different instruc-

269


tion sessions, some of which were as short as 15 minutes. These sessions focused on everything from using online reference sources and reading citations to locating newspaper articles and transcripts. The librarian and faculty member also met with students individually to consult about each student’s research. Some collaborations have even involved a librarian team teaching a course with a faculty member. Whyte (2007) describes such a situation in a course called Information Gathering, offered through the Mass Communication Department. Whyte attended every class and was a full coinstructor of this course.

Examples of Embedding a Librarian in a Class with Web 2.0 Tools Some recent examples of embedding a librarian have included web 2.0 tools. Smith and Sutton (2008) describe a unique situation where they traveled through the American South with a sociology class from Wake Forest University. The embedded librarians traveled on the bus with students and faculty members and stayed in the same hotels with them. They provided resource lists to students and provided research help on the students’ assigned topics. They also provided technology support, which ranged from troubleshooting hotel internet access to designing and maintaining web 2.0 tools, such as the course wiki, blog, and Flickr sites. The librarians also planned the service learning portion of the trip where students worked with the Hancock County Library System in Mississippi. Another example of a librarian being embedded in a course with web 2.0 technologies is reported by Glass and Spiegelman (2007). They describe the use of course blogs and an embedded librarian in several mathematics and computer science courses at Nassau Community College in New York. Glass, a mathematics and computer science professor, and Spiegelman, a librarian, developed research assignments for students to complete and

270

post on the course blog (they had the option to post using pseudonyms). Spiegelman answered students’ research and resource evaluation questions through the blog and was able to address issues to the whole class if several students were likely to encounter the same issue. She led students in an exercise where they researched the criteria required for articles to be posted on About. com. In addition to their work with students on evaluating information, Glass and Spiegelman helped their students learn about the ethical use of information.

Benefits and Challenges Embedding a librarian is certainly not right for every course. The course has to have a significant research or information evaluation component. Even in courses that are a good fit, there are often logistical challenges. For example, some libraries might not have enough librarians to embed librarians in many courses. Another challenge is that it is often difficult to communicate to faculty that there are librarians available for their courses. In addition, the collaboration can take a significant amount of work on the part of both the librarian and the faculty member. However, embedding a librarian in a course can actually save faculty time; a faculty member can easily refer students’ research questions to a librarian who may be more easily able to answer questions about the best resources for specific topics. This frees time for faculty members to work with students on other issues. In addition, it provides faculty members with more opportunities to expose their students to important issues such as evaluation of information. It also makes librarians more visible to students and allows them to form closer relationships with faculty members. Perhaps the most important benefits are those to students of embedding a librarian in a course. Hearn (2005) reports that almost all of the sources used by students in their papers in the class with an embedded librarian were considered to be ac-


ceptable. This included both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Shank and Dewald (2003) note that providing links to library resources in courseware allows for “one-stop-shopping” for students. They can find high quality resources right where they are. Web 2.0 tools provide additional avenues for faculty and librarians to help students by embedding a librarian in a course. By their participatory and collaborative nature, web 2.0 tools make communication among all participants much easier. If appropriate, students’ work posted on these tools can be made available to those beyond the university so students can share work with parents and friends. Having a librarian embedded in a course through courseware, a course blog, course wiki, course photo-sharing site, or other web 2.0 tool can provide seamless opportunities for students to learn about evaluating information, how information is created, how to manage information, and how to use it ethically.

CONCLUSION Academic librarians have a lot to offer both faculty and students that will enhance the teaching-learning experience. Their involvement in instruction, technology, and research initiatives; their connections with various departments on campus; and their ability to adapt the roles they play every few years as resources, infrastructure, and student needs change, make them vital educational and technical resources for the campus community. Faculty members often want to experiment with emerging technologies and tools but often lack the time, support, and resources to do so. Librarians have had to use and support many of these new tools before other groups on campus because they are being used by students in the library. And, both groups are interested in utilizing tools that will further student learning and

save time. Therefore, there is a perfect match to be made. Meanwhile, students (and everyone else) are facing an ever-expanding universe of information. A simple web search will return information created by scholars, amateurs and everyone in between. To be successful in today’s academic environment, students need to be able to go beyond finding information, and be able to evaluate and create it as well. Librarians are in a unique position to assist faculty in selecting and implementing tools that will contribute to students’ skills in these crucial areas. Unmistakably, web 2.0 technologies have completely changed the definition of and approach to e-learning. While we present our specific ideas of how librarians can be a part of this process, we by no means suggest that there is one way to accomplish the learning objectives of the instructor for a specific class. And, while we stress the importance of librarians being part of the collaborative process, we recognize that there may be other logical departments and people on campus that should also be a part of the collaboration. Some such groups may include writing centers, teaching and learning centers, distance education departments, instructional technology departments, and computing centers. It is up to the campus, and its constituents, to recognize the need to move forward, to encourage collaboration between departments, and to ultimately meet the needs of students as best they can. Librarians, as information specialists, and libraries, as the social and technological heart of the campus, are the logical and fundamental partners for collaboration in the e-learning arena.

REFERENCES Allen, L., & Barnhart, M. (2008). PennTags at the University of Pennsylvania. In P. Godwin, & J. Parker (Eds.), Information literacy meets library 2.0 (pp. 111-115). London: Facet.

271


Alliance Library System. (2008). Second life library. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http:// infoisland.org/ American Library Association. (1989). Presidential committee on information literacy: Final report. Chicago: American Library Association. Arp, L., Woodard, B. S., Lindstrom, J., & Shonrock, D. D. (2006). Faculty-librarian collaboration to achieve integration of information literacy. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 46(1), 18–23. Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/ standards.pdf Bell, S. J., & Shank, J. (2004) The blended librarian: A blueprint for redefining the teaching and learning role of academic librarians. C&RL News, 65. Bell, S. J., & Shank, J. D. (2007). Academic librarianship by design A librarian’s guide to the tools and techniques. Chicago: American Library Association. Chapman, J., & White, M. (2001). Building bridges with faculty: The evolution and outcomes of library workshops for faculty at Valdosta State University. Technical Services Quarterly, 19(1), 25–36. doi:10.1300/J124v19n01_02 De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J., & Jenkins, L. (2007). Sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www. oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing.pdf

De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Hawk, J., & Wilson, A. (2006). College students’ perceptions of libraries and information resources. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.oclc. org/reports/pdfs/studentperceptions.pdf Dewey, B. I. (2004). The embedded librarian: Strategic campus collaborations. In W. Miller, & R. M. Pellen (Eds.), Librarians within their institutions: Creative collaborations (pp. 5-17). Abingdon, UK: Haworth Information Press. Educational Testing Service. (2007). 2006 ICT literacy assessment preliminary findings. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Products/ICT_Literacy/pdf/2006_Preliminary_Findings.pdf Fister, B. (2008, July 18). Chasing our long tails. ACRLog. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http:// acrlog.org/2008/07/18/chasing-our-long-tails/ Foster, A. (2007, March 9). Information navigation 101. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 38. Freeman, G. T. (2005). The library as place: Changes in learning patterns, collections, technology. In Library as place: rethinking roles, rethinking space (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.clir. org/pubs/abstract/pub129abst.html Glass, R., & Spiegelman, M. (2007). Incorporating blogs into the syllabus: Making their space a learning space. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(2), 145–155. doi:10.2190/ ET.36.2.c Hearn, M. R. (2005). Embedding a librarian in the classroom: An intensive information literacy model. RSR. Reference Services Review, 33(2), 219–227. doi:10.1108/00907320510597426 Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning: Concepts and practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

272


Johnston, P. (2001). After the big bang: Forces of change and e-learning. Ariadne, (27). Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/ issue27/johnston/ Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A. R., & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/ PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf Lippincott, J. K. (2007). Student content creators: Convergence of literacies. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(6), 16–17. Littlejohn, A. (2005). Key issues in the design and delivery of technology-enhanced learning. In P. Levy& S. Roberts (Eds.), Developing the new learning environment: The changing role of the academic librarian (pp. 70-90). London: Facet Publishing. Lorenzo, G., Oblinger, D., & Dziuban, C. (2007). How choice, co-creation, and culture are changing what it means to be net savvy. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(1), 6–12. Matthew, V., & Schroeder, A. (2006). The embedded librarian program. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(4), 61–65. McCaffrey, E., Parscal, T. J., & Riedel, T. (2006). The faculty-library connection: An online workshop. Journal of Library Administration, 45(1/2), 279–300. doi:10.1300/J111v45n01_16 McGee, P., & Diaz, V. (2007). Wikis and podcasts and blogs! Oh, my! What is a faculty member supposed to do? EDUCAUSE Review, 42(5), 28–40. McHale, N. (2008). Eradicating the rogue assignment. College & Research Libraries News, 69(5), 254–257.

Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2002). Characteristics of excellence in higher education: Eligibility requirements and standards for accreditation. Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.msche.org/publications/Characteristicsbook050215112128.pdf Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2003). Developing research & communication skills: Guidelines for information literacy in the curriculum Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Mosley, P. A. (1998). Creating a library assignment workshop for university faculty. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24(1), 33–41. doi:10.1016/ S0099-1333(98)90137-9 New Media Consortium. (2005). A global imperative: the report of the 21st Century Literacy Summit. New Media Consortium. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://archive.nmc.org/pdf/ Global_Imperative.pdf Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 Rice-Lively, M. L., & Racine, J. D. (1997). The role of academic librarians in the era of information technology. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(1), 31–41. doi:10.1016/S00991333(97)90069-0 Roberts, G. R. (2005). Technology and learning expectations of the net generation. In D. Oblinger, & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), (p. 3.2). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://bibpurl.oclc.org/web/9463 Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ ERS0808/RS/ERS0808w.pdf

273


Saunders, L. (2007). Regional accreditation organizations’ treatment of information literacy: Definitions, collaboration, and assessment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(3), 317–326. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.01.009 Schiff, S. (2006, July 31). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? New Yorker, 82. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.newyorker. com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact Shank, J. D., & Dewald, N. H. (2003). Establishing our presence in courseware: Adding library services to the virtual classroom. Information Technology and Libraries, 22(1), 38–43. Smith, S. S., & Sutton, L. (2008). Embedded librarians. College & Research Libraries News, 69(2), 71–85. Swanson, T. A. (2004). A radical step: Implementing a critical information literacy model. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 4(2), 259–273. doi:10.1353/pla.2004.0038 Tastle, W., White, B., & Shackleton, P. (2005). E-learning in higher education: The challenge, effort, and return on investment. International Journal on E-Learning, 4(2), 241–251. Technorati. About us. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from http://technorati.com/about/ Tinker, C. B. (1955). The library. In J. D. Marshall, W. Shirley & L. Shores (Eds.), Books, libraries, librarians: Contributions to library literature (p. 167). Hamden, CT: The Shoe String Press. Web 2.0. (2008). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 Webb, P. L. (2007). YouTube and libraries. College & Research Libraries News, 68(6), 354–355.

274

White, S. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning and institutional change--some organisational perspectives on campus-wide e-learning. British Journal of Educational Teaching, 38(5), 840–850. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00760.x Whyte, S. (2007). Team teaching with faculty: A rich and rewarding experience. In S. J. Bell, & J. D. Shank (Eds.), Academic librarianship by design A blended librarian’s guide to the tools and techniques (pp. 71-73). Chicago: American Library Association. Wikipedia. (2008). Wikipedia: About. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wikipedia:About Wriston, H. (1937). The nature of a liberal college (p. 64). Appleton, WI: Lawrence College Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Blogs: Short for web logs, are online journals that allow their writers to post regular entries, on the topic(s) of their choice, in reverse chronological order. Often, blog writers will allow their readers to post comments that are available to all readers of the blog. The blog owner or creator has the freedom to dictate the topics, content, tone, design, and contributors of that site, and can expand or reduce the degree of participation allowed from others. Examples of free, hosted blogs are Blogger and WordPress Course Management Software: Also called course management system or learning management system, this tool is used by academic institutions to offer an online platform where faculty have virtual space for each of their classes, beyond the physical classroom experience. Faculty can use this software to post syllabi and course readings, map out a semester schedule, hold quizzes, or manage online discussions and grades. A few popular systems are ANGEL, Moodle and Blackboard


Feed Readers: Used to collect and organize updated information in one place. They use RSS Feeds to do this. Some feed readers can be downloaded to a computer but many, such as Bloglines and Google Reader, are available on the web and allow users to access his or her customized feeds from any internet connected computer Photo or Video Sharing: A variety of free websites allow for easy sharing of visual materials on the web. These sites allow users to upload their personal photos and videos and share them with the online community who can, in turn, add information (tags, comments, etc.) to them. In many of the photo sharing sites, such as Flickr, users can easily upload, organize, and customize their photos by adding titles, captions and tags. Video sharing, on sites like Google Video and YouTube, allows users to freely upload their videos to a shared space, making them more accessible RSS Feeds: RSS (really simple syndication) is a way to distribute content through the internet. The feeds themselves are available on multiple tools such as blogs, wikis, videos, podcasts, and photo sharing sites. A user can sign up to have an RSS feed send regular emails to an email account, or, can set up an RSS reader (see Feed Readers) that collects feeds from multiple websites in one place. RSS Feeds allow users to avoid having to go to several different websites regularly to access new information Social Bookmarking: Social bookmarking is a way to collect links or bookmarks, that are located on a website, not a local computer, thus making them much more accessible and easy to share with others. Beyond the collecting function, users can organize their bookmarks however they choose, by tagging each one with specific keywords that will make them easy to locate within that specific collection. Two popular social bookmarking tools are Delicious and Diigo Social Networking: Social networking websites are seen largely as a way for people to socialize and communicate with their friends. However they are much more than just places

to socialize. They can be used to bring together people with common interests or of particular age groups, from young children to senior citizens. These websites are used by individuals to share information about themselves, find friends, create career networks, find jobs, get information about a topic of interest, share photos, join interest groups, follow politics, and much more. Some examples of social networking sites are Facebook, Myspace, Classmates.com, LinkedIn.com, Twitter, LiveJournal and Ning (where users can create their own social networking sites) Tagging: One feature that can give an electronic tool 2.0 characteristics is tagging. Tagging is when users apply their own keywords or descriptive words, to a particular item on a website to make it searchable, and findable, by the user community. Tagging gives users the power to define how information on the website is organized and accessed. Allowing the users to control the organization of items follows the 2.0 philosophy of allowing the individual to craft his experience within that particular virtual world. It is a feature that has become very popular. Some tools that use tagging are blogs, social bookmarking sites, and photo and video sharing sites Virtual Worlds: Virtual worlds are websites where users can inhabit and interact within a virtual space using an online identity called an avatar. One of the most popular virtual worlds is Second Life. Virtual worlds like Second Life, are crafted by the people who inhabit them and they mimic the real world with commerce, the arts, and educational activities going on at all hours. As a user in Second Life, one can buy property and items, build buildings, conduct meetings or classes, and even visit places that may also exist in the physical world such as art galleries and universities Wikis: A wiki is collaborative tool, or space, that can have multiple contributors. The creator of a wiki has control over who can access and read it, as well as who has editing power. Wikis are used to share information or collaborate with a

275


wide population, or a select few. Wikipedia is one example of a popular wiki. For this book chapter, the authors collaborated and shared information and drafts using a private wiki

276


APPENDIX Table 1. Examples of web 2.0 tools Type

Name

Web Address

Blogs

Blogger LiveJournal Twitter WordPress

https://www.blogger.com http://www.livejournal.com http://twitter.com http://wordpress.org

Course Management Software

ANGEL Blackboard Moodle

http://www.angellearning.com http://www.blackboard.com http://moodle.org

Feed Readers

Bloglines Google Reader

http://www.bloglines.com http://www.google.com/reader

Photo or Video Sharing

Flickr Google Video Vimeo YouTube

http://www.flickr.com http://video.google.com http://vimeo.com http://www.youtube.com

Social Bookmarking

Delicious Diigo

http://delicious.com http://www.diigo.com

Social Networking

Facebook Linkedin MySpace Ning

http://www.facebook.com http://www.linkedin.com http://www.myspace.com http://www.ning.com

Virtual Worlds

Second Life

http://secondlife.com

Wikis

PBworks Wetpaint

http://pbworks.com http://www.wetpaint.com

277

278

Chapter 17

Implementing E-Learning in University 2.0:

Are Universities Ready for the Digital Age? Betül C. Özkan University of Arizona South, USA

ABSTRACT Because of the ways students learn and make sense of world change, higher education institutions try to re-conceptualize this change process and search for better approaches to respond to the demands of the information age. This chapter will address current transformation specifically occurring in e-Learning environments through emerging technologies and discuss new approaches to teaching and learning so the future of education can be better grasped. The chapter will also provide a list of suggestions so adoption of new technologies as well as e-Learning strategies will be more effective in Universities 2.0.

INTRODUCTION As the learning process changes by sharing knowledge, socially interacting with others and constructing meaning through new information networks, higher education institutions change as well to better function in the digital age. To some, this change is because of technological advancements, but Weller (2008) asserts that “it runs deeper than this. If we add to the technological experience, the user participation one they will have had through social tools such as Flickr, YouTube, blogging, wikis, etc. and compare this with the top-down, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch017

pre-filtered experience they have in courses and selected resources, it becomes obvious that this is about more than just technology, it is a social change” (para. 3). Moreover, traditional teaching and learning environments are “presentation-driven; information is delivered and tested. This approach prepares students for jobs that require simply following directions and rote skills. The new ways is collaborative, with information shared, discussed, refined with others, and understood deeply” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 21). Armentano (2007) argues that “as the world moves toward a global economy and information can be accessed from anywhere in the world, universities need to think more critically about how they want to proceed


Implementing E-Learning in University 2.0

in developing leaders of this brave new digital age” (para. 3). It is not clear, however, if today’s universities are ready for future learners who are willing to be participants of information revolution or for future faculty members who would like to prepare their students with the 21st century skills using new approaches to teaching and learning. Moreover, the biggest challenge “that we now face is figuring out how to incorporate the paradigmaltering technologies of Web 2.0 into teaching and learning” (Maloney, 2007, B26).

BACKGROUND Web 2.0 Web 2.0 technologies refer to “changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aims to enhance creativity, information sharing, and, most notably, collaboration among users” (Wikipedia, 2008, para. 1). This term was coined at O’Reilly Media’s 2004 Web 2.0 Conference and opened up development of new tools where users are connected and interactive through information networks. (The go2web20 Web site at http://www.go2web20.net provides a complete list of Web 2.0 tools). However, what made Web 2.0 different than Web 1.0 was the transformation in the Read-Write-Web concept. Tim Berners-Lee, the individual responsible for creating the Web, envisioned that the Web needed to be writeable, not just readable. This goal has been achieved only a decade later with tools such as blogs, wikis, social networking sites and media sharing tools that enabled users to participate in online communities and actively be part of information networks. According to Downes (2004) “what was happening was that the Web was shifting from being a medium, in which information was transmitted and consumed, into being a platform, in which content was created, shared, remixed, repurposed, and passed along” (para. 21).

Furthermore, the static web sites (Web 1.0) emphasized less interaction with users and difficulty with modification due to hierarchically structured pages. Conversely, blogs and wikis (Web 2.0) enabled individual posts, content chunks, chronological ordering and easy modification of content. This shift created a new concept called ‘microcontent’ that “can be saved, summarized, addressed, copied, quoted, and built into new projects. Browsers respond to the boom in microcontent with bookmarklets in toolbars, letting users fling something from one page into a Web service that yields up another page” (Alexander, 2006, para. 4). While numerous authors discuss the characteristics of Web 2.0, two individuals’ works are often referenced. O’Reilly (2005), in his seminal article called What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, discussed seven principles of Web 2.0 for businesses. Anderson (2007) adapted these principles to higher education and listed them as: individual production and user generated content; harnessing the power of the crowd; data on an epic scale; architecture of participation; and network effects and openness. Most of Web 2.0 tools are Free/Libre and Open Source (FLOSS). FLOSS refers to software programs that are open for anyone to use. Two special licenses, Creative Commons (CC) and General Public Licenses (GNU) allow content creators to grant their copyrights to the public, so their products can be used, modified, and distributed freely. CC was founded in 2001 because “copyright durations were repeatedly extended in large part due to the pressures from the media industry. They use private rights to create public goods: creative works set free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source movements, their ends are cooperative and community-minded, but the means are voluntary and libertarian” (Atkins, Brown & Hammond, 2007, p. 14). GNU license is very similar to CC, ensuring that freedoms are

279


preserved even though the original work has been changed or modified by others.

E-Learning 2.0 Another new term commonly being used in education is ‘e-Learning 2.0,’ which was first coined by Stephen Downes (2004) to refer to the changes happening in the field of distance education. Although e-Learning started more than a decade ago and course management systems are used extensively in higher education as a means of pre-packaged content delivery, e-Learning 2.0 refers to a learning process where students create the content using blogs, podcasts, social networks and open source programs. At the higher education level, the shift from 1.0 to 2.0 started in early 2000. Web 1.0 or traditional universities are built on a certain location and serve a group of students who reside in the same geographic area. Web 2.0 universities, on the other hand, offer e-Learning courses and programs for non-traditional students who are dispersed all over the world. Students in Web 2.0 universities are exposed to the whole world more engaged with their learning and have wider access to diversity and a variety of experiences. One of the major characteristics of e-Learning 2.0 in the university setting is its global approach to knowledge production and sharing. For instance, individual universities are no longer information gatekeepers; it is the disciplines across the universities that own the knowledge. Learners all over the world become knowledge creators, owners and leaders of learning communities through well designed online courses and programs. Siemens (2007) refers the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) iLabs as an example of a leading research institution sharing its knowledge base with the rest of the world, hoping that they may partner up with organizations and universities who are using their course materials. As Siemens (2007) describes it, this is definitely a mindset

280

shift in the way today’s universities function and respond to learners’ changing needs. Currently, enrollments into e-Learning courses in higher education continue to grow at extensive rates. According to the 2007 Sloan-C report on e-Learning, 3.5 million students or nearly twenty percent of all U.S. higher education students were taking one e-learning course in the fall of 2006 (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 4). The same study defines e-learning as 80% or more of instruction delivered through online medium. Although these numbers are impressive, further research is needed to understand what goes into quality e-Instruction and how e-Learning 2.0 responds to changing roles of universities in the digital age. Following are some of the characteristics of e-learning activities in University 2.0.

Online Communities University 2.0 best achieves its new roles through well designed, quality e-Learning programs. Elearning becomes a hub for online communities where students create, share and communicate their ideas through information networks. New emerging technologies or Web 2.0 enables learners to socially interact in open environments so they can develop into owners and leaders of information networks. Rhodus, van Buchem & Witney (2007) argue that new Web 2.0 tools are more than just text and photos; they facilitate a different kind of user experience. They went on to say “the cumulative experiences of all who participate result in greater assembly of resources than any one organization or individual would be ever be able to accomplish” (2007, p. 3). Shirky (2008) in his analysis of online communities versus traditional organizational communities, states that “most of the barriers to group action have collapsed (due to Web 2.0 communities), and without those barriers, we are free to explore new ways of gathering together and getting things done” (p. 22).


In terms of e-Learning 2.0, online communities of practices are the most similar to social networks. According to Wenger (2008) “communities of practice (CoP) are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (para. 4). Grounded in social learning theories, online communities of practice provide learners a strong sense of involvement in the course activities as well as interaction with peers. E-learning 2.0 goes even further from CoP and takes the ‘small pieces, loosely joined’ approach that combines the use of discrete but complementary tools and web services to support the creation of ad-hoc learning communities” (O’Hear, 2006, para. 5). In other words, course management systems that organize content around courses and deliver it to students online replace themselves with ‘personal learning environments’ where users become authors of the content.

Shift from Course Management Systems to Learning Management Systems and Personal Learning Environments Course management systems (CMS) are webbased software programs that support learning and teaching processes in online environment. CMS provides a collection of tools such as communication tools (chat, discussion forum, e-mail), content tools (text and multimedia-rich documents, file directory), and assessment tools (quizzes, surveys, polls). Some may call these programs virtual learning environments. In current years, a few authors made a distinction between course and learning management systems (LMS), emphasizing the ‘training’ function of LMS versus ‘education’ in CMS. Some went beyond and used LMS to emphasize ‘learning process’ and active learner participation rather than teaching that is arranged around ‘courses’ by the ‘teachers,’ making the difference between CMS and LMS mostly philosophical.

E-learning in Web 1.0 universities can be characterized by use of mainstream course management systems where information is organized by college professors and delivered through commercial systems such as Blackboard, WebCT, Angel, or Desire-to-Learn (D2L). Therefore, the traditional approach to e-Learning has been to “employ the use of course management software that is often cumbersome and expensive - and which tends to be structured around courses, timetables, and testing. That is an approach that is too often driven by the needs of the institution rather than the individual learner” (O’Hear, 2006, para. 3). Maloney (2007) thinks that university Information Technology departments made course management systems available to college faculty extensively in the past 15 years. However, he also argues that course management systems are not to blame for providing tools to faculty members in order to help deliver course content, use student assessment tools and foster online communication. “Rather, the problem is that most course management systems were developed at a time when the Internet was seen primarily as a mechanism for information delivery” (p. B26). As more and more universities shift from course management to learning management systems, three open source programs are distinguished: Moodle, Sakai and Joomla. Moodle: Moodle, an acronym for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment, is an open source Course Management System for delivering web-based courses under General Public License (GNU). Moodle, using the philosophy of open source software allows educators and designers to change, modify and use Moodle source code. Moodle has been designed to promote the social constructivist learning model by educator and computer scientist Martin Duogiamas. Duogiamas researched learner-centered e-learning environments as his doctoral study and Moodle was born as a result of his efforts to frame e-learning around learner participation.

281


At the heart of the Moodle courses, there are “activities” to includes assignments, chats, dialogues, forums, lessons, labels, quizzes, choices (quick surveys and polls), glossaries, journals, resources (content pages), surveys and workshops (peer assessment documents). Moodle has integrated blog and wiki features as well. Sakai: Sakai is another well-known example of open source learning management system (LMS). It was originally started by a grant from Mellon Foundation. In 2004, four American institutions, University of Michigan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University and Indiana University, together with Open Knowledge Initiative, formed Sakai and made it public. At that time, Sakai had only generic LMS tools such as file management, discussion boards, chat and e-mail features. However, in 2005, these leading institutions opened up Sakai to others by inviting them to join the Sakai community. It was then that Sakai was integrated with an electronic portfolio tool called Open Source Portfolio Initiative (OSPI) and with this addition distinguished Sakai from all other open source LMS. Sakai portfolio tools contain forms, evaluations, glossary, matrices, layouts, templates, reports and wizards. Joomla: Joomla is an open source learning management system that began in 2005 after a separation from another program, Mambo. Joomla allows the creation of robust, community-based web sites without knowledge of any programming language. Joomla package comes with plug-ins, extensions, templates and components that add different functionalities to the program. Some of these functionalities include forums, chats, blogs, RSS feeds, calendars, widgets. Although Joomla is a good choice for learning management, it is not designed with course management in mind.

Personal Learning Environments Personal learning environment (PLE) concept began to take a form in 2005 by shifting the management of learning from institutions to

282

learners (Downes, 2007). Miligan (2006) stated that “PLEs would give the learner greater control over their learning experience (managing their resources, the work they have produced, the activities they participate in) and would constitute their own personal learning environment, which they could use to interact with institutional systems to access content, assessment, libraries and the like” (para. 4). Thus, PLEs encourage learners to become producers of knowledge rather than only consumers of it. One example of a PLE is Elgg, described below: Elgg: Elgg is an open source ‘personal learning landscape’ program that combines e-portfolios, weblogs and social networking features of a Webbased e-Learning system (Tosh & Werdmuller, 2004). Tosh and Werdmuller (2004) argue that in order to best “capture learner and tutor enthusiasm” (p. 1) the system should emphasize process, community, and reflection through weblogging and social networking features. Therefore, “Elgg approaches the creation of a “learning landscape” rather than being merely an e-portfolio system, following the philosophy behind social networking services - like Orkut, Friendster, and Tribe - that facilitate connection to other learners and help create sense of community” (Özkan & Campbell, 2007, p.158).

Summary In University 2.0, open source systems such as Moodle, Sakai and Joomla, as well as personal learning environments such as Elgg, are used so that students can have increased control, tools for participation, and encouragement to participate in content creation. As a result, social networking tools, free and open source software become ubiquitous in e-Learning 2.0 because such programs rely heavily on user participation whereas old ways of delivering e-Learning through commercial course management systems emphasize instructor-created content.


Along the same lines, in the near future, we can expect to see a shift in terms of loosely coupled social software tools being mixed and matched and combined together with open source learning management systems to support e-learning communities. Thus, college professors will use various tools together to meet their learners’ changing needs. Case 1: Terry Anderson, a professor of educational technology at Athabasca University shares his experiences with teaching a masters’ level course called “Emerging Issues in Educational Technology.” Anderson focuses on learning portals constructed by small groups of learners. In this specific example, he chooses podcasts, copyright and free education, design patterns and next generation LMS. A collection of student works completed in different years can be found at http://cider. athabascau.ca/Members/terrya/mde663portals. Anderson teaches this class regularly using a different LMS but ends up using combination of four tools Elgg, Moodle, Eluminate and Furl. Eluminate is used for weekly audio conferences with the students in real time and the small group students also use it to discuss their group projects. Elgg allows students to have individual profiles, blogs and networks of friends and groups. Moodle serves as the LMS display calendar, syllabus, assessment and asynchronous communication tool. Furl, a social bookmarking tool, is used by Anderson to create a list of resources for his students on the four portals they are studying. At the end of the semester, he finds it very valuable to use these tools in an educational technology program so his students will have first-hand experience with the social software. On the other hand, he acknowledges some redundancy among the similar features of the software such as multiple blogging tools and Furl versus wiki in Moodle. He decided to have clearer expectations from his students about which component of these tools to use and for what task. More details and information about Anderson’s course can be

found at http://terrya.edublogs.org/2006/01/02/ teaching-a-distance-education-course-usingeducational-social-software/.

Mobile Technologies Mobile technologies such cell phones, personal data assistants (PDAs) and most recently smart phones, the combination of cell phones and PDAs, are the most commonly used technologies by today’s university students. Some universities are giving away iPhones or iPods in hopes to attract new students to their campuses. Today, most universities use student cell phones to distribute campus-wide emergency messages. However, it is also true that mobile technologies are the least commonly used instructional tools by the university professors. In a recent research study, Attewell (2005) found that mobile technologies could contribute to teaching and learning processes by improving students’ literacy and numeracy skills, by encouraging independent and collaborative learning experiences and by identifying areas where students need assistance and help. Regardless, mobile technologies are still not a standard for all college students. For instance, students might have cell phones without Internet access or the capability to upload learning materials. One of the recent developments in the mobile learning area is the increased use of podcasts on college campuses. A Podcast “refers to any software and hardware combination that permits automatic downloading of audio files (most commonly in mp3 format) for listening at the user’s convenience” (Educause Learning Initiative, 2005, para. 4). Originally, podcasts were only audio files, but today they also contain images and videos. Podcasts can be listened to or viewed on computers, mp3 players, or PDAs. In the traditional sense, podcasts can be used as learning modules, practice exams, or tutorials for e-Learning. In e-Learning 2.0, students can create

283


their own podcasts to showcase their achievements and projects, give feedback to their peers, publish their research findings, record interviews, images, or stories and reflect on learning experiences. Today, universities provide their students with tools for podcasting (software, server, hardware) and professors use sources like Apple’s iTunes University, a free, cross-platform service to host teaching and learning content as podcasts.

Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) Open source “describes practices in production and development that promote access to the end product’s sources” (Wikipedia, 2008, para. 1). Free/libre software is a similar term and it refers to the philosophy of freedoms users have concerning the software. Nowadays, many combine both terms and use them as free/libre and open source, or FLOSS. Open source software is developed by a community of individuals or companies. Because of the importance of user participation and contribution to the development of the software, no discrimination against individuals or groups is allowed. Freeware software refers to programs that are free to use by others but without open source code, making it impossible to modify the original version. Open source or Free/libre software is not freeware, but usually it is confused as such. In education, most freeware programs are games. Most open source software run under GNU. Richard Stallman, the creator of GNU, states in the GNU manifesto that “free” in free software means freedom: freedom to run, modify and distribute software. The term ‘open source’ first used in the late 90s when Netscape released its code for Navigator under a new name, Mozilla. Some of the examples of open source software that are commonly used in University 2.0 are Linux (operating system); Apache, MySQL (databases), PHP, AJAX, PERL (scripting languages); Moodle,

284

Sakai, Firefox, OpenOffice, Audacity, Thunderbird (desktop applications). In the content of e-Learning, open source software and e-Learning have some common features. “Just as e-learning assumes no boundaries or limits upon knowledge and learning, open source assumes no boundaries or limits as regards ownership and application of code. How knowledge and learning are created, obtained, and applied is essentially a heuristic endeavor, i.e., an endeavor involving active learning” (Koohang & Harman, 2005, p. 82). From a higher education point of view, the biggest open source community, Open Courseware Consortium, was built in 2001 by more than one hundred higher education institutions and organizations around the world. Licensed under Creative Commons’ non-commercial license, this consortium is a collaboration of open, digital and quality educational materials and courses developed by participating universities. The consortium states their goals as follows: •

• •

Extend the reach and impact of open courseware by encouraging the adoption and adaptation of open educational materials around the world. Foster the development of additional open courseware projects. Ensure the long-term sustainability of open courseware projects by identifying ways to improve effectiveness and reduce costs. (Open Courseware Consortium Web site, 2007)

This consortium was led by MIT with the goal to present quality online content for use by the global higher education community. In University 2.0, open source movement is widely accepted, making the monopoly of commercial software avoidable. Some argue that this monopoly may eventually result in universities’ marginalization. Open access provides more social equality, collaboration with larger learning and


research communities and reduced costs. Some of the other benefits of open source are listed in Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI, 2007) as follows: Free sharing means broader and faster dissemination, with the result that more people are involved in problem solving, which in turn means rapid quality improvement and faster technical and scientific development; decentralized development increases quality, stability and security; and free sharing of software, scientific results and educational resources reinforces societal development and diminishes social inequality. From a more individual standpoint, open sharing is claimed to increase publicity, reputation and the pleasure of sharing with peers (p. 58).

Open Educational Resources (OER) In 2002, a forum held by UNESCO on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries generated a new term, ‘Open Educational Resources (OER),’ which quickly became a staple term for e-Learning 2.0. OER, funded by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, refers to the web-based learning, teaching and research resources and materials that are offered free to public. These resources include e-books, course materials, streaming videos, digital media, and software. As in FLOSS, OER uses GNU and Creative Commons licenses for using, modifying, re-mixing and distributing these resources. The OER Web site at http://www.oercommons.org offers a searchable database for K-16 educators and learners. The projects on this site include educational games as well as research and learning environments that allow open participation. In their report to Hewlett Foundation, Atkins, Brown and Hammond (2007) describe the OER model characteristics: “high-quality open content, ability to remove barriers such as the barriers of intellectual property, interoperability,

multilingualism, culture, technology infrastructure, accessibility, and ability to understand and stimulate uses” (p. 8). While intellectual property is considered institutional in University 1.0, University 2.0 creates high quality information and shares it with the rest of the higher education community. Such a drastic change “raises basic philosophical issues to do with the nature of ownership, with the validation of knowledge and with concepts such as altruism and collective goods” (CERI, 2007, p. 9). A good example of OER that is widely used in e-learning is MERLOT.

MERLOT MERLOT is the Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching, a searchable database of peer-reviewed quality content for higher education faculty and students. The California State University-Center for Distributed Learning started MERLOT in 1997, but today it has a worldwide audience and a community of participants. MERLOT is also known for its sophisticated peer-review process, where online content is evaluated based on its quality, potential as a teaching tool and ease of use. An annual conference, peer-reviewed online journal and faculty development initiatives are also part of MERLOT.

Collaborative Research Tools While teaching is the main purpose of a university, research is also essential within a university setting. In University 1.0, research often refers to a solitary endeavor in which individual researchers or groups of researchers from the same institution engage. In University 2.0, research becomes a collaborative effort among the individuals who share similar interests, expertise and scholarship. The new tools available to share research findings in a community of users are numerous, as shown in Table 1.

285


Table 1. Social Software for Collaborative Research Functions

Tools

URL

Social Presentation Sharing

Slide Share Zoho Show

http://www.slideshare.net http://www.zohoshow.com

Social Bookmarking

Bookmarksync Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Furl Google Notebook Spurl Stumbleupon Simpy

http://bookmarksync.com http://www.connotea.org http://del.icio.us http://digg.com http://www.furl.net http://www.google.com/notebook http://www.spurl.net http://www.stumbleupon.com http://www.simpy.com

Social cataloging/ Reference Management

LibraryThing Goodreads Shelfari

http://www.librarything.com http://www.goodreads.com http://www.shelfari.com

Social Citations/Publication Sharing

BibSonomy CiteULike Refrase

http://www.bibsonomy.org http://www.citeulike.org http://refbase.sourceforge.net

Social Note Taking

Stu.dicio.us

http://stu.dicio.us

Social Concept Mapping

IHMC CMap Tools

http://cmap.ihmc.us

Social File Sharing

Box.net Cabos Scribd

http://box.net http://cabos.sourceforge.jp http://www.scribd.com

Social Diagramming

Gliffy

http://www.gliffy.com

Collaboration on Web-based projects

Vyew 37 Signals

http://vyew.com/always-on/collaboration http://www.37signals.com

Collaborative tools are rapidly emerging and are particularly helpful to researchers in the following areas: •

• •

• •

286

Organization of digital information in a coherent way through tags, tag clouds, bookmarks and bibliographies, Support for browsing, searching and ranking, Support for community building and discovery of communities on one’s research area. Specific skill sets are not required as the tools are easy to use, Conceptual framework such as folksonomies are provided so researchers can work on theory building.

Mashups Mashups are combined data sources integrated in one web application. An example of this is Google Maps where geographic information is combined with real estate data. Commercial companies such as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Intel, YouTube, and Amazon are the biggest supporters of mashups by allowing their applications to be mixed with the other ones so users can get a better experience not originally provided by a single application. “The current state of the art is represented by Yahoo Pipes31, a web-based facility that allows users to mix and process web-based data without needing to know a programming language” (Franklin & van Harmelen, 2007, p. 8).


Mashups should not be confused with the use of multiple programs on a single web application. For instance, a student who uploads a Scribd document or a podcast on her blog is not considered to be creating a mashup. Every mashup should have the following three components: (1) an original data source or content (2) a new web site (mashup site) that offers a new service using outside data sources (3) a client who uses an interface (web browser) to view mashup site. “What makes mashups interesting from a teaching and learning perspective is that they permit people with very little technical know-how to manage knowledge online, modeling solutions for others to see, collaborate on, and use in new ways” (Maloney, 2007, B26). Batson (2008) states that “a basic thinking skill developed during college is synthesis, finding similarities in diverse ideas and describing the over-arching concept linking those ideas (an “idea-mashup”?)” (para. 13). Therefore, assigning a mashup exercise for students may be more engaging than assigning readings in a textbook. Moreover, college professors who do not have the time or the technical skills to create an application can use mashups to create instructional materials. “There are a lot of possibilities for student creativity with these applications. Lists of popular mashups are available on Programmable Web (http://www. programmableweb.com/popular)” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 68).

Individualization through Customization Although e-Learning 2.0 emphasizes communities where students share their findings with others, the need for individual expression is also a major aspect of these tools. For instance, learning management systems such as Moodle and Sakai provide sophisticated tools for users to present themselves to other users (text, video, image, personal links, blogs, etc.).

Another aspect of individualization is interface customization. Roberts (2005, para. 16) argues that “a key component of the Net Generation’s definition of technology is customization, or the ability to adapt technology to meet individual needs, rather than vice versa.” Today, new Web 2.0 tools come with features where users can customize interface using preloaded templates. Applications such as MySpace, Facebook, Ellg, and most blogging and wiki sites come with templates where users can choose the way their site looks. We can expect that University 2.0 will focus more on users’ customization of the e-learning interface in the future so no student created learning site looks alike. Case 2: David Wiley, a professor of educational technology at Utah State University, opened his online classroom to everybody, allowing them to participate in his course with 15 of regular students who were officially enrolled in the course. At the end, he provided homemade certificates for those who didn’t pay any tuition or obtain credit for the course but stayed unofficial during the semester. Dr. Wiley, following the idea of ‘open education’ philosophy calls this experience ‘open teaching’ and his extra work a public service. His experimentation suggests that “the web could soon force colleges to re-examine their offerings in the age of digital delivery” (Young, 2008, para. 5). He also has a wiki site for all the courses he teaches (http://opencontent.org/wiki/ index.php?title=David_Wiley), and the content is available to everybody to view.

Suggestions for e-Learning in University 2.0 When most of American higher education institutions adopted costly course management systems in the 90s, they thought they did their part for instructional technology. In 2008, new waves of Web 2.0 technologies were introduced to col-

287


lege campuses and are now used extensively by students. Today the problem is what to do with all these tools and how to incorporate them into learning and teaching. A few suggestions for successful uses of Web 2.0 tools in higher education as a means of e-learning are listed:

•

Teaching and Learning •

•

288

The learning networks made possible by emerging technologies create new opportunities for e-learning. However, there is little research and understanding about learning and teaching approaches for e-learning 2.0. A response to current changes generated by George Siemens is a new pedagogical approach called connectivism. According to Siemens (2008), connectivism “is essentially the assertion that knowledge is networked and distributed, and the act of learning is the creation and navigation of networks” (para. 32). He also suggests that in these networked environments, universities should take notice of the role of the educators, learners, and researchers while evaluating future impact of trends. Although Siemens’ ideas of learning are thought provoking, more attention should be devoted to the pedagogy of e-learning 2.0. More discussion and research is needed on the changing roles of instructors and learners in online learning environment, structural changes awaiting universities in this regard and effects of networked learning communities. Colleges and departments should review curricula from an instructional technology point of view. It may be surprising to see how many online courses include only electronic course materials and a grade book. It is necessary to go beyond course management systems and resist the urge to put print materials online as a means of

•

e-Learning and to expect students to read, review and learn. In e-Learning 2.0, learning spaces become more important than actual classrooms and labs. “Higher education for centuries has worked within a closed world where educators could design physical spaces and learning sequences (the curriculum) based on predictable circumstances. An educational designer could work within a much more restricted set of variables than what we see now”(Batson, 2008, para. 3). For this reason, universities need to be a hub for personal learning environments so students join and learn in variety of online communities. University 2.0 is more of a connection-creation place than a physical space. The resistance to change doesn’t only come from the instructors who are used to teaching using traditional methods, but also from the students who feel more comfortable with the teacher-directed and moderated online learning environments. Tabron (2008) makes a very interesting point about student reactions concerning the use of web 2.0 tools in the university setting: “student-evaluation forms ought to be flexible, and administrators ought to take into account students’ resistance to learning in ways different from the ones they used so successfully in high school” (p. A1).

Digital Content •

Currently, content in higher education institutions is hierarchically organized. This structure is “achieved through a largely top-down process of review and formal assessment which effectively act as filters to participation in the process” (Weller & Dalziel, 2007, para. 3). Weller (2007) suggests that allowing learners to create e-learning content will require ‘filtering


•

on the way out’ rather than ‘filtering on the way in.’ Therefore, popularity, user tagging, numbers of links and quotes to a source or article will define quality of the digital content. The mix-and-match method of using Web 2.0 tools, as well as the information available online, might be frustrating to many people. Anderson (2007) points out that “information overload may start to have a noticeable effect on many people. With so many different ways of accessing information (blogs, wikis, RSS feeds etc.) there may also be a sense in which people worry that they do not understand or use all of these forms and a sense of anxiety may even develop as to whether they are as fully connected as they should be” (p. 46). He recommends ‘personal catalogs’ where individuals collect data (text, media, music, etc.) online or PLEs. Nowadays, many universities have started using online portals where communities of users access different tools from one channel. Along the same line, the concept of ‘open ID’ became popular. Open ID allows online users to log onto multiple accounts through centralized protocols. However, debates over who owns information will continue in university 2.0.

•

University Faculty •

Institutions should devote resources to adopt new technologies. Such resources include the IT staff who understands the importance of emerging technologies and their potential for teaching and learning. “They (IT staff) need both space and time to help professors develop new types of lessons, assignments, and grading methods that can fundamentally change how teaching and learning happen” (Tabron, 2008, p. A1).

Universities should encourage faculty members who are early adopters. Faculty members who wish to experiment with these new tools often do not receive incentives or rewards, but they at least deserve an understanding and appreciation of their efforts. Along the way, they will have both hits and misses. Therefore, most Web 2.0 tools will require use of less comfortable and risky teaching methods. College administrators and departments should take a hard look at the criteria for tenure and promotion, and encourage faculty members who are trying less established methods.

Assessment •

Technology •

Universities should consider benefits and risks associated with the university-hosted Web 2.0 services. More funding and research should be devoted to universities who are willing to design their information networks to meet needs of specific learner groups.

•

In the area of assessment and evaluation, universities should fund research on the assessment of collective work produced using Web 2.0 tools. Faculty should be encouraged to practice pedagogical experimentation in this area. Online teaching evaluations and formative and summative evaluations of student work should use multiple data sources and performance indicators; online program evaluations should include recommendations for best practices.

Copyright, Plagiarism and Preservation •

Openness of digital content brings issues of intellectual property as well as plagiarism

289


•

•

to the forefront. Universities should initiate discussions to consider legal aspects of ownership issues, while being proactive by monitoring, controlling current practices and producing best practices guidelines. “Much Web 2.0 based student work is about content sharing and repurposing. This can easily be seen by students as part of a new teenage copy-and-paste culture that runs counter to traditional notions of plagiarism, and adjustments may need to be made, either to redefine plagiarism (unlikely to occur), or to help students transcend this culture in higher education environments (more likely to occur)” (Franklin & van Harmelen, 2007, p. 23). Universities should have guidelines and rules in place for the preservation of content. What will happen once students graduate? Who will archive digital content? Who is the owner of content: students, faculty, university, or global community?

Scholarship •

290

In the area of scholarship, major changes are already in place. For departments, “the challenge will be ensuring that scholars who are making more and more of their material available online will be fairly judged in hiring and promotion decisions” (Jensen, 2007, p. B6). According to Jensen (2007), scholarship and importance of scholarly work will no longer be established by academic publishers but rather by a community of faculty members who are publishing their work online. Therefore, they will need to spend more time to learn new authority metrics and define theirs with their own terms.

Access •

The digital divide in University 2.0 continues to be an issue. “Not all students may be digitally connected with a computer and Internet connection at home or in their digs, (or even in broadband connected university residences, if they are not a computer owner). These students would be at a profound disadvantage in a new world of Web 2.0 enabled learning without specific care being taken to address their computational and connectivity needs” (Franklin & van Harmelen, 2007, p. 23).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS What would happen if the universities operate as social networking sites like Wikipedia or immersive virtual worlds like Second Life? What would happen if boundaries between courses, departments, or semesters became blurred? If a student in the United States collaborates on a project with a student from Japan, how do we assess their learning and give grades? What would happen if all faculty members published their research on online research databases rather than in printed journals? How do we ease tensions over online identity and privacy? How do we define learning and teaching in University 2.0? Mayer (as cited in Neal, 2008) makes following predictions for the future of e-learning: When considering innovations in e-learning for 2008, it is tempting to focus on advances in technology—such as the use of games, virtual reality, and pedagogical agents. However, the most important innovations in e-learning will involve advances in our understanding of how to design e-learning environments that help people learn— such as how to design serious games, VR environments, and online agents that promote appropriate cognitive processing during learning. Basic


research on learning and instruction will provide new guidance for instructional design, including which instructional features promote which kinds of learning for which learners (para. 4) Although Mayer is right in that our focus should be on developing new pedagogies for emerging technologies, we should also consider what is coming next. For instance, when will Web 3.0 emerge, and how? Jensen (2007) thinks that “we will soon be awash in hundreds of billions of pages of content” (p. B6). In order to make sense of extreme abundance of this information, he argues that “Web 3.0 will be driven by artificial intelligences -automated computer-assisted systems that can make reasonable decisions on their own, to preselect, precluster, and prepare material based on established metrics, while also attending very closely to the user’s individual actions, desires, and historic interests, and adapting to them” (p. B6). Although semantic, graphic and 3-D features of Web 3.0 are expected, the implications for higher education are mostly unresolved. University 2.0 is in its infancy, and the future holds many drastic changes in higher education due to emergence of formal, informal and social networks for e-learning. It is clear that in the future, greater student participation, collaboration and control over learning will become staples of universities, while university becomes a “connection forming organization” (Siemens, 2008, para. 48).

REFERENCES Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2, March/April), 32-44. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://connect.educause.edu/ Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/Web20ANewWaveofInnovation/40615

Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Retrieved August 24, 2008 from http://www.sloan-c.org/ publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies, and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Retrieved September 1, 2008 from http://www.jisc.org.uk/ media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf Armentano, T. (2007, March 28). Universities 2.0: Online courses enhance universities. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://terenceonline. blogspot.com/2007/03/online-courses-enhanceuniversities.html Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges and new opportunities. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from http://learn.creativecommons.org/ wp-content/uploads/2008/03/areviewoftheopeneducationalresourcesoermovement_bloglink. pdf Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from http:// www.m-learning.org/archive/docs/The%20mlearning%20project%20-%20technology%20 update%20and%20project%20summary.pdf Batson, T. (2008). Is Web 2.0 ‘designed for education’? Campus Technology. Retrieved September 4, 2008 http://campustechnology.com/ articles/59341_2 Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. Paris: OECD Publications. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/ browseit/9607041E.PDF Downes, S. (2004). E-learning 2.0. Retrieved August 24, 2008 from http://elearnmag.org/subpage. cfm?section=articles&article=29-1

291


Downes, S. (2007). Learning networks in practice. Retrieved August 30, 2008 from http://www.twine. com/item/11wkm1713-tt/learning-networks-inpractice-stephen-downes Educause Learning Initiative. (2005). 7 things you should know about podcasting. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/ pdf/ELI7003.pdf Franklin, T., & van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education. Retrieved September 1, 2008 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/ programmes/digitalrepositories/web2-contentlearning-and-teaching.pdf Jensen, M. (2007, June 15). The new metrics of scholarly authority. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(41), B6. Koohang, A., & Harman, K. (2005). Open source: A metaphor for e-learning. Informing Science Journal, 5. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol8/v8p075-086Kooh. pdf Maloney, E. (2007, January 5). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), B26. Milligan, C. (2006). What is a PLE? The future or just another buzz word? Retrieved August 30, 2008 from http://www.elearning.ac.uk/news_folder/ ple%20event Neal, L. (2008). Predictions for 2008. Retrieved from Internet September 1, 2008 http://www. elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&a rticle=58-1 O’Hear, S. (2006, August 8). E-learning 2.0: How web technologies are shaping education. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/e-learning_20.php

292

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from Internet September 1, 2008 http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/ tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Open Courseware Consortium. (2007). Homepage. Retrieved from Internet August 30, 2008 http://www.ocwconsortium.org Özkan, B. C., & Campbell, A. (2007). Adopting Elgg for electronic learning portfolios. In [Chesapeake, VA: AACE.]. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2007, 158–163. Rhodus, T., van Buchem, V., & Witney, B. (2007). Web 2.0: Building online communities using social networking technologies. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://webgarden.osu.edu/ buckeye2007.pdf Roberts, G. R. (2005). Technology and learning expectations of the Net Generation. In D.G. Oblinger & Oblinger, J.L. (Eds.) Educating the new generation: EduCause eBook. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://www.educause.edu/content. asp?page_id=6056&bhcp=1 Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: The Penguin Press. Siemens, G. (2007, March 29). University 2.0. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/archives/002858.html Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Retrieved September 1, 2008 from http:// elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: ISTE Publications.


Tabron, J. (2008, March 28). How to find what clicks in the classroom. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(29), A1. Tosh, D., & Werdmuller, B. (2004). Creation of a learning landscape: Weblogging and social networking in the context of e-portfolios. Retrieved September 21, 2006 from http://www.eradc.org/ papers/Learning_landscape.pdf Weller, B. (2008, June 16). SocialLearn: Bridging the gap between Web 2.0 and university. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://mfeldstein.com/ sociallearn-bridging-the-gap-between-web-20and-higher-education Weller, B. & Dalziel, (2007). Bridging the gap between Web 2.0 and higher education. Retrieved August 30, 2008 from http://lams2007sydney. lamsfoundation.org/pdfs/04g.pdf Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved August 30, 2008 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory Wikipedia (2008). Open source software. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Open-source_software

Young, J. F. (2008, September 25). When professors print their own diplomas, who needs universities? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://chronicle. com/free/2008/09/4744n.htm

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS University 2.0: Open University where communication, interaction and participation between learners and university is allowed E-Learning 2.0: Using Web 2.0 tools and social software in e-Learning. Digital Age: The widespread use of digital technologies by masses such as computers, email, Internet, electronic games, videos, so forth Web 2.0: New generation of web design and development. Online Communities: A group of people interacts with each other through digital platforms. Personal Learning Environments: Digital systems that help people manage their own learning. Open Source: An approach to freely distribute, modify or change a product’s source

293

294

Chapter 18

New Literacies in New Times: A Multimodal Approach to Literacy Learning

Hsiu-Ting Hung National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C.

ABSTRACT The focus of the chapter is two-fold: on one hand, it seeks theoretical understanding of literacy as social practice; on the other hand, it explores how emerging technologies afford and transcend the practice of literacy in social interaction. The chapter begins with a re-conceptualization of literacy from the perspective of New Literacies Studies and outlines key principles pertaining to the plural notion of literacy to provide a theoretical context for the discussion of a multimodal approach to literacy learning. The chapter then links the development of the emerging literacy approach with the advent of technology to explore new possibilities in language and literacy classrooms. Vignettes of emerging technologies, more specifically, social networking services are also presented to demonstrate possible pedagogic uses of multimodal resources in education. The chapter concludes with directions for future literacy research, promoting a multimodal approach to learning that attends to teaching and learning with emerging technologies.

INTRODUCTION Literacy has historically been an important instrument of knowledge transmission and transformation in human society. While means of knowledge evolves, conceptualizations of literacy and literacy practice evolve as well. Just as the advent of information technology lead us to reconsider how literacy

is traditionally conceptualized, they also direct us to reshape the ways in which literacy learning and teaching are practiced in educational contexts. In response to the changing nature of literacy in the digital age, this chapter has a dual focus: on one hand, it seeks theoretical understanding of literacy as social practice; on the other hand, it explores how emerging technologies afford and transcend the practice of literacy in social interaction.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch018


New Literacies in New Times

Drawing from the work of contemporary New Literacies Studies (e.g., New London Group, 1996; Street 1998; Gee, 2000) this chapter explores a multimodal approach to literacy learning (e.g., Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress & Jewitt, 2003; Jewitt, 2004; Jewitt, 2008) that extends conventional notions of literacy beyond print. A multimodal approach to literacy learning is concerned about multimodal affordances of technology for learning and is often associated with the integration of technology in education. Increasingly, technologies are ubiquitous in all aspects of our lives and have become revolutionary mediums that significantly affect how people learn and interact. A recognized New Literacies Research Team at the University of Connecticut pointed out that technology possesses within itself the potential for the continuous redefinition of literacy (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008). As a result of decades of studies on print literacy, numerous pedagogic practices have been developed in traditional schooling; however, much less is known about the literacy development and pedagogic potential affiliated with technologies in and beyond the classroom. This chapter, therefore, attempts to broaden our understanding of literacy and explore what a multimodal approach has to offer in the learning and teaching of literacy practices in the digital age. The chapter will provide introductory background information on a paradigm shift from “old literacy” to “new literacies”, with emphasis on New Literacies Studies. Next, a pedagogic approach to literacy learning derived from the conceptual framework of New Literacies Studies is discussed to highlight the importance of multimodal literacy and explore possible pedagogic uses of multimodal resources in learning, particularly social networking technology. Directions for future research based on a multimodal approach to literacy learning are then suggested to advance studies and practices of technology in education.

BACKGROUND: “OLD LITERACY” TO “NEW LITERACIES” A commonly held dictionary definition of literacy is the ability to read and write. This traditional view of literacy is usually referred to as functional literacy that involves these two basic skill requirements. Literacy researchers generally adopt this view in assessing and reporting literacy statistics on a national scale. It is probably for this reason that for decades literacy practitioners in school settings have predominantly emphasized understanding and producing print-based texts. In recent years, New Literacies Studies (hereafter, NLS) emerged as a developing framework with the social turn movement in education (Gee, 2000). It builds upon a wide range of perspectives from sociology, educational psychology, applied linguistics, and cultural anthropology to illustrate the social nature of literacy and its interplay with social contexts. The use of the adjective “new” is purposeful with NLS researchers’ intention to emphasize its differences from early literacy studies. At the risk of oversimplification, “old” literacy is used in this chapter to generally refer to the conventional view centering on reading and writing as fundamental skills necessary to function in society – the dominant view in the field of literacy research prior to the rise of NLS. According to the NLS framework, literacy is conceptualized as social practice (e.g., New London Group, 1996; Street 1998, 2003; Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Gee, 2000). The term practice in previous literacy studies, such as international surveys of literacy, is usually associated with drill and practice that entails the notion of learning to do something by repetition. Within the NLS framework, however, practices are understood as “general cultural ways of utilizing literacy” that usually exist “in the relations between people, within groups, and communities, rather than as a set of properties residing in individuals (Barton & Hamilton, 2000, p.8). Clearly, NLS researchers

295


use the term practice in a way that transcends the notion of behavioral repetition. Rather than focusing on the cognitive processes that reside in the heads of individuals out of social context, NLS argues for the importance of social factors to introduce a broader definition of literacy for society and schooling. In the following discussion, I identify a number of contrasting characteristics between old literacy and NLS to paint an overall portrait of the NLS framework that differs from the previous conception of literacy. Note that the contrasting characteristics discussed here are better conceived in terms of a continuum rather than a dichotomy.

Literacy – Literacies Traditional notions of literacy hold that there is absolute literacy. Even the dictionary defines literacy as an uncountable noun that has no plural forms. The NLS perspective, however, contests this view of literacy as over-simplistic, stressing the importance of recognizing a multiplicity of literacy practices. A group of NLS researchers (among those are several leading social theorists and literacy researchers, such as Courteny Cazden, Norman Fairclough, James Paul Gee, Gunther Kress, Allan Luke, etc.) who identified themselves as the New London Group coined the term “multiliteracies” to theorize a pedagogic approach to multiple literacies. According to the New London Group (1996), multiliteracies entail the increasing integration of multiple semiotic sources in literacy learning (for example, visiting a website often requires the user/reader to interpret meanings from multiple sources like text, graphic, and audio) and the growing linguistic and cultural diversity of interlocutors involved in literacy practices (for example, participating in an online chatroom usually involves cross-cultural communication). That is to say, a pedagogy of multiliteracies is responsive to culturally-specific forms of literacy associated in diverse social and cultural contexts. Barton and Hamilton (2000)

296

further stated that “there are different literacies associated with different domains of life,” such as, computer literacy, visual literacy, and music literacy (p.11). Seen from this point of view, a western concept of computer literacy might not make sense to other cultures or village people who do not use or even do not know what a computer is. To take another example, the literacy required in an academic conference might differ from the necessary literacy for a job market. Simply put, literacies are multiple, domain specific, and situated in contexts. The notion of multiliteracies extends conventional understanding of literacy in the ways indicated by its plural form. The multiplicity or multiple forms of literacy are interrelated and constitute a hybrid nature of new literacies from the NLS perspective.

In School – Out of School Previous literacy studies focused exclusively on literacy learning in school-based settings. To account for school failure and out-of-school success, NLS is concerned with what forms of literacy practices are required in different contexts, what resources in social contexts can support learning, and how “unsuccessful” learners can benefit from such additional support. It should be noted that NLS is not to be seen as “anti-school” but better viewed as a supplement to schooling. Indeed, NLS offers some variations of the limited, school-based notion of literacy through an expanded definition of literacy as social practice and aims to find a way to connect these two polarized domains to improve literacy learning in school-based settings. In Gee’s (2003) book What Video Games Have to Teach us about Learning and Literacy, he observed 36 learning principles built into welldesigned video games and called for a reform of literacy pedagogy according to his observation of children’s game-playing in out-of-school settings. While video games are often seen as “harmful” or at least “non-educative” to children, Gee (2003) sees a connection between “good” video games


(we have to admit that not all video games educate) and literacy learning. Gee’s (2003) work is just one of many examples of literacy as social practice that directs our attention to learners’ informal learning in everyday life and recognizes the need for educators to link learners’ out-of-school literacy practices to in-school learning.

Decontextualized – Contextualized The old literacy perspective defines literacy, or more specifically reading and writing, as psychological skills and assumes that literacy can be detached from its social origins and acquired in decontextualized fashion. By contrast, the NLS perspective recognizes the inherently social nature of literacy and strives to situate literacy practices in contextualized learning environments. It highlights an immersion aspect of human learning similar to one’s native language acquisition (New London Group, 1996). Learners’ processes of literacy learning can be fostered when they are immersed in a contextualized learning environment rich in authentic and meaningful resources. Such environments allow the learners to put what they are learning into practice in meaningful ways and function with their literacy practices in the society. Even though the situatedness of learning in school immersion may not be as available as in social immersion when we acquire our first language, the NLS perspective points to a need to move toward contextualized literacy instruction and culturally responsive curriculum. To empower linguistically and culturally diverse children, teachers should take students’ social and cultural contexts outside the classroom into consideration and design classroom activities relevant to the students’ background accordingly. With such contextualized literacy conditions, the students can then make better sense of the literacy practices within a relevant context and see meaningful connections between classroom learning and out-of-classroom practices.

Neutral – Ideological It is traditionally conceptualized that literacy is a set of neutral, psychological skills. To take an example of writing, the skill of writing is neutral; what is not neutral, is the content, the motivation, the purpose, and the like of such act. On the contrary, the NLS perspective holds that while social practices are embedded in social contexts and are inextricably connected to ideologies, literacy is thus an ideological practice that is never neutral (Street, 1998, 2003). As NLS researchers Barton, Hamilton, and Ivaniéc (2000) pointed out, “literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relations, and some literacies are more dominant, visible and influential than others (p.12). For instance, the discourse of American English is more dominant than African American English in academic settings in the United States. The conception of literacy as an ideological practice reveals the coupling of literacy and power and draws attention to inequity in society. That the poor have limited social resources (such as attending a college and access to computers) is an instance of how literacy is tied to power and access. Since access to literacy is a social act that will affect the nature of the literacy being learned, “it is not valid to suggest that literacy can be ‘given’ neutrally and then its ‘social’ effects only experienced afterwards” (Street, 2003, p.2). Following this thinking, most researchers and practitioners would agree that literacies are value-laden.

Etic – Emic Previous literacy studies generally adopt an etic approach to understanding the phenomenon under investigation, but an emic approach to research is more favorable in NLS. The etic approach allows literacy researchers to take on the authoritarian role and impose their own cultural standards on other cultural groups in their investigation of literacy learning. In other words, literacy researchers taking an etic approach often interpret the culture

297


being observed according to their own culturally acquired ways of knowing and knowledge base. Thus, too often literacy researchers impose a western, middle-class conception of literacy on children from different cultural groups and social classes, which frequently leads to a deficit perspective regarding academic performance of other people’s children. Heath (2004), a well-known linguistic anthropologist, disputed such a deficit view prevalent in early literacy studies. In her longitudinal ethnographic research on early literacy development of culturally diverse children, she concluded that how well children do in school is directly tied to how well they are prepared for school. She contended that mismatches and dichotomies between children’s culturally-specific literacy practices at home and school practices often result in their school failure. She therefore argued for a need for educators and researchers to be sensitive to culturally different ways of learning when assessing and interpreting children’s school performance. By the same token, NLS favors more culturally sensitive investigations from an emic research perspective. Researchers taking an emic approach need to abdicate their authoritarian role in literacy investigations in order to interpret the studied culture according to the learners’ culturally based assumptions, expectations, and experiences. An emic approach allows literacy researchers to recognize and appreciate cultural variation and thus, offers a more culturally sensitive understanding of literacy learning of diverse cultural groups. It is perhaps for this reason that much research in NLS is ethnographic in style, featuring an emic approach to research. To sum up, I have briefly sketched five major contrasting characteristics of the NLS framework, existing along a continuum: (1) literacy, as opposed to literacies; (2) in-school, as opposed to out-of-school; (3) decontextualized, as opposed to contextualized; (4) neutral, as opposed to ideological; (5) etic, as opposed to emic. In the discussion that follows, I use the NLS framework developed in the above discussion as a general frame to situate

298

a multimodal approach to literacy learning. I shall present possible ways that literacy educators may work toward heuristic literacy pedagogies based on the promising perspective of NLS.

A MULTIMODAL APPROACH TO LITERACY LEARNING NLS significantly draws our attention to literacy learning beyond print. With increasing recognition that linguistic language is merely one mode of semiotic resources among many, it seems appropriate to seek fuller understanding of multiple modes and resources involve in practices of literacy learning. An emerging approach that flows from the NLS framework is discussed in this section.

Learning as a Multimodal Meaning-Making Process A multimodal approach to learning explores the potential of various resources through which students make their meanings in the learning process (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress & Jewitt, 2003; Jewitt, 2004; Jewitt, 2008). Such resources are termed modes that refer to “any organized, regular means of representation and communication, such as, still image, gesture, posture, speech, music, writing, or new configurations of the elements of these” (Jewitt, 2004, p.184). A multimodal approach to learning regards all modes as equally significant for meaning-making (despite different modes may be fore-grounded for certain tasks than others). This pedagogic approach bears an underlying assumption that “each mode is partial in relation to the whole of the meaning” (Kress & Jewitt, 2003, p. 3). While much literacy research, or research on learning in general, focuses predominantly on the monomodal concept of linguistic language as a complete means of representation and meaning, a multimodal approach to learning provides a challenge to this narrowing view and pays great attention to various modal resources


made available by a culture that are brought into learners’ meaning-making process. Accordingly, learning is broadly conceptualized as a multimodal meaning-making process. With a new conceptualization of learning, it is necessary to reconsider the roles of learners, teachers, and any sociocultural artifacts or resources involved in the learning process. Making meanings with socially and culturally available resources is never a simple process. It is because meaning does not simply reside in modes but results from learners’ engagement with the resources they use in constructing and interpreting meaning. Rather than viewing learners as passive recipients of prescribed meanings or knowledge, a multimodal perspective highlights the central role of learners in the complex learning process in which learners actively interact with modes of semiotic resources for meaning construction and interpretation. In learners’ multimodal meaning-making process, teachers take a relatively subsidiary role in equipping learners with the necessary skills and resources for the process. Modes through which learners make their meanings play a mediational role that not only constitutes the learning but also has a restructuring effect on the learning process (cf. Vygotskian studies on the mediational role of artifacts in mental activity). As it will be shown later on in this section, the role of mode in a multimodal approach to learning ties in the umbrella of technology and its applications (e.g., computer, multimedia, and web-based services) that fall under the term. Another related concept of mode worth mentioning to further understand the mediational role of mode in a multimodal approach to learning is “medium”. Kress and Jewitt (2003) defined mediums or media as means for “making and distributing meanings as messages (such as book, magazine, computer-screen, video, film, radio, billboard)” (p. 4). While mode and medium are broadly conceived as resources that play a mediational role in learners’ meaning-making process, they are independently variable according to

multimodal literacy researchers. Kress and van Leeuwen (2001) explained the relations between mode and medium as follows: [J]ust as a given mode (e.g., language) may be realized in different media (e.g., speech and handwriting), so several modes (e.g., language and pictures) may be realized in the same medium (e.g., painting, or moulded plastic). All this speaks for the relative independence of mode and medium. (p.67) In line with the thinking of Kress and van Leeuwen (2001), Jewitt (2004) cautioned that although the affordances of mode and medium (i.e., potentials of these resources) are often woven together in literacy practices, they ought to be considered separately in learners’ meaningmaking process. She further argued for the need to make an analytical distinction between modes of resources and mediums of resources in literacy research with a technology focus. As she stated, “research on new communication technologies tends to foreground the affordances of medium at the cost of neglecting the affordances of representational modes” (p.184), which pointed to a current research gap in the field of literacy studies. She went on to emphasize that meaning is realized by learners’ engagement with both the media affordances of dissemination and the representational affordances of modal resources. It follows that literacy researchers, particularly those with interest in emergent technologies, need to understand the relationship between, in Jewitt’s (2004) words, “technologies of dissemination (media) ” and “technologies of representation (modes) ” to conduct heuristic analyses. It should also be noted that the focus of such research needs to be on modal and media affordances that attend to not only what modes and media can do but also what learners can do with such resources to optimize learning results. Undoubtedly, the concepts of modes and media in a multimodal approach to learning are closely

299


associated with technology. As Kress and van Leeuwen (2001) pointed out, “Technology plays an increasing role in changing media into modes, and hence in controlling how meanings can be made” (p. 79). Liestøl (2006) also recognized unique semiotic impacts of technology on learning and regarded digital media as a dependent hierarchy of hardware, software and “meaningware.” According to Liestøl (2006), meaningware refers to meanings and messages that are constructed or composed using semiotic resources (e.g., text, images, audio, and video) made available by software applications and represented or recognized in digital media. This idea of meaningware proposed in the digital media hierarchy extends beyond the traditional hardware-software dichotomy in computer science as well as related disciplines and provides new ways of thinking from a humanistic view. Liestøl’s (2006) digital media hierarchy corresponds to Jewitt’s (2004) distinction of technology in that modes or meaningware are conceived as semiotic resources (technologies of representation) and that media or software are regarded as material resources (technologies of production, communication, and dissemination). The main difference of their accounts, however, lies in the relationship between modes/meaningware and media/software. According to Liestøl’s (2006) three-layer hierarchy, “The software level is dependent and constrained by the hardware level, and the meaningware level is again constrained by the software level” (p. 2904). In contrast, Jewitt (2004) as well as Kress and van Leeuwen (2001) recognized the relative independence of modes and media in their emphasis on learners’ active role in using any resources available in their meaning-making process. It is undeniable that in the physical sense meaningware relies on software and hardware for its existence. For instance, hyperlinks (as meaningware) have to be realized and recognized in digital media rather than print (e.g., a computer with a word-processing program that

300

has the capacity of working with hypertext). Thinking alternatively, in a multimodal learning environment where modes and media are both presented to learners as available resources for meaning-making, be it semiotic or material, it is the learners’ use that determines what modes can be materially realized in what media and in what ways. Technology does not determine learners’ choices for modes and media although the affordances of such technologies have an impact on learners’ meaning-making process. In this sense, modes/meaningware and media/software operate relatively independently. Perhaps a better way to sum up the complex relationship between modes/meaningware and media/software is to regard them as interdependent to each other. Modes and media are closely interrelated and hinge on learners’ creative use to realize them into meanings. The key point is that meaning does not reside in modes alone nor does it reside in media by itself. Instead, modes and media often run in parallel and collectively contribute to learners’ construction of meanings. Worth mentioning is that recognizing the interrelations between modes and media does not mean to blur the boundaries between these two concepts. A clear analytical distinction as noted by Jewitt (2004) and Liestøl (2006) needs to be made depending on researchers’ analytical purposes to better understand practices of multimodal literacy in the digital age. With growing attention paid to technology, a multimodal approach to learning provides a heuristic lens through which to consider learning as a multimodal meaning-making process. As discussed above, this approach highlights the central role of learners as they actively engage with technologies of representation (modes) and technologies of dissemination (media) to construct their meanings. While research on technology applications in education often seem to overemphasize the power of technology, a multimodal perspective allows researchers to adequately consider the mediational role played by technology


in learners’ meaning-making process. After all, learning is not achieved by technology alone, but rather learners engage with technology.

Multimodal Literacy and Its Relevance to Learning The NLS framework forms the basis on which a multimodal approach to literacy learning is explored in the former section. In contrast with traditional approaches to literacy learning centering on print, the multimodal approach discussed in this chapter foregrounds the importance of technology in learning, with particular attention to the aspect of multimodal literacy. In the past decade, many influential NLS researchers (e.g., New London Group, 1996; Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Coiro, 2005) strived to shift our conventional understanding of literacy to multiple forms associated with specific learning contexts or different domains of life. With regard to the current trend of technology integration in education, overlapping concepts (sometimes even used interchangeably), such as technology literacy, electronic literacy, computer literacy, and media literacy, are often discussed and the mastery of technology use is therefore promoted in research on new literacies. Derived from the multimodal approach to learning, multimodal literacy is not limited to skill mastery and is more encompassing than other related terms as mentioned above. Multimodal literacy refers to the competence to make sense of multiple modes of representational and communicational resources (e.g., text, image, sound, and video) which are mostly realized by digital technology (Jewitt & Kress, 2003; Jewitt, 2008). Arguably, such competence requires learners to be able to demonstrate knowledge and skills of technology in order to use technology in completion of their learning tasks. While the multimodal approach to learning considers learning as a multimodal meaning-making process, multimodal literacy thus centers on whether and how learners make use of available multimodal resources to construct

meaning in the learning process. In such process, learners’ knowledge and skills of technology is the learning prerequisites, rather than the intended learning results. It is in this sense that multimodal literacy is better viewed as encompassing competence that goes beyond learners’ mastery of technology use. Given that multimodal literacy entails the essential role of technology in literacy learning, the key pedagogic question remains: How can technology be effectively used to promote literacy learning? This fundamental inquiry forces us to attend to new affordances of emerging technologies in order to tailor the use of technology to achieve learning purposes. Answers to such an inquiry, undoubtedly, require further empirical studies, which is beyond the scope of this chapter. As an initial attempt to address the changing nature of learning with emphases on multimodal literacy and technology affordances, I take one of many emerging technologies as an example to explore possibilities of new literacies learning in new times. More specifically, I focus the following discussion on web-based social networking services of relevance to the social nature of literacy learning which characterize the NLS framework discussed in this chapter. Taking account of the interrelations between modes and media manifested by a multimodal approach to literacy learning, I present vignettes of literacy practices in language and literacy classrooms to demonstrate how emerging social networking services in everyday life can possibly be employed to support literacy learning. The social networking websites with media sharing capacity to be illustrated in the following vignettes include Flickr for photo sharing and YouTube for video sharing.

Vignette of Flickr Pai-Tsang is a Taiwanese foreign language learner who has been studying English for 6 years. English composition is the subject that gave Pai-Tsang the biggest headache during his past junior and senior

301


high school years. On the first day of his English writing class, his English professor assigns the class to compose photo stories about anything of their passions as their self-introduction using Flickr. This assignment requires each student to upload a sequence of 5 photographs that create a story or narrative. In addition to story titles, the students need to write captions, add tags, compose annotations for each photo and, most importantly, be descriptive in their photo stories. They also have to review their classmates’ photo stories and post their comments to interact with the class. Pai-Tsang decides to focus on his hobby of rock climbing for the photo story assignment. To his surprise, Pai-Tsang’s photo story receives the most responses. There are even several viewers from other countries. Over the years of English study, Pai-Tsang finally finds a chance to communicate with international interlocutors in English for real purposes out of the classroom. He never knew that learning English could be fun, and now he starts to like English composition. Flickr is a photo-sharing website characterized by social networking. Flickr, first lunched in 2004 and then acquired by Yahoo in 2005, has become one of the most popular photo-sharing websites in use today. The popularity of Flickr results from its multiple functions that allow users to: 1) upload and share their photos via the web as a platform, 2) browse and organize photos with metadata, such as tags and annotations; and 3) post comments and responses to photos in a form of discussion postings. With proper instructional design, teaching and learning with Flickr in the classroom can be engaging literacy practices as illustrated in the exemplar above. Other innovative uses include: using Flickr for classroom displays that demonstrate learning outcomes; using Flickr as a reflective journal to reflect on learning experiences; using Flickr as visual enhancement of teaching materials to assist learners’ understanding of the subject, etc.

302

Vignette of YouTube In fall 2008, Dr. Majors will be teaching a new course on Language and Culture, designed to facilitate the learning of English as a foreign language in a content-based instruction program in Taiwan. Special attention is given to American and Chinese cultures of relevance to students’ target and native languages. Dr. Majors is concerned about the challenge of authentic teaching materials in the foreign language classroom until she finds YouTube. The search function on YouTube allows Dr. Majors to identify suitable authentic videos in the target language for her lesson plans. She uses a variety of videos (e.g., short documentaries, clips from popular films, TV commercials, music videos, amateur productions, etc.) as prompts for class discussions. She also assigns her students to review other users’ posted videos tagged with American or Chinese cultures and provide their comments on YouTube as their weekly cultural observation journals. For the term project, the students are encouraged to subscribe to channels and join topical groups about particular cultures of their interest. Based on their semester-long cultural study and interaction with other YouTube users, individual students need to produce a 10-minute video clip to demonstrate their understanding of the observed culture in contrast to their ethnic culture and then post their video productions on YouTube to share with the global community. With these innovative uses of YouTube, Dr. Majors’ course is very well received by the students. They enjoy exploring various dimensions of Western and Eastern cultures from the standpoints of globally diverse YouTube users. YouTube is a video-sharing service funded in 2005. It is currently the biggest and best-known video hosting website that hosts more than 83 million videos as of April 2008 according to Wikipedia. YouTube offers many features to make video sharing on the web an easy and engaging


experience. Users are allowed to: 1) upload, share, and search for videos on the site; 2) work with videos by adding metadata of titles, descriptions, tags, ratings, annotations, and interactive commentaries to videos; and 3) interact with other users via subscriptions, channels, groups, and streams established in the YouTube community. As illustrated in the exemplar above, language teachers can make use of YouTube as content materials for curriculum enhancement and as a learning tool for language production to engage learners. Undeniably, videos that provide linguistic and cultural authenticity are valuable resources for language teaching, such as listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. In this regard, YouTube potentially contributes to language and literacy education by making video resources available to anyone with access to computers and the Internet. What are some implications for teaching and learning with Flickr, YouTube, and other social networking technologies in language and literacy classrooms? Most literacy researchers would agree that social networking technologies with media-sharing capacity are generally more engaging to students than conventional print because multimedia is inherently rich in multiple semiotic modes. Therefore, integrating multimedia hosted on social networking websites into classroom instruction presents potential to enrich the learning process. It is also encouraging to note that social networking technologies not only afford student engagement with the content of multimedia but also with a community of learners/users in the process of learning. Literally speaking, social networking technologies are designed for building and expanding people’s social networks through a variety of interactional means. Implementing social networking technologies in the language classroom, thus, encourages learners to meet new people in online communities and use the target language for authentic communicative purposes. However, prerequisites of domain-specific competences, such as foreign language literacy and

multimodal literacy, are required for teachers and learners to benefit from pedagogic affordances of technologies. As mentioned earlier in the discussion of multimodal literacy and its relevance to learning, multimodal literacy is deemed as a prerequisite for learners to construct knowledge in the learning process. In other words, the lack of multimodal literacy can hinder learners’ meaning-making process because learners need to be able to interact with multiple representations of information in meaningful ways in order to use these representations for learning purposes, such as exchanging information, solving problems, and making inferences. To take the case of a photo-sharing website, Flickr, for example, certain multimodal literacy as illustrated below is necessary for learners to be able to engage with the technology in the learning process. Flickr’s successive evolution lies in its affordance of metadata (i.e., data about data in any media), specifically tags and sets. Tags (also called keywords) are descriptive terms employed by users to mark and organize digital content of media (Golder & Huberman, 2006). Users may apply tags or keywords to their photos to make the content of the photos searchable. Sets are a form of categorical metadata that allow users to organize their photos into groups. Different from the common folder-based organizing approach, a photo may be grouped into one or multiple sets without adding additional storage space in Flickr. Both tags and sets are new modes available in emerging technologies like Flickr that require multimodal literacy, specifically the knowledge and skills about technologies of representation. Similarly, participating in the Flickr user community also requires multimodal literacy, particularly with regard to technologies of dissemination and communication. Students need to familiarize themselves with the interface of Flickr to explore profiles of other users and their posted photos. They also need to employ computer-mediated communication methods, such as email and asynchronous online discussion, in order to interact with other

303


Flickr users. In short, the point is that simply exposing students to the uses of social networking technologies or other emerging technologies does not result in engaging practices of literacy learning. To facilitate literacy learning with the affordances of emerging technologies, a focused approach that centers on multimodal literacy and technology integration is imperative.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS As technology integration continues to be a dominant trend in education, a multimodal approach to learning arguably can help guide further research in conceptually grounded ways. This pedagogic approach also forces us to attend to emerging technologies arising from the current wave of Web 2.0 applications in education. The term Web 2.0 was invented by Tim O’Reilly in 2005 and later refined to refer to a computer revolution “caused by the move to the Internet as platform and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform” (O’Reilly, 2006, n.p.). Downes (2005) elaborated on the recent transformation of the World Wide Web and wrote, “what was happening was that the Web was shifting from being a medium, in which information was transmitted and consumed, into being a platform, in which content was created, shared, remixed, repurposed, and passed along” (Downes, 2005, n.p.). The two emerging technologies discussed in this chapter, Flickr and YouTube, are both Web 2.0 applications that use the Internet as platform for delivery of social networking services. The social practices of these social networking and media dissemination technologies shape “forms and functions of earlier literacies since they carry within them new potentials for literacy” (Coiro, et al., 2008). Although they are originally designed as social networking sites, their innovative uses in learning can engage learners in active participation of learning in new ways. Briefly, the technological revolution of Web 2.0 presents new possibilities

304

and, of course, challenges of literacy learning, which points to a fertile area of investigations. One important direction for future research is based on the concept of community of practice (often abbreviated as “CoP”) which is formed by a group of people who share similar interests and goals as they participate in social interactions (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Clearly, a community of practice is enacted through active participation of community members. In parallel, the idea of participation also characterizes Web 2.0 development. As Birdsall (2007) stated, “a common thread running through the efforts to describe Web 2.0 is the increased participatory role given to users of the Web in its development and use” (Web 2.0 section, para. 1). While a multimodal approach to learning is inevitably tied to the current technology wave, it follows that social networking services that are congruent with the participatory nature associated with emerging Web 2.0 technologies (Birdsall, 2007) and the active role of learners in the multimodal meaning-making process can serve to mediate literacy practices in a multimodal learning environment. Arguably, weaving social networking technologies into language and literacy classrooms can foster learning and extend sites of literacy learning that take place predominantly in the classroom to online community settings out of the classroom. The key functions of social networking technologies for information sharing and interpersonal communication can be incorporated into literacy teaching to engage learners with communities of practice. The challenge facing literacy practitioners, however, is how these technological tools that are originally designed for use in social settings can be appropriated for academic purposes and tailored to classroom instructions. This can be learned through qualitative case studies with thick descriptions of innovative uses of emerging technologies in context-specific literacy practices. Another area of literacy research involves the concept of production which refers to “the organization of the expression, to the actual material


articulation of the semiotic event or the actual material production of the semiotic artifact” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001, p.6). It follows that Web 2.0 authoring technologies, such as blog and wiki, with semiotic potential of production offer new possibilities for learning to take place. Such technologies blur the line between consumption and production of knowledge, providing learners with the opportunity to make sense of and make use of available modal resources to articulate and express themselves in the process of literacy learning. In other words, Web 2.0 authoring technologies are potential resources in a multimodal approach to learning because they allow learners to bring their meanings to life in their own creative ways. While the application of Web 2.0 authoring technologies in literacy learning is still sporadic, further rigorous investigations are needed to inform multimodal literacy pedagogies.

CONCLUSION New Literacy Studies set a conceptual stage for a multiplicity of literacy, and subsequent efforts have been influenced to build nuanced understandings of differentiated literacies situated in specific contexts. While this framework has succeeded in introducing the view of literacy as social practice to the field, a reform of pedagogic thinking and practice in literacy learning is the next to be approached. How can new literacies prepare learners with the necessary skills and knowledge for the changing society in the digital age? What kinds of pedagogies and technological resources support the learning and practices of new literacies? Inquiries like these point to a need for further empirical studies and pedagogic development from the perspective of New Literacy Studies. Evolved as one approach in response to new literacies and emerging technologies, a multimodal

approach to learning focuses on how learners make use of multiple modes of representational resources afforded by multiple media to construct meaning and knowledge in the process of learning (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress & Jewitt, 2003). Literacy develops concomitantly with technology. While a multimodal approach to learning does not limit to the use of emerging technologies, it is admittedly true that multimodality is much more easily achieved via emerging technologies, such as multimedia books or web blogs, than it is with traditional classroom technologies, such as pen and paper or printed books. Given the importance of technology in a multimodal approach to learning, it is vital that researchers and practitioners look closely into the nuances of literacy learning with technology, keeping in mind the broad sense of literacy as social practice. Although a multimodal approach to learning in light of New Literacy Studies remains in its infancy, this approach provides a lens to discover a robust view of what it means to be literate as well as what it takes to be literate in new times.

REFERENCES Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivaniéc (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). New York: Routledge. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivaniéc, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. New York: Routledge. Birdsall, W. F. (2007). Web 2.0 as a social movement. Webology, 4(2), Article 40. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.webology.ir/2007/ v4n2/a40.html Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30–35.

305


Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Downes, S. (2005). E-Learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine: Education and Technology in Perspective, October 16, 2005. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section= articles&article=29-1 Gee, J. P. (2000). The New Literacy Studies: From “socially situated” to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R. Ivaniéc (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180-196). New York: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan. Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198–208. doi:10.1177/0165551506062337 Heath, S. B. (2004). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. In D. Wray (Ed.), Literacy: Major themes in education (pp. 168-196). New York: Routledge. Jewitt, C. (2004). Multimodality and new communication technologies. In P. LeVine & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 184-195). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in schoolclassrooms.ReviewofResearchinEducation, 32, 241–267. doi:10.3102/0091732X07310586 Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. 306

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Liestøl, G. (2006). Dynamics of convergence and divergence in digital media and learning. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 2902-2909). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. O’Reilly, T. (2006). Web 2.0 compact definition: Trying again. O’Reilly Radar, December 10, 2006. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from http://radar.oreilly. com/2006/12/web-20-compact-definition-tryi. html Street, B. (1998). New literacies in theory and practice: What are the implications for language in education? Linguistics and Education, 10(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(99)80103-X Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies: Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2)

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Literacy: The competence that conventionally refers to fundamental skills centering on reading and writing but such a view is currently challenged with the rise of recent literacy studies. New Literacies Studies: A“new” line of research that has been developed into a framework for contemporary literacy studies with the social turn movement in education. The use of the adjective “new” is purposeful with the researchers’ intention to emphasize its differences from early literacy studies.


Multimodal Literacy: The competence to make sense of multiple modes of representational and communicational resources (e.g.: text, image, sound, and video) which are mostly realized by digital technology Web 2.0: A term invented by Tim O’Reilly in 2005 and later refined to refer to the read-write web or web-based services that utilize the Internet as platform. Social Networking Services: Web-based services that allow for building and expanding

people’s social networks through a variety of interactional means, such as file sharing, instant messaging, discussion posting, blogging, and so on YouTube: A Web 2.0 tool, funded in 2005, which provides video-sharing, social networking service (http://www.youtube.com) Flickr: A Web 2.0 tool, lunched in 2004, which provides photo-sharing, social networking service (http://www.flickr.com)

307

308

Chapter 19

Transforming Continuing Healthcare Education with E-Learning 2.0 Rajani S. Sadasivam University of Massachusetts Medical School, USA Katie M. Crenshaw University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Michael J. Schoen University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Raju V. Datla Massachusetts Medical Society, USA

ABSTRACT The e-learning 2.0 transformation of continuing education of healthcare professionals (CE/CME) will be characterized by a fundamental shift from the delivery of static information online to a seamless, digital operation in which all users have the ability to access, create, and share knowledge in a multidimensional, instantaneous, collaborative, and interactive manner. This transformation will be disruptive, blurring existing boundaries between CE/CME professionals, content experts, and student learners, and modifying the traditional structured learning process to a more informal one. While the opportunities are unlimited, the transformation will present not only technology challenges but also social and educational challenges. Recent experiences with similar disruptive technologies show that a meaningful transformation can be achieved only if the application of technology is accompanied by strategic operational changes. This chapter offers a conceptual framework to guide CE/CME professionals interested in transforming their operations with new e-learning 2.0 technologies. Employing several usage scenarios, a new e-learning 2.0-based model of CE/CME operation is introduced. We also present several examples of approaches adopted by our academic group to address the various challenges discussed in this chapter. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch019


Transforming Continuing Healthcare Education with E-Learning 2.0

INTRODUCTION The threats of disruptive approaches to management education, CME, and probably to higher education as a whole are real. But so are the opportunities. Disruptive innovations – such as personal computers, photocopiers, helical scan video recorders, and microwave ovens – generally have brought useful technologies to much larger groups of people than previously had enjoyed access to them. Disruptive approaches to continuing education are likely to have a similar impact. Based on new models for learning, they are likely to be increasingly effective in delivering relevant knowledge to larger audiences than are reached by current programs. The lessons learned by private sector companies that have succeeded and failed in the face of disruptive technologies can provide useful models for directors of CME as they formulate strategies for the future (Clayton M. Christensen & Armstrong, 1998). E-learning 2.0 technologies have the potential to profoundly impact continuing education for healthcare professionals (CE/CME). The evolution of CE/CME over the years can be characterized as a move from old-fashioned didactic lectures over coffee and donuts to online instruction closely resembling the traditional counterparts to a digital enterprise of high-tech, interactive, global, instantaneous, and collaborative exchange of information. For years, the tradition and culture of continuing medical education (CME) assumed that physician learning and performance improvement would result from a simple one-way delivery of information. Over the last decade, as it did with other learning groups, the Internet has stimulated significant changes. Healthcare educators now are able to leverage the Internet to overcome healthcare professionals’lack of time for traditional learning activities and to reach a broader audience, such as those working in more remote and underserved areas. E-learning 2.0 technologies, such as Web services, semantic Web, social networks, and

rich Internet technologies, have the potential to bring continuing healthcare education into a new era as a digital enterprise. However, like so many other disruptive technologies, they also can lead to significant failures. Building on several e-learning experiences (Casebeer, Allison, & Spettell, 2002; Casebeer, Bennett, Kristofco, Carillo, & Centor, 2002; Wall et al., 2005; Casebeer et al., 2006; Houston et al., 2007; Houston & Ford, 2008; Houston et al., 2008), our goal in this chapter is to provide a conceptual guide for early adopters of e-learning 2.0 technologies in CE/CME. While we discuss many opportunities presented by e-learning 2.0, we also recognize the need to modify current operations to facilitate the new opportunities. The chapter goes on to discuss two categories of barriers to adopting e-learning 2.0, and we describe several approaches in use by our academic CME group to develop best practices approaches for e-learning 2.0 adoptions in CE/ CME operations.

E-LEARNING 2.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION OF HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS Defining E-learning 2.0 Before adopting e-learning 2.0, it is important to understand that it involves much more than technology (Downes, 2005; Ebner, 2007; Toub & Kostic, 2008). E-learning 2.0 is a cultural change, and it also has been referred to as social learning (Hart, 2008). This represents a key shift over e-learning 1.0. In e-learning 1.0, information flows “unidirectionally” from content creators to content consumers with the roles of the content creator and consumer generally fixed. In contrast, in e-learning 2.0 paradigms, information is socially and dynamically generated, meaning that a content creator in one instance becomes a content consumer in another instance involving the same learning activity. Accordingly, Ferretti et al. note

309


that e-learning 2.0 has cast a new light over processes and roles in acquiring knowledge (Ferretti, Mirri, Muratori, Roccetti, & Salomoni, 2008). A broad definition of e-learning 2.0 is the ability to access socially and dynamically, create, and share knowledge in a multidimensional, instantaneous, collaborative, and interactive manner.

E-Learning 2.0 Technologies Table 1 lists several e-learning 2.0 technologies that have played significant roles in the transformation of continuing education of healthcare professionals. The features and primary charac-

teristics of each technology are described briefly, and references are provided for those readers interested in further study.

E-learning 2.0 and Current CE/CME Practices Most physicians spend the majority of their active professional careers engaged in informal, selfdirected learning activities. The goal of CE/CME is to provide effective, evidence-based programming to help health professionals with these identified needs, ultimately leading to better health care and improved patient health. In addition, adult

Table 1. Types of E-Learning 2.0 Technologies Beneficial to Continuing Education of Healthcare Professionals Technology

Description

Web services

Web services provide standardized technology for integration and composition of infrastructure applications such as databases, tools, software, etc. (Brown, Johnston, & Kelly, 2002; Channabasavaiah, Holley, & Tuggle Jr., 2003). Web services are a critical piece to be considered for integration of disparate sources of information in an e-learning 2.0 infrastructure. Example Web services technology include SOAP, Web Services Description Language, and Business Process Execution Language (Newcomer & Lomow, 2005; Sadasivam, Tanik, & Kristofco, 2006; Sadasivam, 2008).

Semantic Web

The semantic Web is an extension of the current web to give information well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation (Berners-Lee, Hendler, & Lassila, 2001). The semantic Web builds upon Web services with the addition of semantics and ontologies to enhance the search for and access of information. The major efforts in the semantic Web are the development of new content markup languages, which finally has led to the W3C specifications of the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and the revised Resource Description Format (RDF) (Martin et al., 2004; World Wide Web Consortium, 2004).

Course development and management systems

Course development and management systems facilitate the easy, collaborative, and asynchronous creation of courses by different users. Examples of course development systems are Blackboard WebCT, Moodle, and Sakai.

Web 2.0, Rich Internet Applications (RIA), and social networking technologies

Web 2.0 features a new approach of presenting and developing content on the web (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 is very user-centric, enabling personal publishing where users can create their own data (Lin, 2007). Web 2.0 features include RIAs and social networking technologies. RIAs such as AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) and Flex facilitate the enhanced presentation of content on websites. Social networking technologies such as Wiki, forums, blogs, and instant messaging facilitate the synchronous and asynchronous creation of new content. A discussion of the use of these Web 2.0 technologies in healthcare education is provided in (Kamel Boulos & Wheeler, 2007).

Video and audio technologies

Video and audio technologies provide an alternative way of presenting content. Video and audio can be presented in Real streaming, QuickTime, or Windows Media format.

Gaming and simulation technology

Gaming and simulation technology are gaining popularity as a means of e-learning. Gaming can provide a fun and engaging way of learning. Simulation technology can be used to develop models representing real world entities, which then can be used as a basis for learning.

Push technologies

Push technologies are used to enhance the e-learning experience. While pull technologies such as websites or forums expect users to come and interact with the learning medium, push technologies such as RSS, text messaging, and podcast can push content to the users. RSS (Really Simple Syndication, Rich Site Summary or RDF Site Summary) facilitates the quick publishing and syndication of new content. Podcasts allow the syndication of audio and video files. Text messaging can be used to send content to users’ mobile devices.

310


learning principles (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) are commonly used in the design of continuing education programs for healthcare professionals to increase their effectiveness for these audiences. While e-learning 2.0 presents many opportunities to enhance online learning, current CE/ CME practices have not successfully integrated the use of e-learning 2.0. Despite overwhelming evidence suggesting that interactive resources are more effective than static information (Zeiger, 2005), a review of online CME practices shows that the majority of these online resources closely resemble their traditional counterparts (Zimitat, 2001). This lack of interactivity has resulted in reduced effectiveness of many online programs. For example, many physicians have reported concerns including lack of specific information, too much information, and poor formatting of resources (Andrews, Pearce, Ireson, & Love, 2005). In an age of instantaneous information, the web-based CME content development process also continues to be time-consuming and laborious. It takes too long for healthcare experts to find relevant information, coordinate their activities with CME professionals, apply necessary quality criteria, format the content into appropriate web delivery, and upload the content to web servers. Contrary to new synergistic learning models that

emphasize interaction, current web-based professional continuing education is still primarily a one-way transaction between content experts and participant learners. The two following case scenarios illustrate opportunities as well as several critical challenges when using e-learning 2.0 in CE/CME activities. The course development activity described in Case #1 is not uncommon and illustrates several critical limitations that can be addressed with e-learning 2.0.

Lack of Integrated Users and Collaboration The organization of responsibilities in the development of the activity was distributed among a relatively large number of people in sequential fashion, contributing to a lack of efficiency. By using e-learning 2.0 collaboration software, the course can be developed asynchronously in a very efficient fashion.

Lack of Integrated Information Dr. Cook spent a large amount of time conducting a thorough literature review, which involves searches in several online databases. Instead of

Case 1. Course Development Activity Dr. Allgood, a health expert, is interested in increasing the knowledge and skills of primary care physicians, and he assumes that with the development of an appropriate education program, this can be accomplished. Ms. Bates, a CME professional, agrees to collaborate with Dr. Allgood to develop an online CME activity to address identified learning needs. Dr. Allgood enthusiastically agrees to prepare some educational content for the proposed course and return it to her when he thinks it is ready for distribution. Dr. Allgood decides to contact Dr. Cook, a new junior faculty member, and asks her for help in developing up-to-date instructional content. To ensure that she includes all the important and relevant information, Dr. Cook conducts a thorough literature review of high blood pressure on the Internet by searching several databases such as PubMed, Medscape, Medline, and Science Citation Index. She synthesizes her findings and prepares a detailed Microsoft Word document. Dr. Cook forwards the document to a colleague, Dr. Doyle, to review the document’s accuracy and thoroughness. Dr. Doyle agrees, and inserts his comments before sending it back to Dr. Cook, who makes some final changes and forwards the document to Dr. Allgood. Dr. Allgood makes only minor modifications before sending the document on to Ms. Bates. Ms. Bates then makes a decision about the online instructional strategy to use and then develops a set of questions to assess participants’ self-report of the impact and effectiveness of the new online module. Ms. Bates calls upon an in-house IT expert, Mr. Errez, to program and disseminate the activity through their website. Mr. Errez converts the document to an online format and configures the evaluation and instructions on the course website for earning credit for participation. Finally, the activity is released to a public audience of practicing physicians.

311


that, an e-learning 2.0 tool that integrates information from these different sources could be of great value to Dr. Cook and could accelerate the course content development process.

provided access to the various sources of information and saved both time and aggravation.

Lack of Integrated Users and Collaboration

Lack of Enhanced Interaction When the course is finally uploaded to the website, the information is presented in a static fashion. Learners have limited ability to interact with the course, the course developers, or their peers. As a result, the module is very non-interactive, reduces the effectiveness of the course, and fails to integrate critical components of adult learning theory (Knowles, 1990). The learner experience described in Case #2 is unfortunately quite common and ultimately fails to provide a meaningful educational experience that will improve this physician’s clinical performance. So what are some key issues and barriers that can be addressed using e-learning 2.0?

Lack of Integrated Information Internet search strategies can be difficult, and locating specific, information related to complex issues involving multiple conditions and different treatment options can be time-consuming. Dr. Ferrini could have used an e-learning 2.0 tool that

Dr. Ferrini also discovered that once information is located, it is challenging to verify the credibility of its sources. If the accuracy of the information is questionable, physicians run the risk of using it to their patients’ potential detriment. Dr. Ferrini could have benefited from the ability to debate the authenticity of the information with other professionals.

Lack of Enhanced Interaction Dr. Ferrini’s interaction with the information is limited in several ways. Dr. Ferrini was restricted to searching for static information on the Internet. Many of the websites that contained medical information consisted of simple presentations of best practices in managing chronic conditions. As a result, Dr. Ferrini was restricted to scrolling through several pages of text on several sites, information that was for the most part already familiar, to find relevant answers. Dr. Ferrini also could not discuss the information he found with peers to clarify some of his existing doubts. Since

Case 2. Participation in Traditional E-learning CME Activity Dr. Ferrini works as a primary care physician in small town. While reviewing his charts, he notices a large percentage of his patients suffer from the same chronic condition. Dr. Ferrini is uncertain about the steps he should take to improve their health. Should he investigate more about his patients’ medication adherence? Should he increase their medication? Should he be more aggressive in helping them pursue healthy lifestyle modifications? Dr. Ferrini decides to conduct on online search to see if he can find some relevant information to provide him with some direction and options. First, he sifts through abstracts he finds in literature databases. Even though he finds several relevant studies, Dr. Ferrini does not find straightforward, easy answers to his specific questions. He then looks for clinical guidelines, but he discovers that they are too lengthy and difficult to translate into concrete next steps that would apply to his specific patient population. Fortunately, Dr. Ferrini discovers several interesting CME opportunities on new medical advances, but most are live events such as conferences and seminars and would require too much time away from the office. He also worries that the print materials he finds available for order might be out of date by the time they arrive and he gets a chance to review them. The online courses he finds force him to scroll through lines and lines of text, and several are not from recognizable providers, which makes him a little nervous and creates a question of credibility in his mind. After about an hour on the Internet, Dr. Ferrini has found a great deal of information and has acquired some knowledge he did not have before. Unfortunately, he does not have any way to earn CME credit for the time spent searching, and he still has not found exactly what he needs.

312


CME professionals have no way of monitoring Dr. Ferrini’s activity, he also could not receive appropriate credit for his learning efforts.

TRANSFORMING CONTINUING EDUCATION OF HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS WITH E-LEARNING 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES An E-learning 2.0-Based Digital Enterprise Model for CE/CME An E-learning 2.0 approach presents a number of new opportunities for CE/CME professionals. With e-learning 2.0 technologies, CE/CME educators have the capability to streamline needs assessment and content development processes by connecting CME facilitators, content experts, and learners to promote the exchange of information and ideas. Figure 1 depicts an e-learning 2.0-based conceptual model for CE/CME. The model shows the gradual transformation of CE/CME operations from a traditional face-face operation to a new transformed model of CE/CME that can operate as a digital enterprise. Using E-learning 2.0 technologies, all CE/CME users can be interconnected, information can flow freely between participants, access to internal and external resources such as databases and Web services can be seamless, and the interaction between participants and information can be enhanced. Successful transformation will require those adopting e-learning 2.0 technologies to focus their time and attention on three important and interdependent challenges:

Integrating Users Our conceptual model includes three sets of users: the CME professional/facilitator, the health care expert, and the learner. In traditional CE/CME models the roles of the three sets of users are clearly defined, but in e-learning 2.0 users are constantly moving between and among roles. A user might

be a health care expert providing education to others in one instance, while in another scenario the same user could be in the role of learner. In traditional CME programs, course information typically flows in a unidirectional manner from the health care experts or facilitators to learners. In most current programs, an instructor (with help from CME professionals) designs a course with a designated amount of CME credit based on perceived level of difficulty of that course. In contrast, using e-learning 2.0 technologies, learners can initiate an educational activity by posing questions to facilitators, or healthcare experts can become learners in interactive discussion forums. Since learning happens in a very informal setting, it becomes more difficult or complicated to assign credit for a learning activity. Integrating users will allow CE/CME professionals to track user participation and assign credits in a new and improved way that reflects time and effort accurately. In addition, integration of all users contributing to a continuing educational activity creates a collaborative work process that yields the greatest efficiency in terms of time and effort. Only after all users are fully integrated can information flow in a multidirectional manner. Integrated users will be able to participate in a vast array of CE/CME activities, collaborate with each other, and actively participate in discussions while changing roles easily.

Integrating Information In our conceptual model, information flows seamlessly between different user groups in a multidirectional manner. This is in contrast to traditional CE/CME models, where information typically flows from health care expert or CE/ CME professionals to the learners. Integration of information across diverse and disparate sources such as databases, web sites, documents, etc. is critical to the e-learning 2.0 educational process. Integrated information allows users to have an

313


Figure 1. E-learning 2.0-based Digital Enterprise Model for Continuing Education for Healthcare Professionals

enhanced ability to search, access, and create new knowledge.

Enhancing Dynamic Interaction Figure 1 also illustrates enhanced interaction between users involving information. Enhanced interaction means that users can access information from anywhere, using any devices. For instance, a user who is traveling will have access to information through his or her mobile device. The same user while sitting in his office will have access to information through his desktop. This transformative change implies that the information must be customized depending on the users’ environment. E-learning 2.0 technologies have the capacity to build tools that allow users to interact with each other and information in a humanized, customized, and personalized way (Ramamoorthy, 2000). These technologies also can significantly enhance the way users access a particular educational activity. Activity formats can be personalized, based on educational appro-

314

priateness and learner preference, via deployment through web applications, mobile applications, audio or video activities, or even computer games and simulations. Tools that allow for this kind of personalization allow facilitators to address differences in adult learning styles. To demonstrate application of this conceptual model, let us take another look at Cases 1 and 2 in which we now apply an e-learning 2.0-based digital operation model for each CE/CME scenario.

Integrated Users This case richly illustrates the benefits of having an integrated set of users and collaboration tools. Dr. Allgood and Ms. Bates were able to identify a key education need of the community based on the blog discussion. Dr. Allgood and his colleagues also were able to develop the course efficiently by working asynchronously with each other, and the system is aware of Dr. Ferrini’s time and effort and is able to track and reward his learning activity.


Case 3. Continuing Medical Education E-learning 2.0 Activity During an Internet search on new medical advances, Dr. Ferrini discovers a web blog sponsored by Dr. Allgood at a university medical center. After joining the blog, he learns that Dr. Allgood and other experts at the academic medical center are conducting an interesting and lively discussion on the challenges they face in caring for patients. The e-learning 2.0 system developed by Ms. Bates and Mr. Errez in the continuing medical education office allows the CME professional staff to monitor the content of the discussion blogs and reveals that many of the participants have very similar questions about the same set of issues. Based on this observation, Ms. Bates and Dr. Allgood decide to develop a web-based course activity anchored on the important content themes appearing in the blog, which they believe accurately reflect gaps between best practice established at the academic medical center and current practice out in the community. Dr. Allgood then uses a literature integration software program to pull together related information from various scientific literature databases to create a strong evidence base for the CME course content. Dr. Allgood asynchronously works with several of his colleagues to revise the course information with an eye towards the potential (learner) audience. Ms. Bates (who provides instructional design expertise), manages the entire process to ensure that the revised course meets the appropriate quality guidelines. This expanded, evidencebased course content is then securely posted to the CME course website. Dr. Ferrini is delayed at the airport late one night when he receives a text message from the CME office to his mobile phone announcing the release of a new online educational activity. Dr. Ferrini then accesses and completes the interactive, case-based module on his mobile phone. Dr. Ferrini also starts a forum thread to discuss with others application of the key elements of the case to his practice. Reflecting on this activity, Dr. Ferrini concludes that his educational experience was more meaningful than what he has experienced in the past, and he is particularly pleased that the course addressed several of his specific patient concerns. The e-learning 2.0 system developed by the CME office tracks Dr. Ferrini’s course usage and awards the appropriate amount of CME credit to him.

Integrated Information Using literature integration software, Dr. Allgood is able to pull together relevant information quickly from a large number of scientific literature databases to create a strong evidence base for the course content.

Enhanced Interaction In this example, interaction is enhanced in multiple ways. First, Dr. Allgood is able to pull together quickly information from different databases. Then he is able to develop his course rapidly by working with others asynchronously. Ms. Bates is able to identify a key education need by monitoring the blog and can manage the course development activity asynchronously to ensure quality. Dr. Ferrini is able to participate in a discussion that enhances his educational experience, interact with the course from his mobile phone, and obtain the benefit of a course developed based on his specific clinical questions in the online discussion. The CME professionals are able to track Dr. Ferrini’s leaning activity and assign appropriate CME credits to Dr. Ferrini.

Socio-Technological Barriers to Adoption of E-Learning 2.0 in CE/CME Despite the exciting potential e-learning 2.0 technologies have for continuing educational of healthcare professionals, significant barriers exist that could interfere with their successful adoption. For purposes of discussion, these barriers will be categorized as either socio-technological or educational. In practice, however, the barriers are intertwined and sometimes difficult to untangle. If left unchecked, these barriers can create inefficiency and reduce adoption of elearning 2.0 technologies. A useful framework for identifying these barriers is the interaction model (IM) of digital enterprises, which describes three types of interactions in a digital enterprise (Ramamoorthy, 2000). The first category of interactions is described as mechanistic or computerto-computer interactions. An example of this type of interaction is website software interacting with a database for data access. The second category is mechanistic-individual or interactions between computer processes and individuals. An example would be a learner interacting with a website to

315


complete an online course. The third category is mechanistic-team interactions, or those between computer processes and teams. An example of this interaction type would be a healthcare expert team working with facilitators or CME professionals to develop an online course. Using the IM model as a framework, we propose that the full scope of CE/CME transformation to a digital operation involves integration of a range of human interaction processes (Harrison-Broninski, 2005). Inability of organizations to address social, technological, and behavioral factors of the human interaction processes will lead to problems such as integration confusion. Integration confusion (Yeh, Pearlson, & Kozmetsky, 2000) occurs when incompatible e-learning 2.0 technologies are adopted (no sharing of information or users) and no organizational changes are made to accommodate these technologies. Consequently, organizations will find that the users and information linked with each e-learning 2.0 technology exist in functional silos, implying a lack of integration. To avoid such problems as integration confusion, organizations should carefully and systematically modify existing policies and procedures to accommodate new e-learning 2.0 technologies. Enhanced interactions between CME professional staff, content experts and learners may require new skills for all participants who may be more used to traditional roles and educational models. Accurately identifying the new skills and behaviors needed to implement e-learning 2.0 technologies will require an additional level of analysis. For that purpose, we have classified socio-technological factors into three categories: (1) settings, which includes geographic and economic considerations; (2) people, which includes familiarity with and acceptance of such technologies in health care; and (3) technology, which includes challenges such as lack of a variety of infrastructure resources, data standards, proprietary issues, security, integrity, and privacy.

Settings The specific work settings where users are found play an important role in the adoption and success of e-learning 2.0 applications. For example, e-learning 2.0 applications that are successful in an urban location may not work effectively in a rural location due to technology limitations and economic constraints. Questions about whether the available technological resources are able to support an application deployment platform will need to be answered before selecting the deployment approach.

People Users’ comfort level with technology and computer knowledge also plays a decisive role in the selection of an appropriate application. Studies have shown that lack of computer or informationseeking skills and lack of time often prevent physicians from engaging in Internet-based educational activities (Bennett, Casebeer, Zheng, & Kristofco, 2006). Sophisticated applications with complex interfaces are more likely to be accepted by technologically savvy users, while less sophisticated users are more likely to adopt simpler applications with easy-to-use interfaces. For some educators, the lack of technical know-how makes it difficult to design and deploy educational programs on the Internet. In other cases where collaboration technologies such as discussion forums have been tested, participation rates of healthcare professionals sometimes have been negligible, which may reduce the motivation level of educators who may otherwise employ them. People also must be open to the idea of granting access to information and sharing in ways that they may not be used to doing.

Technology Technology factors, including lack of infrastructure resources, data availability, data standards,

316


proprietary issues, security, integrity, and privacy play a key role in determining the complexity level of educational applications. For some educators, the lack of technical infrastructure is simply too overwhelming or burdensome to develop interactive applications. Integration of data and services must overcome issues such as legacy applications, incompatible interfaces, and proprietary limitations in order to provide effective continuing education. Integration of users overcoming issues such as diversity of locations, time factors, and technology access level also is a key factor in providing effective continuing medical education. The security, integrity, and privacy of data must be considered in determining the type of applications that can be deployed so that users can trust that their contributions, and in some cases their educational records, are safe and valued.

Educational Challenges to Adoption of E-Learning 2.0 Technologies to Continuing Education of Healthcare Professionals While e-learning 2.0 presents many opportunities to enhance CE/CME education, it also introduces a number of educational challenges. Consider a web-based blog learning activity as an example. A user blogs on a health topic of interest. Another user finds the blog and comments on it. The first user synthesizes the comments, conducts some research on the topic, and responds to the comment on the blog. The discussion goes back and forth, with many other users joining in. Questions that could be asked on the activity include: 1) Does learning happen on the blog? 2) Is the learning happening in a structured format as in e-learning 1.0? While the answer to the first question is yes, learning happens, the answer to the second question is that it is not a structured activity. This dynamic and unstructured format of learning presents a number of challenges to CE/CME educators. We list a number of key questions below:

How do We Measure Learning Needs and Outcomes? Continuing education programs for healthcare professionals should be learner-centered, responsive to learner needs, and have meaningful and measurable outcomes (Davis et al., 1999). Use of e-learning 2.0 technologies provides educators with more sophisticated options in the design of educational content, based on the results of needs assessment. Traditional barriers to identifying learner needs through needs assessment have involved lack of time and difficult access to learners prior to program planning and design (Mazmanian, 1980; Moore & Cordes, 1992). However, most of these are based on the e-learning 1.0 paradigm (Grant, 2002; Norman, Shannon, & Marrin, 2004). The dynamic nature of learning with e-learning 2.0 presents new challenges in measuring learning needs and outcomes.

How do We Maintain Quality Standards for Course Content? A digital learning environment can lead to the rapid development of course content in response to identified learners needs. Maintaining rigorous quality standards for course content provides both a challenge and an opportunity for the continuing education professional. As the number of e-learning opportunities has increased dramatically in the last 5 years, the need for standards has become more clear (Ruiz, Mintzer, & Leipzig, 2006). A number of organizations have published standards for the development of e-learning, including the United Stated Department of Defense SCORM specifications (Fallon & Brown, 2003). Since e-learning 2.0 also occurs in places such as blogs and discussion forums, how do we ensure the quality of the course content?

317


How do We Award CME Credit? Continuing medical education credit is currently (and traditionally) awarded based on number of participant hours, with different states mandating various amounts of hours per year for re-licensure (Zeiger, 2005). When physicians participate in online learning for CME credit, most CME providers translate the number of hours the participant reports having spent on the activity into CME credit earned. This approach to translating learner activity into CME credits becomes problematic when e-learning 2.0 continuing education activities expand the range of learner behaviors to include time spent on internet searches and other self-directed learning activities. One example of an approach to address this challenge is the American Medical Association’s Self-Directed/ Self-Initiated (SDSI) Internet CME Pilot Project (American Medical Association, 2004). While professional associations recognize that this takes place, they have not yet been able to create a credit system that rewards the activity or behavior of facilitating the learning of others. In other words, continuing education accreditation standards have not yet caught up to technology as it relates to new models of learning.

How do We Integrate E-Learning 2.0 with Other Traditional CME Offerings? A question for researchers and program developers involves whether programs designed using elearning 2.0 technologies can replace completely the need for more traditional CME activities. Are all learning needs effectively addressed with elearning? Are all areas of the CME curriculum effectively taught by e-learning approaches? Can “e-conferences”, for example, replace the need for live conferences, grand rounds lectures, journal clubs and other live events? Clearly, one advantage of e-learning approaches is their ability to create options for learners who may prefer live

318

events but have real barriers involving time and place (Zeiger, 2005). These educational challenges, like the sociotechnological barriers described earlier, need to be addressed appropriately in order for e-learning to complete the transformation of continuing education of healthcare professionals to a digital enterprise.

Technology Framework: ServiceOriented Approach for Deployment of E-Learning 2.0 Technologies Service-oriented-architecture (SOA)-based deployment may provide an effective technical framework for addressing barriers and adopting e-learning 2.0 technologies (Sadasivam, 2008; Sadasivam & Tanik, 2008). SOA provides a flexible, scalable, common, and convenient platform for integrating and consuming disparate data sources (users and infrastructure) (Newcomer & Lomow, 2005; Sadasivam, Tanik, & Kristofco, 2006). SOA also provides a pluggable framework for incorporation of organizational policies and procedures. Many commercial entities lead in the adoption of SOA-style deployment for transforming infrastructure into digital enterprises. Transformation with SOA is typically performed in phases, in which organizations first develop a consistent global strategy of deployment and then proceed with implementation in small, digestible chunks (Channabasavaiah, Holley, & Tuggle Jr., 2003). This development paradigm parallels our model of transforming continuing education, which involves building a seamless digital enterprise that advances in a gradual fashion. SOA addresses socio-technological challenges of applying e-learning 2.0 technologies at three levels (Willig, Sadasivam, & Tanik, 2008). First, SOA provides a standard approach to the integration of heterogeneous data sources (sources with users and learning activity data). It also provides a flexible solution to configure and integrate the


policies and procedures that are necessary to address the different socio-technological challenges. Finally, SOA provides a business-process-oriented approach to deploying targeted applications that address user needs. As business processes form a key lifeline for all organizations, deploying applications with a business-process-oriented approach allows the needs of an organization to be addressed in a systematic manner. Two parts of SOA application development are the creation of services and the consumption of services.

Creation of Services A service is defined technically as a location on the network that has a machine readable description of the messages it receives and returns (Newcomer & Lomow, 2005). A service provides uniform access to data sources. In this initial phase, services are developed for accessing the infrastructure resources by wrapping each heterogeneous resource with a service interface. The service interfaces describe the method of invocation, operations to be performed, the input format of the request, and the output format of the response. Other implementation details of the sources, including the type of data source and programming language of the data source, are hidden behind the service interface. Once the service is created, the data sources can be accessed and consumed through the service interface. Application developers are not concerned with the heterogeneity of the infrastructure resources. Instead, they deal with a homogenous service interface with well-defined rules for consumption.

business-process-oriented style of application development, with an emphasis on the consumption of services using business processes. Business processes can be implemented programmatically, as we are doing in our CME infrastructure, or using specialized business process languages, such as Business Process Execution Language or Business Process Modeling (Juric, Mathew, & Sarang, 2004; Pasley, 2005). Figure 2 illustrates the layers of enterprise development with SOA. The base layer represents the heterogeneous infrastructure of an enterprise, such as databases, software, tools, and technology that a user would need to complete the task. The services layer represents a uniform layer of service interfaces that can be used to consume the infrastructure resources. The third layer is the business process layer or application layer. It represents the various applications of the enterprise that correspond to different needs. Finally, the top layer is the interaction support layer, which represents web-based or interaction tools that allow users to interact with the enterprise applications. On the left side is the policy and procedures layer, which represents a flexible layer to configure organizational policies across the layers. On the right side

Figure 2. Layers of Enterprise Development with Service-Oriented Approach

Consumption of Services (ProcessOriented-Composition) Once the services are created, application developers then build applications to request and consume the services. To avoid problems such as integration confusion, SOA recommends a

319


is the security layer to ensure secure access and storage of the organizations’ information.

Towards E-Learning 2.0 Adoption: Example Implementation Approach Our academic medical center has been developing and deploying e-learning applications for more than a decade. However, as with many other e-learning organizations, our infrastructure has often grown in response to the disparate needs of each new project. Over time, this sequence of non-strategic changes has made us inadvertently less efficient in achieving our long-term academic goals. Consequently, we recently have begun strategic development of several e-learning 2.0 initiatives that we predict will transform our unit into a more efficient, seamless digital enterprise. Two projects that illustrate our new approach to content development and delivery (or service creation and consumption) will be reviewed in this section. We begin by outlining and evaluating our efforts to address the infrastructure needs for deploying e-learning programs. The point-of-care CME program described next illustrates our efforts to identify specific challenges in the application of e-learning 2.0 technologies with an innovative point-of-care pilot study. Example Service-Oriented Approach for ELeaning 2.0 Adoption: Reconstruction of CME Infrastructure The CME infrastructure project addresses integration of our resources (users and information). The steps in the project follow the SOA approach closely.

Creation of CME Services The first step in creation of CME services was to develop a data model to capture our users and course information. This step required that we analyze our existing projects, including the e-learning materials offered, the users list, the

320

users’ responses, and assessment protocol. Based on these results, we designed and implemented a data model that captures all the necessary information. A SQL database was used to implement the data model. We also created a service layer using Microsoft .Net technology to perform operations on the SQL database in a systematic manner. The creation of CME services enables us to deploy elearning 2.0 activities integrating the existing users in our database. For users, this means the ability to traverse from one e-learning 2.0 application to another seamlessly without having to re-register or re-login. For CME professionals, this means being able to monitor the users’ learning activities and award them appropriate credit.

Consumption of CME Services In order to facilitate consumption of these services, we then created an online LMS system using Microsoft .Net technology. This gave us the capacity to develop new courses quickly and easily and deploy them through our three primary websites – the online continuing medical education site, the Alabama practice-based network, and the Mississippi practice-based network. The LMS has two parts. The first is an administrative interface that provides features to create courses collaboratively and asynchronously, and the second is a business process layer that makes it easy to consume the course. We are currently working on the development of a user-interaction layer to present the course on all the sites using the data from the business process layer. The userinteraction layer also will customize the course to other mediums, such as mobile phones or other portable devices. We also are working on adding discussion forums to the CME website to allow users to participate and discuss their questions with their peers and health experts. While we have only started the work on reconstruction of the CME infrastructure, we will have an integrated and interconnected infrastructure on which to deploy new e-learning 2.0 programs


once it is finished. We anticipate that it will be relatively easy to deploy new programs, leveraging the integrated infrastructure and not having to redevelop specific structures such as the database model and data access programs from scratch. The integrated infrastructure also will make it easier to personalize the learners’ interaction with the education program. For instance, learners can interact using web-based or mobile devices depending on their preferences. In addition, we will be able to access a learner’s data from one source instead of from several sources. A learner’s data will provide a rich source to estimate the effectiveness of the CME programs and for data that is usable for program improvement. Example Modifications to Educational Policies: Point-of-Care CME Program In point-of-care (POC) activities, physicians engage in an active search for specific information at the point of the patient encounter when a new condition or a clinical question arises(American Academy of Family Physicians). The significance of POC as a CME activity is the direct impact it can have on the quality of patient care (Ebell, 2003; Berkenstadt et al., 2006; Doran et al., 2007; King et al., 2007). Similar to other e-learning 2.0 scenarios, point-of-care learning represents a striking change in the way continuing education for health professionals is traditionally conducted and raises a number of challenging questions from an educational viewpoint. Some of these include questions about factors that motivate learners to access resources at the point-of-care, as well as questions concerning the quality of point-of-care learning encounters. The learning activity website was designed for use during a five week period from July 16, 2007, until Aug 21, 2007, and contained resources for delivering effective clinical care for participating physicians (or the physicians’ staff). Participants for this pilot study were primary care physicians from two practice-based networks that serve Alabama and Mississippi. The primary goal of

the study was to identify a means of providing CME credit that would encourage physicians to participate in e-learning 2.0 activities and overcome barriers to such participation. The pilot study was conducted in two phases of two weeks duration each, with physicians needing to complete a short questionnaire at the end of each phase in order to receive CME credit. Phase 1 awarded 4 CME credits for a minimum of 8 logins to the site and completion of the questionnaire by the user. During phase 2, users were awarded 0.5 CME credit every time they logged on, up to a maximum of 6 CME credits. A final questionnaire was required at the end of phase 2 to print the CME certificate carrying the CME credits that were awarded for usage of the website. All participants were eligible for the same incentives, which were advertised during the initial recruitment invitation. Benefits of participation included 24-hour access to the website and links to a collection of publicly available resources; a potential total of 10 CME credits for complete participation; a search feature for available topics within the site; and online access to an electronic therapeutics update subscription service. E-mail reminders were sent out weekly to registered participants, encouraging them to participate in the study and use the website in their practice. The primary content area on the website was a list of 63 keywords and 188 links to the most common topics (Cancer, AIDS, women’s health, etc), alphabetically ordered and linked to external websites that were either “framed” within the website or were placed as external links (in compliance with their web policies). The website was developed using the Content Management System DotNetNuke (“DotNetNuke Web Portal System”) and included an SQL server database in the backend for capturing user data related to website usage. A total of 24 CME credits was awarded in phase 1 of the study, and 24.5 credits were awarded for phase 2. The number of CME credit hours that could be claimed in phase 2 was higher by 2

321


credit hours, for a greater number of logons per learner, assuming that total time spent would be higher. While no conclusive data were found to suggest the relative effectiveness of one type of CME credit (partial or complete) over the other, the availability of credit appeared to be a highly effective incentive for participants. Learners were asked about the factors influencing their decision to participate in the project. Results revealed an overwhelming majority of participants reported “free CME credits” and “convenience of on-line CME” as the major factors for participation in the study. The participant base was not completely new to on-line CME courses, with at least 7 of 9 users having had prior experience of 5 or more on-line CME courses. This might indicate that the participant base understands the advantages and convenience of on-line CME. Most of the learners suggested that they found the quality of the resources provided was ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’ This pilot study clearly demonstrated that awarding CME credit was a motivating factor for health care providers to engage in point of patient care learning activities, although the amount of CME credit offered did not appear to be influential. Physicians were generally satisfied with the quality of the resources provided and reported that participation had an impact on their professional effectiveness. Lack of time surfaced as the largest barrier to participation, suggesting that e-learning 2.0 designers need to focus attention on displaying important information efficiently to make it salient to busy health care professionals.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE TRENDS This chapter has advanced the argument that e-learning 2.0 technologies have tremendous potential to dramatically change the landscape of continuing education programs for healthcare professionals. E-learning 2.0 technologies can

322

be viewed as a type of disruptive innovation that will change fundamentally the way professional health education programs function, by adopting a user-centered approach that emphasizes interactivity among all participants. As the examples in this chapter illustrated, e-learning 2.0 cannot be applied successfully without carefully modifying existing continuing healthcare education learning and business models to accommodate the transformative changes. We have described a futuristic model of continuing education for health professionals following a transformation into a digital enterprise. While it is clear that e-learning 2.0 technologies have the power to simplify the process of interactive knowledge creation, management, and dissemination, they need to be deployed based on sound strategies to enhance the educational experience of the participants. A service-oriented approach of technology adoption has been presented, along with a discussion of the need for educational changes to address the manner in which e-learning 2.0 programs can be assessed and credited.

ACKNOWLEDMENT We would like to thank Gayathri Sundar (Software Engineer, Infinity Insurance) for her assistance with creating Figure 1. We thank Dr. Murat Tanik (Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, UAB) for his thoughtful review of the chapter. We also thank Dr. Chittoor V. Ramamoothy (Professor Emeritus, University of California at Berkeley) for his overall guidance with digital enterprises. Finally, we are appreciative of the support and encouragement we received from Jeroan Allison (Assistant Dean and Director, CME, UAB) throughout the duration of this project. We would like to thank Susan Chandler Walker and Laura Gallitz (Administrative Assistants, Division of Preventive Medicine) for proofreading our chapter.


REFERENCES American Academy of Family Physicians. (n.d). Point of Care CME. Retrieved Jan., 2009, from http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/cme/cmea/ cmeapplying/pointofcare.html American Medical Association. (2004). CPPD report: Newsletter for the continuing medical education community. Chicago: The Division of Continuing Physician Professional Development. Andrews, J. E., Pearce, K. A., Ireson, C., & Love, M. M. (2005). Information-seeking behaviors of practitioners in a primary care practice-based research network (PBRN). Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(2), 206–212. Bennett, N. L., Casebeer, L. L., Zheng, S., & Kristofco, R. (2006). Information-seeking behaviors and reflective practice. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(2), 120–127. doi:10.1002/chp.60 Berkenstadt, H., Yusim, Y., Katznelson, R., Ziv, A., Livingstone, D., & Perel, A. (2006). A novel point-of-care information system reduces anaesthesiologists’ errors while managing case scenarios. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 23(3), 239–250. doi:10.1017/S0265021505002255 Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic Web [Electronic Version]. Scientific Amer. Retrieved May from http://www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C7084A9809EC588EF21 Brown, A., Johnston, S., & Kelly, K. (2002). A Rational software white paper: Using serviceoriented architecture and component-based development to build service application [Electronic Version]. developerWorks, 15. Retrieved Nov. from http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/ rational/library/content/03July/2000/2169/2169. pdf

Casebeer, L., Allison, J., & Spettell, C. M. (2002). Designing tailored Web-based instruction to improve practicing physicians’ chlamydial screening rates. Academic Medicine, 77(9), 929. doi:10.1097/00001888-200209000-00032 Casebeer, L., Andolsek, K., Abdolrasulnia, M., Green, J., Weissman, N., & Pryor, E. (2006). Evaluation of an online bioterrorism continuing medical education course. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(2), 137–144. doi:10.1002/chp.62 Casebeer, L., Bennett, N., Kristofco, R., Carillo, A., & Centor, R. (2002). Physician Internet medical information seeking and on-line continuing education use patterns. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 22(1), 33–42. doi:10.1002/chp.1340220105 Channabasavaiah, K., Holley, K., & Tuggle, E. M., Jr. (2003). Migrating to a service-oriented architecture, part 1 [Electronic Version]. developerWorks. Retrieved Dec. from ftp://www6. software.ibm.com/software/developer/library/ ws-migratesoa.pdf Clayton, M. Christensen, & Armstrong, E. G. (1998). Disruptive technologies: A credible threat to leading programs in continuing medical education? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 18(2), 69–80. doi:10.1002/ chp.1340180202 Davis, D., O’Brien, M. A., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (1999). Impact of formal continuing medical education: Do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(9), 867–874. doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.867

323


Doran, D. M., Mylopoulos, J., Kushniruk, A., Nagle, L., Laurie-Shaw, B., & Sidani, S. (2007). Evidence in the palm of your hand: Development of an outcomes-focused knowledge translation intervention. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 4(2), 69–77. doi:10.1111/j.17416787.2007.00084.x DotNetNuke Web Portal System, (n.d.). Retrieved Sept. 25, 2008, from http://www.dotnetnuke. com/ Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. eLearn, 2005(10), 1.

Houston, T. K., & Ford, D. E. (2008). A tailored Internet-delivered intervention for smoking cessation designed to encourage social support and treatment seeking: Usability testing and user tracing. Informatics for Health & Social Care, 33(1), 5–19. Houston, T. K., Funkhouser, E., Allison, J. J., Levine, D. A., Williams, O. D., & Kiefe, C. I. (2007). Multiple measures of provider participation in Internet delivered interventions. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 129(Pt 2), 1401–1405.

Ebner, M. (2007). E-Learning 2.0 = e-Learning 1.0 + Web 2.0? Paper presented at the The Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES).

Houston, T. K., Richman, J. S., Coley, H. L., Ray, M. N., Allison, J. J., & Gilbert, G. H. (2008). Does delayed measurement affect patient reports of provider performance? Implications for performance measurement of medical assistance with tobacco cessation: A Dental PBRN study. BMC Health Services Research, 8, 100. doi:10.1186/14726963-8-100

Fallon, C., & Brown, S. (2003). E-learning standards: A guide to purchasing, developing, and deploying standards-conformant e-learning. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Juric, M. B., Mathew, B., & Sarang, P. (2004). Business Process Execution Language for Web services: BPEL and BPEL4WS. Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing.

Ferretti, S., Mirri, S., Muratori, L. A., Roccetti, M., & Salomoni, P. (2008). E-learning 2.0: you are We-LCoME! Paper presented at the International cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), Beijing, China.

Kamel Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23. doi:10.1111/j.14711842.2007.00701.x

Ebell, M. H. (2003). Point-of-care information that changes practice: It’s closer than we think. Family Medicine, 35(4), 261–263.

Grant, J. (2002). Learning needs assessment: Assessing the need. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 324(7330), 156–159. doi:10.1136/ bmj.324.7330.156 Harrison-Broninski, K. (2005). Human Interactions: The Heart and Soul of Business Process Management. Tampa, FL: Meghan-Kiffer Press. Hart, J. (2008). An introduction to social learning: What is social learning? Retrieved December 2008, from http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/handbook/ sociallearning.html

324

King, W. J., Le Saux, N., Sampson, M., Gaboury, I., Norris, M., & Moher, D. (2007). Effect of point-of-care information on inpatient management of bronchiolitis. BMC Pediatrics, 7, 4. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-7-4 Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Pub. Co. Lin, K. J. (2007). Building Web 2.0. IEEE Computer, 40(5), 101–102.


Martin, D., Burstein, M., & Denker, G. Hobbs, Kagal, L., Lassila, O., et al. (2004). OWL-S 1.0 release. Semantic Web services, from http://www. daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/

Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207–212. doi:10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002

Mazmanian, P. E. (1980). A decision-making approach to needs assessment and objective setting in continuing medical education. Adult Education Quarterly, 31(1), 3–17. doi:10.1177/074171368003100101

Sadasivam, R. S. (2008). Architecture framework for process-personalized composite services: Service-oriented architecture, Web services, business-process engineering, and human interaction management (Paperback ed.). Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller e.K.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Moore, D. E., & Cordes, D. L. (1992). Needs assessment. In A. B. Rosof & W. C. Felch (Eds.), Continuing Medical Education: A Primer (Second ed., pp. 42-51). New York: Praeger Publishers. Newcomer, E., & Lomow, G. (2005). Understanding SOA with Web services. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley. Norman, G. R., Shannon, S. I., & Marrin, M. L. (2004). The need for needs assessment in continuing medical education. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 328(7446), 999–1001. doi:10.1136/ bmj.328.7446.999 O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved Sept. 30, 2008, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/ news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Pasley, J. (2005). How BPEL and SOA are changing Web services development. IEEE Internet Computing, 9(3), 60–67. doi:10.1109/ MIC.2005.56 Ramamoorthy, C. V. (2000). A study of the service industry - functions, features, and control. ICICE Transactions Communications . E (Norwalk, Conn.), 83-B(5), 885–903.

Sadasivam, R. S., & Tanik, M. M. (2008). Composite process-personalization with service-oriented architecture In B. Unhelkar (Ed.), Handbook of Research In Mobile Business: Technical, Methodological And Social Perspectives. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Sadasivam, R. S., Tanik, M. M., & Kristofco, R. (2006, June 25-30). A service-oriented approach for intelligent information integration and retrieval. Paper presented at the Int. Design and Process Technology, San Diego, CA. Toub, D., & Kostic, M. (2008). Collaborative CME using Web 2.0 technologies. Alliance for CME Almanac, 30(8), 1–3. Wall, T. C., Mian, M. A., Ray, M. N., Casebeer, L., Collins, B. C., & Kiefe, C. I. (2005). Improving physician performance through Internet-based interventions: Who will participate? Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(4), e48. doi:10.2196/ jmir.7.4.e48 Willig, J. H., Sadasivam, R. S., & Tanik, M. M. (2008). A conceptual framework for personalized mobile health care. Paper presented at the Int. Design and Process Technology, Taiwan. World Wide Web Consortium. (2004). Web services consortium. Retrieved from http://www. w3c.org

325


Yeh, R. T.-Y., Pearlson, K., & Kozmetsky, G. (2000). Zero time: Providing instant customer value – Every time, all the time. New York: Wiley. Zeiger, R. F. (2005). Toward continuous medical education. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(1), 91–94. doi:10.1111/j.15251497.2004.30049.x Zimitat, C. (2001). Designing effective on-line continuing medical education. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 117–122. doi:10.1080/01421590120036538

Rosof, A. B., & Felch, W. C. (1992). Continuing medical education: a primer (2nd ed.). New York: Praeger. Tanik, M. M. NG, P., & Yeh, R. T. (1997). Electronic enterprise engineering – a 21st century discipline for a new generation of engineers. NJIT Research, 6-11. Wikipedia.org. Disruptive technology. Retrieved Feb., 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Disruptive_technology

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ADDITIONAL READING American Academy of Family Physicians. Point of Care CME. Retrieved Jan., 2009, from http:// www.aafp.org/online/en/home/cme/cmea/cmeapplying/pointofcare.html Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave . Harvard Business Review, ▪▪▪, 13. Harrison-Broninski, K. (2005). Human Interactions: The Heart and Soul of Business Process Management. Tampa, FL: Meghan-Kiffer Press. Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston: Gulf Pub. Co. Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Newcomer, E., & Lomow, G. (2005). Understanding SOA with Web Services. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley. Ramamoorthy, C. V. (2000). A study of the service industry - functions, features, and control. ICICE Transactions Communications . E (Norwalk, Conn.), 83-B(5), 885–903.

326

Adult Learning: A relatively new area of study, the term “Andragogy” initially popularized by the original work of Malcolm S. Knowles. Knowles postulated that adults are autonomous and self-directed learners, practical, goal-oriented, and are guided in their learning by previous life experiences and prior knowledge CME or Continuing Medical Education: Continuing professional development of physicians that is required by each state for keeping up with advances in medicine and with changes in the delivery of care. A variety of CME providers exist, including the American Medical Association, state medical associations, medical specialty societies, most academic medical centers, etc. CME formats vary depending on provider, audience and special needs of the physicians Disruptive Technology or Disruptive innovation: A technological innovation that improves a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by being lower priced or designed for a different set of consumers. The term was first coined by Clayton M. Christensen in his 1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave Digital Enterprises: Enterprises whose operations are predominantly electronic. Can also


be referred to as Service enterprises or electronic enterprises. E-Learning 2.0: The ability to access socially and dynamically, create, and share knowledge in a multidimensional, instantaneous, collaborative, and interactive manner SOA or Service-Oriented-Architecture: A style of design that guides all aspects of creating and using business services throughout the development life cycle. The SOA lifecycle runs from the conception of the business service to its retirement. A service is defined technically as a location on the network that has a machine readable description of the messages it receives and returns.

Human Interaction Processes: Are business processes that are human driven rather than machine driven. Humans participate in and influence the execution of the processes. Keith HarrisonBroiniski describes the unique characteristics of human interaction processes in detail in his book “human interactions: The heart and soul of business process management.” Point-of-Care Access: Situations in which physicians engage in an active search for specific information at the point of the patient encounter when a new condition or a clinical question arises.

327

Section 5

Pedagogical Design and Implementations

329

Chapter 20

Mode Neutral:

The Pedagogy that Bridges Web 2.0 and e-Learning 2.0 Brian Smith Edge Hill University, UK Peter Reed Edge Hill University, UK

ABSTRACT The excitement of Web 2.0 and E-learning 2.0 is upon us. As the use of social networking sites and other Web 2.0 tools continue to increase, pedagogues are considering their place within education. Some passionately share their research findings or experiments of blogging, wikiing, podcasting and other tools, to empower a new wave in learning and teaching. The authors feel part of this new culture and have undertaken their own research with seventy health care students, harnessing collective intelligence to scaffold their learning in anaesthesia. In this chapter, the authors too share our excitement about the 2.0 era with some notes of caution. From an educational perspective, they believe there is a void between Web 2.0 and E-learning 2.0 - in the shape of pedagogy. What academics have traditionally delivered in a classroom setting has been framed around a sound set of principles – the pedagogy. As for e-learning, many of us have adopted classroom pedagogies within the ever-evolving online world and have noted their incompatibilities. Nevertheless, the common aim of using technology in education is intended to support the learner in their studies. Integrating any (new or old) technologies into education requires a pedagogy that is effective in information exchange, yet flexible enough to respond to the various demands placed upon learning and teaching by both the learner, and the technology. This chapter details the authors’ evidence-based pedagogical model – Mode Neutral – showing how contemporary education can promote the use of Web 2.0 tools to harness collective intelligence. They will outline our case study of using (arguably) a Web 1.0 technology, the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) as the single learning space, with Web 2.0 tools integrated to encourage collaborative learning. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch020


Mode Neutral

INTRODUCTION For many of us, there is little doubt that contemporary education has evolved over the last decade or so. Those changes have been brought about due to two reasons: the global investment into technologies that make up our digital society, and pedagogues using technology to enrich the learning experience. As technology continues to surpass itself, a plethora of Internet offsprings become available such as Moodle (Managed Learning Environment), Facebook® and MySpace® (Social Networking tools). To appreciate the ‘value-added’ of using technology in future education, it is worth considering how it became part of the pedagogues’ toolkit. One could argue the starting point of the digital revolution happened when the Internet became commercially available in the early 1990’s. Others might argue the digital revolution is a by-product of the 2nd phase of the Web, a time where anybody can publish material online. What is more difficult to establish is the early adoption of technology within education. The term ‘technology in education’ is a subjective term based on how the teacher views technology within their learning and teaching principles. One pedagogue might see the use of a 35mm slide projector as ‘technology in education’ as opposed to another who might embrace Second Life® to host educational sessions in a 3D gaming world. Moreover, the latest Web 2.0 tools can offer further enhancement of the learners’ experience when deployed within sound learning and teaching principles. To achieve this we should be compliant with their purpose and form before considering their application to the learning experience. That is, do we really understand what they are, how to use them, and the benefits they bring to education? Furthermore, we should consider the nature of the learners, alongside the purpose and the form of technological implementation.

330

The driving forces behind our work stems from emerging issues within Higher Education, and as such has been three-fold: •

•

•

‘Top down’ pressures to recruit more students from different areas, are greater than ever before, as competition for student numbers continues to increase. ‘Bottom up’ forces have considered the student and their experiences of education, with a clear aim to increase flexibility, and develop ownership through personalised learning. We share the opinions of Landsberger (2004, p8), who reminds us that we must acknowledge the individuality of learners, and tailor learning activities to their personal needs. External pressures from employers who expect their staff to possess critical skills to allow them to critically reflect in order to make decisions and work effectively. This is opposed to traditional ‘rote learning’ whereby graduates may be able to recite a textbook of definitions, however incapable of responding to the needs and challenges they face within day-to-day activities. In other words, employers want graduates who are knowledge able, rather than knowledgeable.

With this in mind, our work accentuates learners’ social participation in constructing knowledge and understanding, and has led to the development of a new pedagogy – ‘Mode Neutral’ – that responds to the driving forces mentioned (above), and applicable for learning either in traditional or online formats. This chapter will: 1. 2.

Raise issues surrounding the terminology used in contemporary education. Emphasise the role of technology in harnessing collective intelligence.

Mode Neutral

3.

4. 5.

Introduce the key concepts of Mode Neutral Pedagogy, including a Model for Learning and Teaching Share a Mode Neutral Case Study supported with research evidence Discuss future trends within education

BACKGROUND Learning, E-Learning, the World Wide Web, Web 2.0, Pedagogy & E-Pedagogy: What do they Mean? Traditional learning is often considered as the ability to remember some form of knowledge, imparted through transmission from a ‘chalk and talk’ teacher to the receiving student. Whilst this approach is undoubtedly commonplace within institutions across the globe, and probably nonmore-so than throughout adolescent education, the 20th century has revolutionised the way in which children (and adults) learn. Developmental theorists/psychologists such as Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky (both of the early half of the 20th century) identified that there is more to learning than memorisation, and recognised internal processes within individuals that shape the meaning of information through their world experiences and contexts; a process known as internalisation. Vygotsky introduced the concept of the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’, which relates to the optimum boundaries in which learners should remain during education, or in other words, the gap between what a learner can do alone and for what he/she needs assistance. He also identified the impact of society in the construction of ones knowledge and understanding (Socio-Cultural Theory); theories far removed from the aforementioned rote learning approaches, nonetheless, approaches that are increasingly commonplace in today’s learning and teaching environments. How educationalists attempt to impart knowledge, or encourage collaboration and reflection

to socially construct meaning and understanding, is the science of teaching - Pedagogy. Taken literally, pedagogy is to ‘take the child by the hand to school’, however more commonly interpreted as the art or method of teaching. A number of terms are currently in use relating to learning and teaching through the use of, or assistance from Information and Communication Technologies (ICT); e-Learning, and Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) to name only a few. As we have already highlighted, the degree of application of ICT within education is subjective. Early movements to the use of technology in education seem unconvincing in comparison to the movements within the digital revolution that we learn and teach in today. However, the use of 35mm slide projectors in education allowed data to be stored in a small slide, and yet projected to an eager class in receipt of information through groundbreaking technology. Today, we see and interact with graphical representations (avatars) of our students, who physically reside an immeasurable distance from class, by using virtual worlds (Second Life®) on the World Wide Web, or Web 2.0 to be more precise. What is Web 2.0 – there is lack of clarity as to what Web 2.0 actually is; some argue whether it actually exists whilst others view it as a platform for remixing content in formats that invite the Internet population to connect and converse with one another. It is this ‘invitation’ to collaborate across geographical boundaries that typifies Web 2.0. Downes (2004) believes Web 2.0 originated from LiveJournal™, one of the first social networking sites, and purports how other social networking tools emerged in the form of Weblogs (Blogger™ and Wordpress). This led to his view that Web 2.0 was not a ‘technological revolution’ but a social one. We agree that Web 2.0 has caused a societal change in how the Internet is used, in particular the vast number of users interacting online. However we do not forget that new software tools are the vehicle or platforms for sharing and promoting

331

Mode Neutral

communication in a global society - without them Web 2.0 would not exist. The emergence of Web 2.0 and the participation levels witnessed by people of all ages, has received marked attention from pedagogues wishing to encourage a similar ethos of collaboration and discussion within educational settings. It is the attempts to embed such tools into education (to the distaste of many, one might add), that has spawned the term ‘e-learning 2.0’. Whilst some dislike the term E-learning 2.0, there is agreement in the need to show the difference between previous examples of e-learning (1.0) where content was designed and delivered through an instructional approach. Users of E-learning 1.0 may have digested materials remotely and alone with no dialogue with others, and with no input into the source of information. E-learning 2.0 reshapes the consumption of new knowledge through Wenger’s (1990) view on Communities of Practice. He believes those with a ‘shared domain of interest’ will invite and promote dynamic communicative movements. This will then lead to networking, deeper appreciation of global news and the social construction of knowledge. Where Web 2.0 is the vehicle for online communities to exist, E-learning 2.0 is the philosophy or desire to promote collaborative communication in hope to reflect and construct knowledge, understanding, and meaning. In effect, this causes a global constellation of learners harnessing and benefiting from collective intelligence. Malone et al’s (2006) health-based research study identifies how collective intelligence can lead to better-informed decision-making when treating cancer patients. Similarly, Alexander (2006) considers the pedagogical movement of collaborative and social networking tools in education. He believes the tools promote learning from the Wisdom of Communities; where learners can share information and engage in story telling. No one would disagree that Web 2.0 technologies connect people more by sharing, collaborating and conversing. The rise in demand for those technolo-

332

gies demonstrates this and shows the societal desire to be part of a global community. Implementation of Web 2.0 within education will always be playing ‘catch-up’ with the latest developments, however the ‘movement’ is gathering momentum, as pedagogues increasingly understand benefits of collective intelligence. In line with educational movements towards e-learning 2.0, there is great concern as to how educationalists can effectively deploy these technologies. What seems apparent is that whilst century-old learning theories remain valid, traditional pedagogical approaches will not respond to the needs and demands of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), and as such, the term e-Pedagogy is casually mentioned within academic debate. However, attempts to define e-pedagogy have been problematic, resulting in models that concentrate on the ‘affordance of technology’ in learning rather than a pure e-pedagogy definition and framework (Mayes & Freitas, 2004). Naturally, one could see the links between learning and e-learning, and assume e-pedagogy still focuses upon mechanisms to promote learning by forging links between learning theory, and the flexibility afforded by technology to allow learning to take place. Since the publication of the Leitch Review, UK Higher Education Institutions (HEI) have turned their thoughts to issues of employability, in line with the rise in employer requests for different learning formats. This is in hope to develop the workforce beyond rote learning, by equipping them with critical thinking and problem solving skills. In the eyes of the employer, this is essential for their business to remain competitive in an already saturated market. Careful application of Web 2.0 tools to learning and teaching (e-Learning 2.0) will not only meet consumer demands, but it also addresses learners’ thirst for education and allows them to take more control over their learning. The traditional notion of ‘learning as acquiring knowledge’ is being challenged, placing more emphasis on learning as, (among other things); finding, reviewing, critiquing, challeng-

Mode Neutral

ing, constructing and sharing knowledge. We place significant emphasis on this shift in the nature of learning. It is important to remember here, that ‘elearning’ is primarily about learning, and the ‘e’ acts as a catalyst. In our opinion, we believe we have entered into a new era of learning whereby learners themselves expect to take more responsibility for their construction of knowledge and understanding, and in doing so, capitalise on tools that allow interaction with likeminded individuals to process and find meaning from (internalise) the wealth of information before us. In light of this, and alongside the increasing use of technology within most educational settings, do we need to continue to segregate ‘learning from e-Learning’, ‘e-Learning from e-Learning 2.0’, and ‘face-to-face courses from online courses’? Perhaps the term ‘Learning 2.0’ encapsulates the latest trends within contemporary education, and more appropriate to our approach in learning and teaching - Mode Neutral. Mode Neutral is not a traditional pedagogy. Mode Neutral is not an e-Pedagogy. Instead, Mode Neutral attempts to bridge the gap between the traditional with the ‘e’, as it boldly approaches the notion of blended (hybrid) learning in a manner uncomfortable for some, by shifting control of the blend over to the learner. In doing so, neither a completely traditional, nor a completely epedagogy is likely to suffice, as it must respond to learners’ demand for flexibility across modes of study.

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE The notion of collective intelligence is based on the premise that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of any individual parts. In other words, a group collaborating on a task can benefit from the experience and intelligence of the various individuals taking part, and therefore what the group can manage or achieve collectively,

far outweighs what any of the individuals could have achieved alone. We believe that during group activities where learners are working within optimum boundaries, or their individual Zone of Proximal Development, individuals will benefit from the deeper understanding, knowledge and intelligence of peers, therefore witnessing some degree of Community Scaffolding. As educationalists subscribing to Social Constructivist theories for learning and teaching, we are particularly interested in this Community Scaffolding, as well as the interaction within a group of learners, and how it can benefit the personal and professional development of each individual. Triggering debate amongst a group, perhaps through anchored instruction, can provide opportunity for learners to share thoughts, experiences and knowledge. More importantly, group discussions benefiting from collective intelligence provides individuals opportunity for reflection, a critical element of social constructivist theories. These experiences can then lead to ‘Transformative Learning’ - the process where original beliefs and perspectives are altered through reflection upon learning experiences, discussions and activities. Today, the opportunity for collective intelligence is greater than ever before, as it can be harnessed through the many affordances of technology. The geographical barriers that have always prevented physical attendance can never be removed. Instead, technology has bridged the divide to allow communication and collaboration 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Learners need not rely on transport mechanisms to attend physical sessions. The power of the Internet, and the intelligent deployment of tools cater for anytime, anyplace education that provides the ultimate opportunity to harness collective intelligence. The notion of collective intelligence is not without it critics or caveats. In the UK, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) wonders if the actual collaboration amongst learners is intelligent. This is valid point, and one that is

333

Mode Neutral

somewhat addressed later in the chapter, through considering the contingent role of the teacher.

MODE NEUTRAL PEDAGOGY Mode Neutral Pedagogy is a method that allows students to progress across modes of delivery (face-to-face, online & blended) at any point throughout their study when their preferences, requirements, personal and professional commitments demand, without compromising their learning (Smith, Reed & Jones, 2008). This definition highlights the direct intention to offer greater flexibility for learners, and addresses concerns around control in traditional blended approaches to learning and teaching. Typically, pedagogues have insisted on physical attendance at pre-planned lectures, with some content (usually activities) available online for learners to explore or interact with before the next lecture. To us, blended learning means something completely different. Our take on blended learning allows participants to take ownership for their own ‘blend’, which might be impacted upon by personal or professional commitments. In other words, learners can decide which sessions they attend in the physical location and which they attend online. This flexibility is afforded by recognising the importance of an equal Student Experience (SE) regardless of the mode of study, and is made possible through consideration of three key dimensions within a Learning and Teaching formula; Role of the Teacher (RT), Curriculum/Instructional Design (CD), and mechanisms in place to allow Communication for Learning (CL).

Although Figure 1 shows the formula as being two dimensional, each of the dimensions can vary in depth according to pedagogues’ consideration for various sub-factors, or conditions. For example, the role of the teacher (or indeed their presence in online discussion) can be greater or lesser in any given context, as can the considerations for curriculum design, and the mechanisms in place to allow for communication for learning. In essence, the depth of each of the dimensions will initially be generative of consideration for Purpose (activity/unit/module), Audience (specific nature of learners) and (less so) Form (of technology used), introduced by Schofield (1996). As educators are generally expected to be flexible and respond to the needs of learners, the depth of any dimension may vary when the learning space is ‘live’. For example, in the early stages of online learning, learners may require an active and controlling teacher in order for reassurance and progression, whereas in later stages, learners may develop and take more control for learning (a point detailed later). The Model for Learning and Teaching (Figure 2) represents our three dimensions (RT, CD & CL) contributing to the overall student experience. Figure 3 represents a practical application of specific conditions within the model i.e. the teacher may; play a facilitative role in online discussion, considered the chunking of content and signposting of materials, and triggered debate through anchored instruction, thus providing opportunity for communication for learning. The following three sections explore the dimensions and some subsequent conditions. N.B. This is not an exhaustive list of conditions, and readers will no doubt consider elements of their own practice relevant to the dimensions.

SE = RT + CD + CL The Role of the Teacher (RT) In essence, the Student Experience is dependent upon, and a direct result from the consideration of the three dimensions. Figure 1 shows the relationship graphically.

334

In line with discussions around the shift in nature of learning per se, is the shift in nature of the Teacher. Readers will undoubtedly relate to their

Mode Neutral

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the formula for Learning and Teaching. (©2008, Eurodl. Used with permission.)

Figure 2. Model for Learning and Teaching. (©2008, e-Learning. Used with permission.)

experiences of a teacher/teacher who would take full control for the session, often ‘lecturing’ with little input from the audience. However in Social Constructivist environments, the unique nature of each leaner is recognised, placing them at the centre of the learning experience. As such, the role of the Teacher is paramount if ownership for learning and opportunity for discussion and collaboration is to be adopted. Adhering to this

notion, a number of pedagogues have detailed the processes or actions required from Teachers, namely Wood and Wood’s (1996) notion of the Contingent Teacher and Salmon’s (2000) 5-Stage Model of e-Mentoring. Both ‘theories’ propose ‘ideal’ teacher behaviour in constructivist environments. The contingent teacher suggests that the teacher will vary his input and control of the

335

Mode Neutral

Figure 3. Practical Model for Learning and Teaching, considering specific conditions. (©2008, eLearning. Used with permission.)

group according to their ‘performance’. As such, when learners become challenged or confused, the teacher will scaffold learners, and when the group are interacting effectively and on task, the teacher plays a ‘backseat’ role. The 5-stage model is based on a similar premise suggesting the teacher’s role will vary from a very active and supportive role in the early stages, through to a less active, facilitative role in later stages. These theories hold true in both traditional face-to-face and online environments. It could be argued that this facilitative role in online environments is more difficult as it is much easier to hijack a conversation and ‘take control’, or alternatively provide an answer that brings closure to an online discussion. However, student ownership in these environments is critical for social constructivism. This ‘contingent’ role played by the teacher could address the JISC’s concerns around collective intelligence (detailed earlier). We share the

336

opinion that intelligent discussion and progress does not necessarily occur by merely bringing a group together. Instead, it occurs when the teacher provides conditions to foster and encourage intelligence in the collective forum, by ensuring effective interaction between a multitude of possibilities (Moore 1989, Sackville 2002) e.g.: Learner - learner, Learner - materials, Learner - technology, Learner - teachers. In Mode Neutral, the varying role of the teacher throughout the course of learning in response to learners and their requirements is the key condition for this dimension. This behaviour promotes communication and intimacy between learners, and encourages a shift in ownership for learning(Locus of control) so that learners become responsible for seeking, clarifying, selecting, discussing and reflecting upon the multitude of information put before them.

Mode Neutral

Curriculum/Instructional Design (CD) Although curriculum design can be considered a separate entity to instructional design, the elements are undoubtedly linked when considering online course development. Whilst some challenge the appropriateness of ‘instructional design’ to constructivist settings (Reed, Smith & Sherratt 2008), we must acknowledge the inherent nature of linearity within a Virtual Learning Environment, which is unavoidable. However, it might help course designers to consider designing for social construction opposed to instruction, and therefore attempt to represent the encouragement for student ownership within the genetic makeup (DNA) of online environments. There are a number of basic conditions within this dimension that can impact upon learning and teaching, and importantly, support the key aims of Mode Neutral: The challenge is in designing a programme structure that allows the learner to freely migrate from one mode of delivery to another, and back again, without compromising the learning expe-

rience. A further challenge is to create a single environment in which all learners have a single membership or sense of belonging; in line with Wenger’s notion of Communities of Practice (1998), whereby groups of like-minded people can shape and assist in each others construction of knowledge and understanding relating to a specific domain. This notion is extended across delivery modes as all participants, regardless of the way in which they interact with module content, do so in a single community of practice. (Smith, Reed & Jones, 2008).

Chunking Much work around skill acquisition (Vygotsky) emphasises the need to break down information into ‘bite size’ units (chunking), which allow learners to efficiently process information and avoid the ‘bottleneck’ effect. When applying this notion to course development, one might naturally divide a course/module into a series of units of learning.

Figure 4. Screen dump of a Mode Neutral Course

337

Mode Neutral

Furthermore, when developing the online environment, this chunking will provide the key structures for the ‘study’ elements. However, online environments should also have certain ‘support’ elements/structures in place to ensure this mode of study is equal to traditional modes. For example, face-to-face students would expect a ‘welcome’ upon beginning a course. They would also expect information about requirements for the course and details regarding assignments. Therefore, it is vital that these elements are visible within the online environment. As such, a Mode Neutral template contains dedicated areas for ‘Welcome & Staff Information’, ‘Module Details’, ‘Module Content & Study Materials’, ‘Other Learning Resources’, ‘Assignment Guidelines’, and ‘Communication Tools’. The ‘chunked’ units of learning reside within ‘Module Content & Study Materials’. A consistent approach must be taken throughout each of the units, with due consideration for the provision of opportunity for communication and reflection, which could possibly be achieved through anchored instruction - the notion of embedding learning experiences within real work environments. Throughout units, designers may place ‘stop and think’ activities to encourage reflection. At the end of each unit of learning, designers may place an ‘activity’ that might require learners to read a journal article or consider current working practices, thus triggering interaction and debate leading to continuous learning. Although discussions take place in two arenas (Classroom and Online), the teacher has the opportunity bridge that gap by reading online posts within the physical location as part of the class discussions. Equally, each taught session could be summarized and posted online to enhance the online communication. This use of one learning space encourages common membership of the whole group, to which those who attend physical sessions become

338

inquisitive, gain confidence and in their on time, explore the learning space. Breaking down courses/modules in this manner provides the usability to encourage learners to exercise their freedom to roam; a critical element within Web 2.0, and social networking in particular.

The Pool of Reflection Another condition within Curriculum/Instructional Design in Mode Neutral is the time releasing of units of learning (chunks) in attempt to give pace and opportunities for critical reflection, as well as to assist in promoting student ownership of learning. A typical unit can be built upon a particular theme, sometimes including recurring elements and a related activity, specific to the content. Typically, this activity would also instigate collaborative discussion amongst learners across delivery modes, encouraging reflection. This aligns with Moon’s view (2005) of reflection for learning, based on the premise that “reflection does not necessarily just happen but that conditions can be structured to encourage it to happen.” (p165). This design encourages the realisation and development of a ‘Pool of Reflection’ (figure 5), whereby a learner’s Pool may be initially limited due to the lack of contextual knowledge and understanding. Its development is generative of engagement with module content, activities and collaborative discussion and naturally therefore, will develop and become ‘deeper’ throughout the course of study as further opportunities for engagement become available. Students are then likely to ‘dip into’ their Pool of Reflection to inform and construct academic assignments for submission. This notion works to nurture students into the concept of Communication for Learning, a point that will be expanded further (Smith, Reed & Jones, 2008).

Mode Neutral

Figure 5. Chunked units of learning contributing to a Pool of Reflection (©2008, Eurodl. Used with permission.)

Learning 2.0 As mentioned earlier, contemporary education must, and to some extent is, responding to both; the needs of learners and the affordances of technology, hence the evolving vocabulary within education i.e. Web 2.0, e-Learning, e-Learning 2.0, etc. When subscribed to Social Constructivist theories, teachers must look at ways to replace traditional materials that would historically be ‘delivered’ to learners. This is true for classroom learners as well as those in the online environment - Text based information is not enough! Instead, application of Web 2.0 tools alongside multimedia can enrich learning through encouraging interaction with content, technology, teachers, peers, and the professional community they belong to (Moore 1989; Sackville 2002; Gregory 2003).

Single Community of Practice Traditionally, online versions of a particular course are seen separate to the face-to-face version. Key

to Mode Neutral is the unification of these separate courses, creating a single Community of Practice. In doing so, the various modes of study must be considered as a single entity from the outset. Where courses have, for example, two hundred participants, allowing students to access units according to their own free will creates a true constructive environment. However, the majority of courses within the UK Higher Education system do not boast such large numbers, and therefore, access to units at random will not provide enough participants for effective social learning. Commonly therefore, learners progress through units of learning according to the same schedule. Whilst this initially comes across as a drawback, the single Community of Practice is greatly strengthened as all learners progress in-sync, providing much greater opportunity for Communication for Learning. Therefore, constructivist settings (whether face-to-face, online, or a blend of both) must recognise the need to establish a single community of practice if learn-

339

Mode Neutral

ers are to engage in collaborative and collective intelligence. To summarise, the key conditions within the curriculum/instructional design dimension for Mode Neutral include, the chunking of contentto assist information processing, opportunity to develop a pool of reflection, utilising Web 2.0/e-learning 2.0, and promoting a single community of practice between all learners across study modes.

Communication for Learning (CL) Before the introduction of the Internet, conversing with one another in society occurred in meeting places where verbal and tonal gestures were exchanged. This also occurred in educational settings. Today, the meaning of conversation has widened to include forms of communication that are associated with digital technologies. In Higher Education (HE), students adopt technologies to assist with distance communication between themselves, their teacher and peers (Breen, Lindsay, Jenkins & Smith, 2001). Technologies such as, text messaging, instant messaging clients, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and web cameras provide a menu of different ways learners can communicate. Offering this varied diet of communication technologies assist the learner in accepting the ownership and control of their learning. Exercising their preferred method of communicating alongside the use of the VLE as the learning space not only enriches their learning experience but the collective experience for all. As Mode Neutral is aligned with Social Constructivist learning and teaching, the teacher encourages communication to motivate learners to collaborate, debate and challenge one another’s understanding about the subject matter. Communication for learning occurs when the learner actively deepens their thinking and understanding by reflecting, constructing and re-constructing their thoughts. It is equally important that the

340

design of the learning space is also conducive for communication. A good design will reinforce Wenger’s (1998) Community of Practice where communication can continue irrespective of any learner’s migration from one mode to another. Due to the use of the VLE as the classroom whiteboard and the collective learning space, the synchronous and asynchronous technologies facilitate communication across the modal boundaries. Creating a common learning space between all learners provides an opportunity for sharing intelligence for broadening discussions perhaps raised in the classroom environment. Moreover, as the VLE is available for twenty-four hours a day, learners are free to access and re-access the space as often as they wish. This freedom provides greater flexibility for the learners to immerse themselves in the subject matter beyond the traditional time allocated to any programme of study. We recognize the absence of communication will cause undesirable effects on the learning experience; therefore, all learners should be made aware of the importance of using both synchronous and asynchronous communication for learning. The key conditions within the communication for learning dimension for Mode Neutral include, the us of Anchored instruction for triggering communication and debate beyond what can be perceived as traditional learning time. We also see the varying role of the teacher to promote behaviour-modelling and intelligent dialogue among learners. That is to say, if the teacher demonstrates good practice then it is likely the learner will mimic their behaviour and be motivated to be part of the intelligent discussions, debates and scaffolding of knowledge. As a method, Mode Neutral can be adopted to alter learning and teaching approaches in order to increase the learning experience. The development of the method has been strongly driven by Social Constructivist theories and as such, the latter of the three dimensions is critical, however Mode Neutral is not limited to such approaches.

Mode Neutral

The following Case Study will identify the specifics of a ‘Mode Neutral Cohort’.

CASE STUDY Edge Hill University is a Higher Education Institution (HEI) in the heart of Ormskirk, Lancashire, about ten miles from the North-West coastline of Southport, UK. The University offers an extensive range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses to over 14,000 students in health, education, teacher training, geography, life sciences, drama and much more. The University has a recognised Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL), awarded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). Between 2007 – 2008, seventy undergraduate students took part in a research project as they studied health subjects in Anaesthesia and Recovery (Post anaesthetic care). They became the participants of two thirty week-long modules where six students studied both modules (anaesthesia and recovery) simultaneously. The anaesthesia module had four males and thirty-one females. In the recovery module, there were thirty-five students, including three males. The students were qualified and registered professionals working in operating theatres from different geographical UK locations. Ten students (five in anaesthesia and five in recovery) accessed the modules remotely as the geographical distance was greater than a hundred miles, or for some other reason unable to travel to class. The course team designing the modules chose Mode Neutral as their preferred pedagogy, allowing them to offer the same course of learning for those working remotely as to those who attended fortnightly-planned physical sessions. On enrolment, a diagnosis of each student’s learning style was undertaken and mapped against the most suitable mode – online, blended or classroom. As students were given autonomy for their

learning, they were free to roam from one mode to another (if they wished to). Although the VLE (WebCT™) provided elements of instructional design, we approached its development with a strong focus on constructivism. As such, it was adopted as a framework to harness collective intelligence through elements of a social networking space. Classroom and online students were able to congregate and communicate both synchronously and asynchronously through instant messaging or discussion boards, respectively (discussion boards were renamed as the ‘coffee room’. All students had the choice to meet in real-time at the fortnightly scheduled sessions or through the VLE at any point convenient to themselves. Selected sessions i.e. visiting speakers were recorded and embedded into the VLE for all to (re)visit. In the physical sessions, the VLE was purposely used as the focal point to stimulate intelligent dialogue between those present and those online. The intent of using the VLE in this way was to mimic the traditional use of a whiteboard and to promote the learning (and social) space beyond the classroom. Student support was available in several ways. Faculty Learning Technologists provided technical support from the Universities CETL, referred to as SOLSTICE (Supporting Online Learning for Students using Technology, for Information and Communication in their Education). The service was available between 8.00am and 6.00pm GMT +0.00 from Monday to Friday. Other student helpdesks were available for extended hours (physical and by telephone) for routine troubleshooting (access problems etc). Students were made aware that on a Tuesday and Thursday between 8.30am and 5.30pm a teacher would be online while their counterpart was facilitating a session in the physical environment. Teacher contact was available through four methods, physical, telephone, email and private synchronous communication (chat).

341

Mode Neutral

In clinical practice, each student was allocated a qualified mentor and specialist in anaesthesia and/or recovery to work with and assess their competencies. Mentor access to the VLE was made available through the student when they wished to explore areas of development and discourse about related subjects.

LEARNING EXPERIENCE For many decades, the pedagogue at the front of the classroom has caused imbalances in teacherlearner relationships simply by their presence and label as the ‘expert’. Learners have listened intently to every word in the instructional delivery. Today, there are changes in the pedagogue’s performance based upon their adopted pedagogical style. Some have followed Mayes and de Freitas (2004) framework by choosing associative, cognitive constructivist, social constructivist and situated learning theories. As we have mentioned earlier, social constructivism plays a significant role within Mode Neutral and follows the assertions that the learner will actively construct their knowledge and understanding. In our case study, the students felt they were able to exercise a degree of flexibility to their studies. This was partly because there was no minimum attendance policy within the learning space. Students were also free to alter the study mode and could attend physical sessions (if not geographically challenged). Over the thirty weeks, we witnessed the presence of Rotter’s (1954) notion of Locus of control, where students balanced their studying with work and life commitments. This presented itself in a form of negotiated ‘rendezvous’ points in the learning space at convenient times with their peers. This flexibility to juggle work and life commitments is fundamental to Mode Neutral. At the beginning of the programme, some students believed a social constructivist approach to their learning was a radical change compared with their secondary, Further and Higher Education

342

experiences. However, they became accustomed to their new experience of talking freely in the learning space, meaning they could embrace the benefits of collective intelligence. Initially, the majority of students were hesitant in talking freely within the classroom setting, causing the teacher to be highly involved in knowledge transfer and in fostering the conditions for open discussion. In week two of the programme, there was a rise in the number of students taking part in the discussions. Approximately nine students in this week were instigators of conversation between learnerlearners thus reducing the teacher involvement. The discourse continued further as the pedagogue actively answered online discussions as part of the taught session. Those who attended the classroom used the online postings to stimulate the group discussion by offering their thoughts online either as part of the session objectives or post-taught time. The pedagogue played a significant part in maintaining this potential learning experience by being visible within the learning space, but without dominating. This change in behaviour of both learners and teachers from the early stages of the course through to the end, typify the stages present in Salmon’s 5 Stage Model for e-Mentoring (detailed below). A phenomenon occurred where ‘clusters’ of smaller groups formed on specific discussions that remained opened for all to contribute yet only a select few participated. Where other clusters emerged for different discussions the membership of that cluster was not the same. The students exercised their locus of control and dynamically moved in and out of the clusters keeping the larger group identity intact. One aspect we have considered but not investigated is whether this dynamic movement causes acceptance of ‘lurking’ within the group. No member of the group commented on the non-participation of others. There was a general acceptance present allowing every student to exercise his or her rights to contribute or not.

Mode Neutral

A point to note - as our case study spanned over two semesters, a scheduled change was planned for our programme where a new pedagogue would lead the second semester. Their pedagogical style was more in step with instructivist learning and teaching than social constructivism. The impact this had on the learning experience was significant showing a decline in the student self-governing, motivating, exploring, and acquiring knowledge. We attribute the decline to previous conditioning of students to social constructivism in the first semester, causing tensions and uncertainty in their expectations of the new pedagogue. From the semi-structured interviews, several learners felt disappointed with the new approach to their learning experience, as they could not reconcile the old and the new – they had become accustomed to having the freedom of sharing, discussing, and having the pedagogue as a co-learner so they could fully capitalise on the collective intelligence of the cohort.

The Learner and Salmon’s Five-Stage Model Salmon (2000) introduced the five stages of ementoring, whereby participants (learners and teachers) progress from insecure and needy of the teacher, to being autonomous and responsible for their own learning. We found the five stages to be inherent within our learning space, with many learners building their confidence and ability to engage with one another, not only online but in the physical setting too. Although Salmon describes the first three stages as being lengthy, where there is a high level of teacher involvement to encourage sharing of information and discussion, we found the first four stages occurring rapidly, supported by an equal amount of teacher involvement. Collaborative discussion (stage four) occurred early in the third week of the programme. We believe this happened by carefully constructively align-

ing the activities to create discussion. The topics for each activity were chosen for their ability to stimulate opinions that can then be substantiated by drawing on evidence. The activities were not only stand-alone and contained within each ‘chunk’, they also provided a continuous link to further discussions as time elapsed and students engaged with other activities. Jonassen (2000) would suggest this is a form of activity theory where seemingly separate activities for each chunk have a planned place within the activity system. Although activity theory is concerned not with the learner but the greater system deployed, Mode Neutral uses aspects of the activity system and maintains the focus on individual learning experience. As each week lapsed, we witnessed students revisiting earlier discussions and adding further contributions. Returning to enrich the dialogue, for some, was purposeful as they learnt more, but others made a conscious effort to support their peers. The latter aligns itself with Salmon’s stage five, where participants explore how they can use the technology to gain more benefits for them to achieve their personal goals. It may also develop a sixth stage where learners recognise that helping others will give them the opportunity to confirm or clarify their own knowledge. We refer to this stage as peer mentoring where others who are confident in their learning are willing to help others. Although Salmon’s model refers to e-mentoring, we have concluded from our data that peer-mentoring is not exclusive to online learning; the same occurs in the physical setting. Therefore, Salmon’s five-stage model is applicable within any learning space where there is some form of purposeful collaborative discussion. The pedagogue’s style in a traditional classroom setting therefore, might focus to encourage discourse. We refer to this aspect of peer mentoring, collective intelligence, and collaboration, as Communication for learning.

343

Mode Neutral

LEARNING SPACE - THE VLE In this case study, Mode Neutral uses the VLE as a learning space rather than a platform for instructional information giving. The curriculum design was crafted in such a way that it fostered sharing and dialogue between learner-learner, learner-materials, learner-technology, and learnerteacher. This is somewhat a different use of a VLE, as many have claimed that a VLE cannot promote collective intelligence due to the absence of pedagogical principles. In response to the JISC (2005) study of learning environments to support e-learning, the Association for Learning Technology ([ALT] 2006) stated, “A VLE is not necessarily pedagogically orientated. VLEs now play a smaller part in e-learning than previously.” (pp.6) We agree entirely with this statement, as the VLE is inherently instructional in nature. This therefore creates some form of teacher responsibility to transform the environment in order to encourage a degree of social networking, with ambitions to harness collective intelligence. From our case study, we were able to conclude that combining a suitable pedagogy with social constructivist approaches and limited forms of instructional design, can achieve e-learning 2.0 experiences in a VLE. Therefore, it may not be the VLE that is not pedagogically orientated; it may simply be how the pedagogical principles are applied to the learning experience. The VLE is simply another tool, albeit in Web 1.0 format that may still have a place in promoting collective intelligence either as an active vehicle for online discussion, or perhaps as an adjunct to blended learning. Irrespective of how the VLE is used by the pedagogue, they will have to ensure they correctly align the use of the VLE towards the intended outcomes or anticipated learning experience. Our approach to using the VLE to harness collective intelligence is somewhat different to many others, where pedagogues opt to use the VLE as accompaniment to the face-to-face teaching (Browne & Jenkins 2003). They may have a clear rationale

344

for using the VLE, perhaps as a digital repository of teaching material, contacting the students in practice; conclusion of a face-to-face session or in hope students will be motivated to use the discussion tools. One problem here is the disaggregated learning experience that occurs when two learning environments (VLE and physical) are used without a clear pedagogy and articulation of their purpose to the students. This confuses the student about whether it is optional or a compulsory element to the programme. Potentially, they could arrive at different perceptions from the teacher’s, regarding what the VLE is meant to do, or how they should be using it or even whether it adds any value to their learning. Timmis (2004) demonstrates this in their research where the teacher’s view on how the students were engaging with the VLE. They saw a positive movement towards discourse and collaboration of students in the VLE’s discussion boards. In contrast, the student’s viewed the discussion as a way merely to maintain contact while out on placement and not necessarily for deeper thinking about the subject matter.

LEARNER COMMUNICATION One of the points that came out of the study was ‘how’ and ‘when’ the students communicated within the virtual learning environment. The graph below shows the time of day students were communicating with one another. The fallow period where no activity took place was between 1.30am and 7.40am. The same frequency applied to all days of the week, during the forty-week study period. Given these learners were qualified Health Care Professionals working full time, they were expected to work during different times of the day and across the seven-day week. Therefore, it was difficult to establish if they were contributing during their own social time or part of their working day. What is clear is how flexibility can

Mode Neutral

Figure 6. Plotting of ‘coffee room’ postings for one month on a 24 hour clock

Figure 7. Frequency of ‘coffee room’ postings on a weekly basis in one calendar month

encourage motivation and promote social contact beyond the traditional time for learning. We recognise that using threads of situated learning within the social element of Mode Neutral provides a setting (whether online or in the physical location) where learning can transpire from the social distribution of knowledge. Inviting discourse from all learners through the VLE places knowledge at the centre of the shared space. The valued added to the learning experience is one where remote learners can collaborate with classroom learners and mutually benefit from the shared experience or collective intelligence. In our

case study, we saw the benefits of Anchored Instruction where activities were placed within each unit of learning, causing learning to take place in different but appropriate settings (clinical). Like other research studies, we found discussion within the physical environment developed the learners’ reasoning and analytical skills. Learners also display conviction of how they constructed their view by defending it when challenged. Our case study identified instances of transformative learning, where views and opinions changed beyond the classroom as they continued to gather information, and reflect on both learning experi-

345

Mode Neutral

ences and clinical practice. This shift was seen through the learners’ engagement of the content and activities online. On average, asynchronous discussion topics contained around 130 postings (100-200 words of critical analysis and reflection) within each unit of learning. We also considered the student’s decorum and found that there was only one occasion where the netiquette rules of posting comments in the ‘coffee room’ required teacher intervention. Netiquette rules were available within the VLE from the onset of the programme and were viewed by thirty-seven students. The point where the teacher reinforced the rules was when one student made a derogatory comment about colleagues in their hospital. The lesson learnt here was how the teacher reinforced the professional obligations of them as a health professional such as confidentiality and their duty of care. The teacher’s approach was not one of commanding or exercising a degree of power, instead they encouraged the student to draw out the positive aspects to the situation they describe and invite others to comment on professional boundaries when they might be involved in a similar situation.

CASE STUDY CONDITIONS Within the case study, a number of conditions were identified across the three dimensions (with some overlap): •

•

346

Role of the Teacher: varying role of the teacher to promote intimacy between learners, allows behaviour modelling, and shifting the locus of control and ownership of learning. Curriculum/Instructional Design: Flexibility to roam produced by chunking of content and opportunities to develop a Pool of reflection. Utilised Web2.0/eLearning 2.0 to engage learners and encourage a single Community of Practice.

•

Communication for Learning: Anchored instruction triggering communication and debate. The varying role of the teacher to promote behaviour-modelling and intelligent dialogue among learners.

We can see some similarities between the above conditions with what Web 2.0 technology achieves. The conditions showing the learners’ desire to obtain the autonomy to their learning by being in possession of the locus of control, has a correlation to the notion of Web 2.0 for sharing with others. This is typified in tools such as Flickr®, where one user can share their photographs with their selected friends. The technology also invites others to make comment on the images, which seems desirable by many users. Receiving feedback may invite discussion or simply reinforce the friendship as well as meeting personal needs. Similarly, in the case study, the students indicated they preferred to be in control of their learning experience. This meant that students could exercise an acceptable amount of time for reflection rather than appearing to be lurking and not contributing. When they offered their reflexivity, they would do so in a manner that engaged and strengthened the dialogue. On this point alone, it may be concluded this encouraged the activities to have a life beyond the ‘chunk’ and have a collective impact across the programme. Students confess to waiting and revisiting the VLE on numerous occasions after posting in the ‘coffee room, to see if someone has replied and perhaps offered positive feedback on their contribution. The eagerness to view a response was categorised as a desire to learn from others and to calibrate their understanding of the subject matter. If a return posting occurred, then students look to build their alliances and relationships with those who had responded. This led to levels of intimacy being created among the students resulting in clusters forming.

Mode Neutral

FUTURE TRENDS Throughout this chapter, we have raised a number of issues, discussions and challenges that we have come across throughout our research and practice. This section hopes to address a few of these in relation to their future in education.

A Future for the VLE There is many a discussion around the need for a VLE within HE, with as many fans as there are critics. In our experience, the critics of VLEs are the adventurous academics who constantly seek to improve their learning and teaching, and seek to maximise the efficiency of the technology at their disposal (‘champions of e-learning’). We share some similar beliefs, in that the VLE cannot provide all of the tools needed to cater for the multitude of demands and requirements enforced by both learners and teachers. Moreover, why should it, given that many sought after solutions can be freely capitalised upon through the power of the Web. However, it must also be said that the VLE does have some positive aspects. User authentication provides security for learners and teachers alike, and is a pre-requisite for e-assessment technologies. The power of control is also a comfort for the academic, which caters for monitoring of student access etc. Perhaps the biggest benefit is that academics and developers can ‘plug in’ various tools to provide a ‘one-stop shop’ for learners, to cater for the majority of their needs and wishes. The security afforded by the VLE is a particular strength that appeals to Information Technology managers, who understandably question the dangers of hosting an institution’s teaching materials on a free, web-based service that at any point, could be turned off, sold, or suddenly charge for its services. For this reason, and despite ‘champions’ continuing to ‘explore’, we believe institutions will continue to resist moving away from the VLE,

until the myriad of services develop further and suggest more secure and reliable solutions.

Locus of Control As much of our work suggests, we struggle with the traditional concept of blended (hybrid) learning. The majority of self-acclaimed blended courses are strongly teacher-controlled, with the use of technology (e-learning) as separate to the main content, and at times, with separate aims and objectives. Since the introduction of technology in education, many enthusiasts have marvelled at the endless possibilities afforded through technology, along with the flexibility it can bring to learning and teaching. However, whilst the teacher dictates what, where, and when learners study, the real idea of flexibility is somewhat forgotten. In order for a course to be flexible for learners, then certain decisions must be available for those learners to make, such as how and where they will study. We believe as contemporary education continues to develop, pedagogues will come to see the benefits of shifting this locus of control.

Constructivist Teachering Whilst the arrival of a new teacher to a learning environment will inevitably cause some disruptions, we feel that the impact detailed in the case study was so great due to the teacher’s understanding of Social Constructivism itself. Perhaps the position of being a teacher/teacher/lecturer does not automatically qualify one for facilitating an environment, whereby much of the control and responsibility rests with the learner, and the role of the teacher shifts to supporting and facilitating learner interaction. This shift in locus of control can be uneasy for teachers. Given employer demands for graduates who are knowledge able, rather than knowledgeable, and government shifts to recognise the benefits of Social Constructivism, we question the validity of teacher-training

347

Mode Neutral

structures to adequately output graduate teachers, who can embrace the teaching styles needed to meet demands. As such, we feel it is imperative that teacher-training structures recognise the demands upon contemporary education, and empower our future teachers will the skills and awareness that will allow learners to benefit from collective intelligence. Whilst this chapter details the theory behind our approaches in Mode Neutral, we do not suggest the future of education should blindingly follow and completely shift in its approach. Instead, we do suggest educators shift in their mode of thinking. To cater for learner flexibility, we must relinquish the control that keeps us within our comfort zones. Our final thoughts, to which we intend to investigate, include: •

•

•

Are there more conditions to be uncovered? Will they vary from one group of learners to another? A social constructivist learning experience is not dependent upon an educational maturity of the learner, but more so dependent upon the learning context. We believe that a single learning space can offer the conditions similar to children playing, for learning to occur from the collective group of participants. The Mode Neutral Case Study details the learning experience of a cohort of learners mad up largely of females. Would a malestrong cohort produce different results?

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we have conceptualised our thinking of learning and teaching, and drawn your attention to Mode Neutral, which addresses the void between Web 2.0 technologies and e-

348

learning 2.0. We acknowledge the culture that Web 2.0 has created through social networking and engagement, and we whole heartily embrace the tools under the overarching auspices of Mode Neutral to encourage learning 2.0 (for all learners irrespective of mode) to take place. Mode Neutral affords the pedagogue/designer to create a learning space using the ‘e’ as a catalyst for collective intelligence. Our case study of seventy students studying anaesthesia illustrates how learners can be creative, interactive and composers of knowledge and understanding in a more flexible way. We have also learnt that Mode Neutral actively shifts the locus of control to the learner as they attempt to balance their work, study and social life. This balancing has undoubtedly been catered for by allowing learners to move from the real space to the virtual, and conversely, within a single common learning space. Like any educational development, Mode Neutral is not trouble-free. As we have shown in our case study, changing pedagogical styles during a programme has an impact on the learners’ motivation, expectations, and potential end achievements. We experimented with two pedagogues, one with a social constructivist approach and the other with an instructional style. When the change of pedagogue emerged, we witnessed a decline in ‘interaction’. The data collected from this event demonstrated there were several conditions associated to the learning experience. Some of those included intimacy and building of relationships to who has control of the learning experience. Finally, we offer Mode Neutral as a pedagogy that promotes the use of Web 2.0 tools to harness collective intelligence. We hope our case study has given you an insight into how Mode Neutral ‘s Model for Learning and Teaching, and its three dimensions and conditions bridge the void between Web 2.0 and E-learning 2.0.

Mode Neutral

REFERENCES Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for learning and teaching? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32–44. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ EDUCAUSE+Review/Web20ANewWaveofInnovation/40615 Association for Learning Technology. (2006). Response to the JISC Consultation on a ‘Study of Environments to Support e-Learning’. Association for Learning Technology (ALT). Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ media/documents/programmes/buildmlehefe/ consultationfinalalt.pdf Breen, R., Lindsay, R., Jenkins, A., & Smith, P. (2001). The role of information and communications technologies in a university learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), S95–S114. doi:10.1080/03075070120043206 Browne, T., & Jenkins, M. (2003). VLE surveys: a longitudinal persepective between March 2001 and March 2003 in HE in the UK. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA). Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http:// www.ucisa.ac.uk/groups/tlig/~/media/groups/tlig/ vle_surveys/vle_survey_2005.ashx Downes, S. (2004). E-learning2.0. Elearning magazine. Retrieved November 24, 2008, http:// elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&ar ticle=29-1 Gregory, V. L. (2003). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of Web-based distance education. New Library World, 104(1193), 426–431. doi:10.1108/03074800310504366 Joint Information Systems Committee. (2005). Study of environments to support e-learning in UK further and higher education: A supporting study for the Joint Information Systems Committee. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ media/documents/programmes/buildmlehefe/ elearning_survey_2005.pdf

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Student-Centred Learning Environments. In D.H. Jonassen & S.M. Lands, (Ed), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 89-121). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Landsberger, J. (2004). E-learning by design: An interview with Dr. Betty Collis. TechTrends, 48(5), 7–12. doi:10.1007/BF02763523 Malone, T., Pentland, A., Prelec, D., Szolovits, P., Tenenbaum, J., & Tenenbaum, M. (2006). Harnessing the World’s Collective Intelligence to Cure My Cancer. Center for Collective Intelligence. Retrieved July, 22, 2008, from http://cci. mit.edu/research/healthcare.html#_edn1 Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. Stage 2 of the e-learning models desk study. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Retrieved July, 14, 2008, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20 Models%20(Version%201).pdf Moon, J. (2005). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory & Practice. Londond, UK: Routledge Falmer. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 1–6. Reed, P., Smith, B., & Sherratt, C. (2008). Approaching a New Age of Constructivism. ELearning, 5, (3). Retrieved July, 14, 2008, from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/elea/content/pdfs/5/ issue5_3.asp#7 Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall. Sackville, A. (2002). Designing for Interaction. In proceedings of the Third International Conference – Networked Learning, Sheffield, UK (pp.534-541). Retrieved July, 14, 2008, from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org. uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/individual_papers/ sackville_schofield.htm 349

Mode Neutral

Salmon, G. (2000). eModerating: The Key to Teaching & Learning Online. London: Taylor and Francis Smith, B., Reed, P., & Jones, C. (2008). Mode Neutral Pedagogy. European Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning. Retrieved July, 22, 2008, from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/ contrib/2008/Smith_Reed_Jones.htm Timmis, S., O’Leary, T., Weedon, E., & Martin, K. (2004a). Communication. SOLE: Thematic report series. Bristol, UK: Institute for Learning and Research Technology. Retrieved June, 13, 2008, from http://sole.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/communications.pdf Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Anchored Instruction: The method of embedding learning and learning exercises within real world scenarios and working practices. This learner’s knowledge is deepened by engaging them in problems associated to the real context, affording them the opportunity to deconstruct, analyse and reconstruct their understanding E-Learning and Elearning: Both terms are interchangeable with one another and refer to the first generation where technology has been used to support and enhance the learning process. This is often referred to as ‘read-only web’.

350

E-learning 2.0: A generation where digital technologies encourage social networking by providing ‘space’ or ‘tools’ for the user to collaborate and foster communities of practice. E-Pedagogy: A specifically designed set of principles and practices that focus on how to delivery content to those using technology in their learning. Internalisation: The process of cognitive learning that forms the basis for further production. Where information is absorbed and later considered how it affects a given context can trigger reflection and other deeper aspects of learning. Mode Neutral: A pedagogical architecture that converges online, blended (hybrid) and campus learners into one learning space. The convergence changes the locus of control, focuses on modes of learning rather than delivery, and creates a learning experience that is context-centric. This method encourages the learner to internalise and control their experience by mapping their learning style, their generated content and flexibility to harness collective intelligence Pedagogue: Refers to an educator, teacher, tutor or instructor contributing to the learning process Web 2.0: A 21st century term for the digital technologies that afford and promote interconnectivity and interactivity between the learnercontent and learner-learner. Social networking sites, such as Facebook, My Space, Ning provide the mechanisms for collaborative dialogue and sharing of information

351

Chapter 21

Dispatches from the Graduate Classroom:

Bringing Theory and Practice to E-Learning F.R. “Fritz” Nordengren Des Moines University, USA Ann M. York Des Moines University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter is a practical overview of both the theoretical, evidence-based research in pedagogy and the anecdotal, experience-based practices of faculty who work daily in online and blended learning communities. This approach combines best practices with theoretical aspects of delivering and facilitating education with diverse adult learners. Issues and trends in E-learning are presented with specific examples for implementation and suggestions for future research. Using an evidence-based approach, the authors will explore and summarize recent research with a concurrent analysis of the anecdotal popular literature. The authors explore the concept of information literacy and other skills necessary to succeed in the Web 2.0 world. Their discussion takes us away from the traditional “sage on stage” versus “guide on side” dichotomy towards both a new understanding of Web 2.0’s role in education as well as a preface to what may become Web 3.0 and beyond.

INTRODUCTION This chapter is intended to lay a foundation for Elearning and Web 2.0 for readers from a wide range of experiences. It will provide both a theoretical overview of evidence-based research in pedagogy, and experience-based practices of faculty who work in online and blended learning communities. It is important to blend both theory and practice to fully DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch021

appreciate the power, influence, and potential of Web 2.0. Experienced educators may gain a fresh appreciation of how familiar theories may apply in an E-learning environment. New educators may gain insight and ideas on how to implement E-learning in an effective way. Whether experienced or novice, one thing is certain: we are all pioneers in on the digital path of E-learning. As pioneers on this trail, we are beginning to leave a traditional classroom setting where lectures dominate, and move toward an educational


Dispatches from the Graduate Classroom

environment where technology-enhanced instruction is becoming the norm. In this new environment, learning may take place completely online in a synchronous or asynchronous format. Or, it may take place in a combination of face-to-face and online learning, commonly known as blended learning. Even in courses where lecture is still the primary mode of delivery, technology is playing an increasing prominent role. When faced with the broad landscape of E-learning technology, many educators may feel unprepared, and perhaps even a bit lost. The term “pioneer” often conjures up images of American pioneers pushing across the Great Plains to reach the promise of a new life in the West. Like them, today’s E-learning pioneers are balancing the known with the unknown; balancing the tried and proven with the tried but not yet proven. And, like a pioneer exploring new territory, today’s E-learning pioneers are seeking landmarks or milestones by which to gauge progress. In this chapter, there are several landmarks to guide the way: • • •

Landmark One: How Does Educational Theory Apply to E-learning? Landmark Two: Technology: Web 2.0 and Beyond? Landmark Three: Practical Implementation: Issues, Controversies, Strategies and Tactics

While these landmarks cover a lot of territory, here is a caveat: there is simply no way to capture the full panaoramic view. In fact, at the current rate of change, by the time this book is published, new tools will have emerged and early adopters may be charting Web 3.0. Educators will constantly need to be adding new landmarks and charting experiences as discoveries are made. To assist in navigation, for the purpose of this chapter, the phrase E-learning means education

352

delivered entirely online. The phrase blended learning means online tools mixed with classroom or other face-to-face learning experiences. Web 2.0 refers to the increased online collaboration and interaction made possible by tools such as blogs, wikis, and social networking sites. With this in mind, the chapter objectives are to: 1.

2.

3.

Understand key theoretical concepts for blended and E-learning applied to adult learners. Analyze current research and anecdotal evidence on blended and E-learning strategies. Evaluate and create best practices in blended and E-learning using Web 2.0 tools.

The focus of this chapter is on higher education, although much of the material also applies to K-12. The emphasis is on adult learners as they are increasingly turning to online education for earning degrees, updating knowledge, and the sheer pleasure of life-long learning. This population of adult learners is highly diverse, spanning not only generations, but continents and cultures. This diversity brings tremendous richness to the learning experience, and significant challenges to the educator. Combine this student diversity with new models of delivery, the everincreasing choices of technology, expectations for 24/7 access, and the pressure to demonstrate learning outcomes, and the result is a changing landscape that can easily overwhelm educators and administrators. While it is daunting to keep up with the pace of change, immobility is not an option. To help clear the path forward, this chapter is designed to stimulate careful reflection of not only the “how” but the “why” of using Web 2.0 tools. Ultimately, the goal is to facilitate bringing Web 2.0 to Learning 2.0 and beyond.


BACKGROUND Landmark One: How Does Educational Theory Apply to E-learning? Analyzing Web 2.0 tools within a theoretical context can assist educators to understand the efficacy of their use and to guide future research. Many of these Web 2.0 digital tools can be viewed as a serious E-learning utility; others as a fun novelty shared between friends. However, it is easy to blur the lines between novelty and utility. The outcome might result in the development of a brilliant Elearning application; other times it can result in failure. Second Life®, an Internet-based virtual world, is a good example of a tool that has been both an educational success and a failure, depending on the application (Beguja, 2007). While there is research evidence to support the educational use of some Web 2.0 tools, other tools are too new or have not yet been subjected to research, so have only anecdotal support. In this section, the discussion of Web 2.0 tools opens by touching briefly on some of the key concepts in educational discourse. Some are theories; others are concepts or terms that are often used in E-learning/blended learning environments. This is not intended to be a definitive review on this subject, but rather to provide a way to view Web 2.0 through a pedagogical lens. Pedagogy typically refers to the type or style of instructional method a teacher employs. Originally stemming from the Greek for child, in recent years the term pedagogy has often been expanded to include all levels of instruction. Essentially, pedagogy tends to be more teacher-focused, and looks at the art and science of instruction. In 1950, Malcolm Knowles introduced the concept that instruction of adults was unique and coined the term andragogy. He proposed that adults were more self-directed and, therefore, required more learner-focused educational activities. As anyone who has taught adults can attest, not every adult

is self-directed. An adult-learner’s self-directed abilities may be situational, or based on prior experience in a specific area. Another way to view this pedagogy/andragogy dichotomy is not in an age-related way, but rather to look at education on a continuum from teacher-centered to learner-centered. Depending on the topic and the experience of the student, the teacher can make a decision where along the continuum to present the material. For example, a teacher can design a course to move from being teacher-centered (lectures, didactic materials) at the beginning to more learner-centered (individual and collaborative projects) as the course progresses and the topic builds in complexity. A related topic is the dichotomy of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants.” Prensky (2001) posited that younger learners think and use technology differently than older learners. Prensky defined digital natives as “Today’s students – K through college,” and digital immigrants as “the rest of us.” This distinction is open to debate and, while often used as convenient nomenclature, it appears to lack a significant body of evidence to support it (Bennett, Matron & Kervin, 2008). Many of the differences between the two groups that Prensky described in 2001 seem to have disappeared as many digital immigrants have adopted a digital lifestyle and become very adept at using new media. Also, it has become apparent that many of the digital natives, while heavy users of digital media, are not adept at using it for learning or work. In other words, heavy use does not equal uniform competence. Furthermore, many of the descriptors attributed to digital natives are similar to traits attributed to adult learners by Knowles (1950). He began with four traits and later added a fifth trait to learning styles as a person matures: self-concept, experience, readiness to learn, orientation to learning, and motivation to learn (Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 2005). The idea that digital natives (younger learners) may share traits with digital immigrants (older

353


learners) creates a riddle for the E-learning pioneer to solve. The solution may be to avoid distinct lines along generations, and to look more closely at the skill sets needed to be successful with Web 2.0 learning. Regardless of the label or the generation, it is the opportunity for active learning that makes many of the Web 2.0 tools attractive to both the learner and the faculty member.

Learning Theories and their Relationship to Web 2.0 The concept of active learning is at the heart of the theory of constructivism. While there are many variations of this theory, constructivism is fundamentally based on the principle that students construct knowledge individually rather than receiving it passively from others; they learn best when engaged in active learning rather than being “spoon-fed” the information. Learning occurs by engaging in authentic, relevant tasks, hands-on learning, exploration and critical thinking rather than memorizing and reciting facts (Fosnot, 2005). The foundation of constructivism is grounded in the work of Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky and others. An example of constructivism in a blended or E-learning classroom would be students who engage in constructing knowledge through realistic, problem-based learning scenarios, gradually scaffolding their knowledge by taking on more complex scenarios. Social constructivism goes a step further to view each student as capable of constructing his or her own version of knowledge based on their unique background, culture, experience, and worldview. While the instructor should take into account each person’s unique background (cultural competency), the responsibility for learning increasingly falls upon the learner. Tactics such as reflection, problem-based learning, group projects, and peer-reviews support constructivism. While widely viewed as fundamental to online teaching and learning, constructivism has critics. Lack of evidence, lack of effectiveness with

354

novice learners who have not yet developed a strong foundation of mental models, groupthink, and busy work without true learning are cited as weaknesses (Mayer, 2004; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Another prominent theory to emerge in recent years is connectivism, which espouses that that learning can occur through networks of people sharing pieces of information to create integrated knowledge (Siemens, 2004). In connectivism, learning is not completely under the control of the individual. Rather, knowledge is created and acquired in a rapidly changing network of people. Connections between ideas and the ability to continually acquire new information are vital. As we have moved from information scarcity to information abundance, knowledge management and information flow is essential, from the individual to the network, then back again. In connectivism, this process of flow may be even more important than the content itself. From this perspective, the new technology tools of Web 2.0 have enhanced the ability to network, so the Internet leverages the small efforts of many with the large efforts of few (Brown, 2000). Incorporating elements of both constructivism and connectivism is the model of Community of Inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). At the core of this theory are three interconnected elements: cognitive presence (the ability of participants to construct meaning through sustained communication), social presence (the ability of learners to connect on a meaningful level with other learners and teachers), and teaching presence (the creation and facilitation of cognitive and social processes that lead to meaningful educational outcomes). This approach is more holistic and attempts to capture not only the content, but also the context in which we learn and work in today’s world. Therefore, learning is dynamic, ongoing, and dependent on internal cognitive processes as well context and social interaction, whether face-to-face or online.


This approach to education brings up a very important concept: learning how to learn is as important as the learning the content matter itself. As the shelf life of knowledge decreases, and the flow of information from multiple sources increases, concepts such as metacognition and life-long learning become essential.

Overarching Concepts in Pedagogy Metacognition is considered to be the awareness of one’s own cognitive processes. In essence, it allows a student to metaphorically step outside of her own brain and take an objective view of her thought processes; to think about thinking. An educator can stimulate metacognition in students by guiding them to engage in reflective processes, asking questions like: “What do I already know about this topic? How can I best approach this? What is my best learning style? Where do I struggle?” Some Web 2.0 tools can be used to facilitate metacognitive processes individually (e.g., blogs, mindmaps) or as groups (e.g., discussion boards, wikis, peer reviews). There is an iterative cycle to metacognition; a plan, do, study, act cycle by which learners can bootstrap themselves along the path of lifelong learning (Worral & Bell, 2007). The metacognitive process is a key element of self-directed learners (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), and plays a role in the development of information literacy. These topics have potential for further theoretical development, and more implementation strategies are suggested in the application section, Landmark Three. While the focus of Web 2.0 is on collaboration, every group is still made up of individuals, each with his or her own unique learning style and educational goals. Hence, some educators and psychologists have postulated that a student’s learning style has an impact on E-learning or classroom success. A number of tools exist to provide a summary of a student’s learning style such as Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI), the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI), Kiersey

Temperament Sorter. These tools provide the learner with some insight into how others with similar preferences achieve positive outcomes from learning situations. An area of opportunity in educational research is to examine these learning styles within the context of Web 2.0 tools. For example, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter®-II (KTS®-II) divides learners into four temperaments: Artisans™, Guardians™, Rationals™ and Idealists™ and then further assigns each of those into four subgroups. The 16 total groups mirror the MBTI® type, but look more closely at implications for learning. For example, Keirsey-defined Guardians represent a plurality of the American population, and one of the traits of this group is the desire for belonging and working within a group setting. Previous to Web 2.0 social networking tools, computer-assisted instruction was primarily a solo activity. Web 2.0 opens a new realm of connectivity and, therefore, potential for new research. For example, today’s teens use social network sites as their primary communication, rather than e-mail (Lenhart, Madden, Macgill & Smith, 2007). As these teens move into higher education, E-learning has the potential to become less of a solo experience and more of a social experience, bringing new study opportunities to education researchers who wish to reach out to all kinds of learners. Current research in brain science about how people learn (Jenson, 2000; Sousa, 2006) can be incorporated into pedagogy, and will impact our educational theories. Perhaps the most popular of the recent books is Brain Rules (Medina, 2008). Summarizing peer-reviewed research in brain research, Medina has distilled the evidence into twelve rules of how the brain works, many of which are applicable to the E-learning/blended educator. Four are summarized here, and the others can be easily accessed in the book and related website. One finding is that vision is the dominant sense, but it is still important to stimulate all the senses. To the educator, this means to use not only

355


more pictures, but consider other visual clues to guiding learning and content. Graphic design may include subtle or bold colors, organic or geometric shapes, and other visual clues to help establish context and organize content. Text designed for the printed page (traditionally vertical or portrait in orientation) should be laid out differently when designed for the screen (traditionally horizontal or landscape in orientation). With the increasing use of digital devices such as the iPhone and Kindle, (Amazon’s wireless reading device), more human interface research will lead to best practices for visual presentation. Other research summarized in Brain Rules debunks the idea that multi-tasking during learning is good, while confirming our suspicion that boring content is bad. Educators can address these issues by grouping information into smaller chunks presented in a compelling manner to keep students interested and focused (Ruhl, Hughes, & Schloss, 1987). Furthermore, every brain is wired differently (see learning styles above), but we tend to see things in patterns, and memory is reinforced with repetition. Educators can facilitate student learning by helping them to “connect the dots,” and to build repetition into concept scaffolding. Finally, Medina (2007) reports good news for lifelong learners. Brains are malleable enough to develop new connections as long as people are willing to exercise curiosity. Many of these concepts certainly ring true and mesh with our anecdotal experiences, but it is immensely satisfying to have supportive evidence. Just as health care is increasingly embracing evidence-based medicine, we in education must be open to new ideas, new research, new tools, and especially new evidence. Before moving onto the next Landmark, stop for a moment to reflect on this brief overview of educational theory and research. What philosophy of education do you bring to your classes? What approach would you like to know more about? What is your personal learning style? What metacognitive tools do you use during/after your classes

356

to incorporate new learning into your pedagogy? What aspect of brain research can you integrate into your current teaching repertoire?

Landmark Two: Technology: Web 2.0 and Beyond To discuss technology and Web 2.0, it is both ironic and befitting to quote Wikipedia® on the topic: ”Web 2.0 is a term which describes the trend in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aims to enhance creativity, information sharing, and, most notably, collaboration among users. These concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-based communities and hosted services, such as social-networking sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies. The term became notable after the first O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004” (2008). The nature of websites like Wikipeida is both collaborative and mercurial. It is likely that by the time this book reaches the bookshelf, the above definition may have been revised numerous times. Grasping the full array of technological tools of Web 2.0 is much like assembling a list of supplies for the great trip West taken by early pioneers. The challenge with so many ever-changing choices is to decide where to begin and what is essential? What is the best way to prepare for the uncertain path ahead? To study the application of Web 2.0 to education is also to study of the diffusion of innovation. Rogers’ (2003) seminal work in this area illustrated that adoption of a new technology typically progresses through the stages of awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. The process begins slowly as early adopters focus on the technology, followed by rapid adoption as the majority get on board, then levels off as the laggards who took a “wait and see” approach slowly adapt. Attend any educational technology conference and it will be clear that Web 2.0 and technology


innovation is not being adopted at the same rate across campuses, and this is to be expected. No matter if one has just begun learning the basic set up of an online discussion board, and another has launched a series of podcasts supplemented by RSS feeds, updated via Twitter, all aggregated within a Pageflakes page; all of us are on the same path to discover the connection between Web 2.0 and Learning 2.0. As a beginning, once an educator has a fundamental understanding of what some of the tools do, it is easy to see the counterparts in a traditional pedagogy. A written assignment is, more or less, the same whether it is handed in, written in a blue exam book, posted to a discussion board, or e-mailed. Likewise, a learning circle or face-toface discussion group is similar in both outcome and participation to a threaded discussion board, or a real time chat. However, to understand the potential beyond these similarities is to harness the true potential of Web 2.0 tools. What drives the success of the Web 2.0 tools is that not only do they bridge distance and time; they rely on collaboration for the tool to work at all. A social network site does not have any of its core usability without the social network. As a contrast, a traditional Web page functions as it is intended, whether one person or one million read it. But without the connections inherent in Web 2.0 tools, the tools do not work. To illustrate this concept, consider a colleague who was an early pioneer in web media and online journalism. Despite his online experience that dates back to the early 1990’s, he didn’t join Facebook until recently. When he finally created a profile in the popular social networking site, he sent a puzzled e-mail saying, “What’s the big deal? You post your profile and photo, your friend posts their profile and photo. Then what?” Within a few days, however, he had several hundred “friends”, as his colleagues who were already on Facebook discovered his new profile. His point is well taken, however. Without the social network, what is the big deal?

To understand and use Web 2.0 tools in the classroom is to understand that educators are creating a space that they do not control (although they may guide) and the learning space is one that will grow, evolve, and develop. This lack of control can be threatening to some educators who are more comfortable with a traditional command and control lecture situation. However, transferring a lecture to the small flat screen does not typically work well--not only is it flat, it is boring (see Brain Rules above). This is where putting some thought into who, what, where, and why can help the educator to design the best way to present content in an online or blended format. Furthermore, as the volume of curricular content has grown, it is simply not possible to personally experience or actively learn all necessary knowledge. Hence, decisions must be made about what to include and what to leave out. In a popular YouTube video presentation “Did You Know?” viewers read, “The amount of technical information is doubling every two years By 2010, it’s predicted to double . . . every 72 hours” (Fisch & McLeod, 2007). While the specific rate of information growth may be open to debate, the fact remains that we are increasingly overloaded with new information, and we are increasingly accessing it through the Internet and social networks rather by individual students sitting in a library carrel or in a lecture hall. In step with the growth of information is the growth of information creators. The Pew Internet and American Life Project identified that 64 percent of teenagers ages 12 - 17 engage in “at least one type of content creation” (Lenhart, Madden, Macgill & Smith, 2007). As more Internet users shift from being strictly information consumers to information creators, learners need strategies in information literacy and information management. Web 2.0 tools both contribute to information overload, and offer options for information filtering and management. To illustrate these information literacy challenges, the “Did you know” video provides a

357


good example. The creators of the video (Fisch & McLeod, 2007) note that they represented the overall trend in information growth in the video while acknowledging that they used some sources that were not “hard” or “scholarly.” Nevertheless, the video reached “viral” status which means it was downloaded and shared widely. This exemplifies a paradox for the legitimacy of non-traditional resources. On the one hand, the lack of “hard” or “scholarly” sources does leave the data suspect in the terms of traditional peer review. However, after being seen by 5 million online viewers, the data has become a virtual “fact” in conversations among educators and Web 2.0 enthusiasts, repeated in promotional materials for recent conferences and other speakers. This example creates opportunity for educators not only to teach the process of peer review, but also, to teach the debate about what is information literacy in these new times. Another related concept is the half-life of information. This is a borrowed phrase from nuclear physics and was used initially in the late 1950’s to describe literature obsolesce. The concept was based on the idea that just as materials decay in quantity, so too, literature decays in its value. The study of information decay has often been linked to the frequency of literature citations. A reference may be cited 100 times a year, then 90, then 80 and so on. The challenge with this concept is that unlike a direct measurement, the usefulness of literature also has a context. For example, a map drawn 10 years ago may have little utility today as new streets have been built and housing developments arise. It may, on the other hand, have high utility in the future for historians. These concepts of information doubling and information half-life are often linked, but are not always directly related. There is a note of caution and intrigue that accompanies these discussions of Web 2.0 tools, and to get to it requires another short side journey. Bowling Alone (Putnam, 2000) brought the discussion of social capital to the national best-seller list. Its subtitle, “The Collapse and Revival of Ameri-

358

can Community,” implies that we have dissolved many of the units that created and fostered social capital in the United States. The title stems from the fact that the number of Americans who bowl is growing, but the number who bowl in leagues is diminishing. In one chapter on education, Putnam shares the impact of social capital on educations and learners, “In other words, at Harvard as well as Harlem, social connectedness boosts educational attainment” (Putnam, 2000). The irony of this statement, written prior to the development of most Web 2.0 tools, is that these new Web 2.0 tools are intrinsically driven by social capital. The currency of a social network is the number of friends in your network. However, the current debate of both K-12 and higher education administrations is whether or not to ban the use of these tools in the classroom (Simon, 2008). This is one of the controversies and decisions that will impact what educators will adopt for use in the classroom. Before moving on to the final landmark, this is a good time for the reader to pause and reflect on what place Web 2.0 tools have in education. What tools are you currently using? Where are you on the technology adoption curve? Should social network sites such as Second Life and Facebook be used in the classroom? Do you have any restrictions, either due to technology availability or administrative access, in your educational institution? How are you managing information overload/half-life issues? What are the next steps you can take to learn about Web 2.0 tools for educational use?

Landmark Three: Practical Implementation: Issues, Controversies, Strategies and Tactics On this final leg of the journey, the focus is on anecdotal, experienced-based implementation Web 2.0 in the classroom. The approach is necessary, as many of the concepts, tools, and usages


are too new to be fully supported by evidencetested theory. This does not limit their potential or efficacy, but does leave room for missteps, discovery, and innovation. One of the first things to consider within blended and E-learning is that there is an abundance of duplicative tools in the space called Web 2.0. The inherent challenge is to avoid the dreaded “cute kitten syndrome.” Just like many of us cannot resist something as fun, attractive, entertaining as a cute kitten, many of the Web 2.0 tools are equally fun, attractive and entertaining. However, just as a cute kitten can’t take the place of a work animal on a pioneer trail, new web tools must be carefully evaluated. There are multiple tools for doing many of the same things in Web 2.0. An original blog post, which has since been copied and modified, is the “50 Web 2.0 Ways to Tell a Story” (Levine, 2007). This wiki identifies 50 different Web 2.0 tools that can be used to build a slide show with recorded audio. The 50 tools produce essentially the same outcome, and while Levine’s wikispace does not evaluate or rate the tools, it is reasonable to assume there are a few cute kittens in the collection. There is an appeal to using each cute new tool, but successful practitioners need to find an effective way to evaluate prospective tools, or run the risk of trying so many tools and accomplishing nothing within the new Web 2.0 space. By the time a new pioneer Twitters, e-mails, and updates Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn®, Wikipedia, YouTube, and Flickr each day, there is no time left for non-Web 2.0 based work or play. A second consideration in the implementation of Web 2.0 in education may also be one of the factors slowing the adoption of Web 2.0. Educators teaching traditional courses may fear the move to blended learning because they suspect students won’t come to class anymore if much of the content is online. The question instructors should ask: are they (the instructor or the learners) adding value to the class by being together face-to-face? If they are just reading PowerPoints, there is probably

little value generated by face time. If faculty are truly engaging students, and learners are engaging each other, then yes, they will come. Colleagues who have successfully adopted Web 2.0 in blended learning have shared some untested but intriguing suggestions for encouraging participation in both in class and online. For example, if a lecture is being taped as an MP3, the professor can use a few minutes before the recording is turned on to tell related stories or share case studies, then turn off the recording before the question and answer session at the end of class. Students will miss valuable information and social capital unless they come to class. To encourage use of online materials, some instructors incorporate a post-lecture podcast discussion of key points with faculty and students. They may also upload supplemental materials that address some of the more challenging aspects covered in lecture. Others have successfully incorporate short quizzes over online material into face-to-face lectures, or vice-versa. Alternatively, another question to ask is do students really need to come to class anymore? Perhaps as solely an academic discussion, what if the physical classroom was inaccessible due to damage, infrastructure failure, or pandemic ? Can learning take place without the classroom? The promise of Web 2.0 is that, yes, it is possible. By critically examining the course objectives, employing Web 2.0 tools as primary or adjunct media may make the course more engaging for both learner and faculty. Once the decision to teach online/blended courses is made, choosing the right tool to match the content can be challenging, especially for those new to digital media. As discussed earlier, students who are successful in learning, especially with online learning, have developed the ability to be self-directed. Grow (1991) developed a simple four-stage model of self-directed learning that can be easily adapted to Web 2.0 tools which may be helpful to instructors in developing courses and student abilities. First, consider course level

359


and the student body, then, see what stage is the best fit.

Stage 1: Dependent Learners Students have little prior knowledge or experience in the topic area, and may lack motivation or self-confidence to tackle material independently. These learners will need explicit instructions and timelines, smaller steps, more frequent feedback, and limited choices. This falls into the classic “sage on the stage” mold. In E-learning, this translates to a didactic approach with text, slides, recorded lectures, and multiple-choice quizzes more typical of Web 1.0. Educators are still trying to “sell” students on the course; so giving a lot of feedback individually and to the group may help. This is more a “supply-push” style of education, with the teacher doing the pushing (Brown and Adler, 2008).

Stage 2: Interested Learners Students have little knowledge or previous experience in the topic, but are open to the instructor’s motivational tactics to engage them in active learning. The goal is gradually to move from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation. At this level, the instructor is transitioning to the “guide on the side,” guiding discussions and assisting learners to set their own goals. Online, this may involve adding moderated discussion boards, assigning short research/ writing assignments, and introducing students to problem-based learning and collaborative work with small-scale projects. Podcasts/videocasts of guest speakers connecting content to the “real world” may be motivating and engage students into the subject matter.

Stage 3: Involved Learners Students whose knowledge and skill level is such that they feel confident and can navigate the learning process. These learners have moved beyond

360

the novice level, and have built a foundation of both content knowledge and metacognitive strategies. The instructor becomes a “facilitator” and is much more collaborative in the learning partnership. Group projects, virtual teams, and in-depth discussions work well here. Students can become peer-reviewers, discussion moderators, and collaborate on wikis.

Stage 4: Self-Directed Learners Students at this level can take responsibility for their own learning, and collaboration can be quite in depth. The instructor can set up the learning tools, then step aside and let the students take over, learning independently and from each other. The instructor serves more as a consultant or “catalyst” to the learning process. Learning contracts, wikis, independent and team projects all work well here. This becomes more a “demand-pull” (Brown and Adler, 2008) type of learning, with the student driving the demand. Notice that learning strategies at this stage are generally more work and require higher-order thinking for both student and instructor. Keeping a mental model of this four-stage process provides a fairly simple structure, yet offers faculty the appreciation for the power and impact of Web 2.0 tools. In general, stages 1-2 are more appropriate for beginner level coursework, while stages 3-4 would be appropriate for intermediate to advanced level courses. Furthermore, a course could be designed to move through stages, starting at the lower level and progressing to more selfdirection as the course proceeds. The challenge comes when there is a wide mix of self-directed learning levels in a class, as often happens. As a result, educators may need to flex or adapt their style to meet individual student needs. This is a challenge for even the most experienced educator, but Web 2.0 can be a true asset if the right tool is used in the right way to benefit both learner and faculty.


Another well-known approach to structuring learning is Bloom’s taxonomy. This elegant approach has been updated (Anderson, 2006) and its strength is the structure it provides to the educator for writing educational objectives to address increasing higher-level cognitive process. In turn, it can lead to the development of assessment tools that align with the learning activity. If combined with the four stages of self-directed learning cited (Grow, 1991), it can provide a quick and useful grid for educators. Place the cognitive process of Bloom’s taxonomy across the top of a chart (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create) and the stages of self-directed learning down the left side (Dependent, Interested, Involved, Self-directed) to create a grid that can be filled in with objectives and appropriate activities as described above (Cruz, 2003). This will allow any faculty to create a “snapshot” of the learning tools for each class. This can also guide the educator to see what gaps exist that might be filled with the right Web 2.0 tool. Another challenge faced by educators as a result of the expansion of Web 2.0 technology is the importance of promoting good digital citizenship. One specific ethical issue that often troubles faculty is plagiarism. In our digital point-and-click, copy-and-paste culture, it is increasingly easy for both students (and faculty) to use material developed by others without proper attribution. Oftentimes this is unintentional; sometimes it is intentional. Conversations with colleagues reveal that many students are genuinely not aware of the extent and impact of plagiarism. For example, just switching around a few words does not absolve the writer from proper citation. There are many reasons why students plagiarize (Park, 2003). In addition to a lack of understanding, students often lack critical thinking and information management skills. Educators are turning to technology to catch plagiarism, such as using Turnitin® software, or searching chunks of text on Google, but prevention of plagiarism can only occur by

addressing information literacy both in and out of the classroom. One of the challenges of digital citizenship within the rapidly changing Web 2.0 landscape is the understanding of intellectual property laws, rules, and practices. Concurrently, two new ideas of intellectual property rights have emerged: Open Source and Creative Commons. Open Source is “a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.” (Open Source Initiative, n.d.). Creative Commons provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. Content creators can use CC to change copyright terms from “All Rights Reserved” to “Some Rights Reserved.”” (Creative Commons, n.d). Learners and faculty alike, especially those not studying law or intellectual property, find the subtleties and distinctions between these constructs and traditional copyright confusing. Further complicating the issue is wide spread abuse of intellectual property rules and wide spread misunderstandings of what is and is not infringement. This is a continuing process of learning by all parties involved, but proceeding with good faith and reasonable caution will still allow faculty and students to reap the rich rewards of Web 2.0. This is also part of the larger concept of information literacy. Information literacy is defined as a set of abilities requiring individuals to “recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information” (ACRL, 2000). In the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education the ACRL (2000) stated an information literate individual should be able to:

361


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Determine the extent of the information needed Access needed information effectively and efficiently Evaluate information and its sources critically Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base. Uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally.

These literacy standards become increasingly important as we have moved from an era of relative information scarcity where scouring stacks and journals was necessary to uncover facts, to an era of information abundance. In other words, now the focus is not on finding information but filtering, appraising and applying it. In fact, due to the abundance of information, literacy is important even before the search step begins. Since so much information is now available online, students with limited library experience lack mental models about how the information is created or stored. As suggested by Swanson (2004), “Before we train students to use search tools, before we send them to books, periodicals, or websites, we need to teach them about information. What is it? How is it created? Where is it stored?” To do this, the E-learning educator could partner with librarians to weave concepts of increasingly higher literacy into courses. Rather than librarians being an information gatekeeper, in this new model, they take on a more active role as information managers. Instead of operating primarily in lower level “how-to” mode, librarians could transition to a guide, facilitator and catalyst as student literacy skills improve. This initiative would require a broader and deeper use of librarians across curricula and courses, rather than having their involvement limited to just one

362

class/tutorial. This opportunity is a paradigm shift for many, but as one librarian observes, this opportunity would be welcome. “We can’t provide information literacy in a “microwave ready” format. It takes time, it takes a village to integrate new media literacy into our teaching.” (Hines, 2008).

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The evolution of Web 2.0 and its use in education suggests a trend in E-learning tools that began with Web 1.0 and will likely carry us into Web 3.0. Web 1.0 launched the idea of a Web site or home page as a traditional publishing model. It was essentially, the “teacher’s space” to provide content to learners. While there were feedback mechanisms (e-mail forms, discussion and comment areas), these were limited and crude in comparison to what we use today. Web 2.0 has evolved from the “teacher’s space” to “my space”. MySpace® is a social networking site, and its name suggests the essence of Web 2.0 technologies. Rather than content and context strictly defined by the publisher (teacher), Web 2.0 tools allow the individual to arrange, contextualize, limit, augment, and refine the content in a manner that suits them. This is not only the option of the teacher-publisher, but also the option of the learner. It is these collaborative possibilities that educators seek to leverage into better learning environments. If there is to be a Web 3.0, and current developments in social operating systems suggest this may be the next landmark we see, it may come to be known as “Our Space.” Our space will be a Web learning environment that is shared by all learning partners in the classroom (classroom is a figurative term here). What may evolve is a new education Web space as a metaphoric one-room schoolhouse—but one the spans the globe. This new environment may include learning situations where, at times, many are working together. At


other times, there might one-on-one tutelage, or small groups working at a variety of competence and grade levels using a variety of technological advances we have not yet discovered. As new digital landscape emerges, here are questions that educators can ask themselves to sort through the many tools and opportunities that will arise.

a note, and editing a Wiki creates confusion and disengagement on the part of the student.

Have I Created a Social Presence?

Not every tool is appropriate for every class. Also consider the cost (proprietary or open-source) and tech support availability. If it’s not practical, it’s a deal breaker.

Beyond your level of involvement as an educator, does it also create a sense of social presence to benefit the learner? Does the Web 2.0 tool offer a chance to share who you are as a whole person with the learners? This is not to say your entire biography, nor does it imply significant detail about your non-professional life. Rather, the nature of many of these tools provides options for you to put more depth of your personality in front of the learner. This may inspire and motivate the students, as well as model professional behavior.

Is My Level of Involvement Appropriate for the Level of the Course?

Do My Tools Take Into Consideration What We Know About Brain-Based Learning?

Explore how the technology works and what role you have its use or application. Does it meet the needs of teaching presence in the class? Does it match the students’ level of self-direction?

Have you used a variety of media, employing adequate visual stimulation and decreasing the blocks of text? Have you chunked the work into manageable blocks with adequate feedback points based on the student’s level of self-direction?

Does a Tool Have Merit? Will it Stick?

Do I Have a Combination of Tools to Hit a Variety of Learning Styles? Web 2.0 tools afford a multitude of ways students can demonstrate their understanding of course material and their personal engagement with the subject matter. To that end, the faculty may offer the learner the options of submitting traditional papers, contributing to a personal or group blog, or a class-based Wiki. However, options should add choice to benefit the student, and not create confusion. To have one assignment include a wiki, and a second assignment include a blog, gives learners different methods of expression, and gives all learners a variety of experiences. To have a single assignment that includes emailing an attachment, submitting a blog, twittering

How Do I Assess Learning Going Beyond a Multiple-Choice Exam? Are you using authentic assessments versus teaching to the test? As the acquisition of knowledge has become more subjective and dynamic as opposed to objective and static, the challenge is to parse the origin and quality of information. If we could banish one phrase from higher education, it would be: “Will this be on the test?” The tools you choose should give you additional opportunities for assessment of learning, albeit in non-traditional ways. Relating each tool to a learning objective, and then basing objectives on taxonomy, provides a focused learner evaluative opportunity.

363


CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

In the end, the focus should not be on tools but on the use and context of tools (Jenkins, 2006). Technology doesn’t fail because of technology, but because of the culture. There will always be early adopter, laggards, and those that are curious but want to wait and see. That is understandable. As pioneers, we truly don’t know what lies ahead. We can be prepared and do our best but there might be disasters as well as successful discoveries. Those who chose to be pioneers will need to forge ahead. A final discussion about the diffusion of innovation returns us to the idea of pioneering E-learning in the classroom. Rogers defined the stages of adoption as the innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards (Rogers, 2003). We’ve chosen the idea of pioneers, which parallels Roger’s innovators and early adopters, rather than other terms like settlers, colonists or nomads. As a pioneer, there is an element of risk, even within the current state of the art. At one time, software products like WordStar, VisiCalc, Lotus 1-2-3, and dBase were standards, as were online services such as CompuServe, GEnie and The Source. To have exclusively focused on any one of these tools could have resulted in the end of E-learning with the end of the product life. Wikipedia and Second Life, for example, have their critics and while successful in terms of our view today, there is no certain way to predict what these services will look like in 2010, or 2020, or beyond. The settlers, the equivalent of the early majority, usually move in and develop the area once the pioneers have determined the best initial practices and routes for success. Colonists, similar to the late majority, often bring with them the kind of structure, rules, and protocol that limits the free spirited risk taking of the pioneer spirit. Pioneers then often seek out new uncharted ways and tools to expand, grow and develop knowledge and learning.

Anderson, L. W. (2006). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

364

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Chicago: ACRL. Bennett, S., Matron, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775–786. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00793.x Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing Up Digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change, Growing Up Digital, March/ April, 10-20. Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 16–32. Bugeja, M. J. (2007, September). Second thoughts about second life. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http:// chronicle.com/article/Second-Thoughts-AboutSecon/46636/. Creative Commons (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://creativecommons.org/. Cruz, E. (2003). Bloom’s revised taxonomy. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/bloomrev/start. htm Fisch, K., & McLeod, S. (2007). Did you know? Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://shifthappens.wikispaces.com/Sources


Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 Grow, G. (1991). Teaching Learners to be SelfDirected. Originally published in Adult Education Quarterly. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http:// www.longleaf.net/ggrow Hines, R. (2008, August). The screen in flat: Reinventing libraries for information literacy. Symposium conducted at the annual Multimedia Educational Resource and Learning Tools (MERLOT) conference in Minneapolis, MN. Open Source Initiative, (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://www.opensource.org/ Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. Jensen, E. P. (2000). Brain-based learning: The new science of teaching and training (Rev. ed.). San Diego: The Brain Store. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 Knowles, M. S. (1950). Informal Adult Education: A guide for administrators, lenders, and teachers. New York: Association Press. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A., & Smith, A. (2007). Pew Internet: Teens and Social Media. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://www. pewinternet.org/PPF/r/230/report_display.asp Levine, A. (2007). 50 Web 2.0 ways to tell a story. Retrieved August 24, 2008, from http://cogdogroo. wikispaces.com/StoryTools Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003066X.59.1.14 Medina, J. (2008). Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School. Seattle, WA: Pear Press. Park, C. (2003). In Other (People’s) Words: plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 471–488. doi:10.1080/02602930301677 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Horizon, 9(5). Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Ruhl, K., Hughes, C., & Schloss, P. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14–18. Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. elearnspace. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://www. elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Simon, M. (2008, August). Online student-teacher friendships can be tricky. CNN.com. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/2008/ TECH/08/12/studentsteachers.online/

365


Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Swanson, T. (2004). A radical step: Implementing a critical information literacy model. Portal (Baltimore, Md.), 4, 259–273. Web 2.0. (2008). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:15, August 30, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_2 .0&oldid=269135746 Worrall, L., & Bell, F. (2007). Metacognition and lifelong E-learning: a contextual and cyclical process. E-learning, 4, 161–171. doi:10.2304/ elea.2007.4.2.161

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Andragogy: The label of an instructional method, coined by Knowles, that is designed to meet the learning style and motivations of adult, self-directed learners Blended Learning: A learning format that includes elements of both E-learning with faceto-face learning. Blooms Taxonomy: Cognitive objectives developed by Bloom in 1956 include knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. A similar spectrum includes

366

remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create Community of Inquiry: A learning theory consisting of three interconnected elements: cognitive presence social presence, and teaching presence Connectivism: A learning theory that proposes that that learning occurs through networks of people sharing pieces of information to create integrated knowledge. Constructivism: A learning theory based on the principle that students construct knowledge individually rather than receiving it passively from others Digital Citizenship: An adaptation of traditional ethics and citizenship rules and conforms to work within the context of online work and Web 2.0 tools. Half-Life (of information): A concept borrowed from nuclear physics that implies the length of time information is useful. Information Literacy: A set of abilities requiring individuals to know when information is needed and then have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use the appropriate information Metacognition: The awareness of one’s own cognitive processes. Pedagogy: Refers to the type or style of instructional method a teacher employs

367

Chapter 22

Student-Centered Teaching with Constructionist Technology Tools: Preparing 21st Century Teachers Kathryn Kennedy University of Florida, USA Jeff Boyer University of Florida, USA Catherine Cavanaugh University of Florida, USA Kara Dawson University of Florida, USA

ABSTRACT Using the theoretical framework of “craft” highlighted by Richard Sennett (2008) in The Craftsman, this chapter focuses on constructionism and the implications of project-based learning in an undergraduatelevel pre-service teachers’ technology integration course. The chapter evaluates an approach to teaching undergraduate pre-service teachers to teach children to use constructionist technology tools, including Web 2.0 technologies – wikis, blogs, podcasts, etc. Data were collected and analyzed to document preservice teachers’ experiences with these tools as well as to gauge their level of confidence in teaching with the technology in their future classrooms. Data collected included pre-post concept maps, pre-post preinternship interviews, and learning artifacts. Analyses show an increase in pre-service teachers’ complexity of knowledge and awareness of Web 2.0 tools and skills, and a moderate impact on their beliefs about student constructionism in their future classrooms. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch022


Student-Centered Teaching with Constructionist Technology Tools

INTRODUCTION Situated in the theoretical framework known as “craft” (Sennett, 2008), this study examined the use of constructionism as an instructional design method in an undergraduate-level technology integration course for pre-service teachers at a major research university in the southeastern United States. Throughout the course, pre-service teachers experienced constructionist pedagogy by creating digital artifacts that represent their understanding, learned more about themselves and others and what they knew through the art of creating digital objects, and also gained the confidence necessary for them to integrate constructionist pedagogy and associated technology tools in their future classrooms. The course places undergraduates in the role of creators with open-ended technology tools, addressing several challenges in digital-age teacher education. First, most undergraduate students entering teacher education programs today were born after 1985; thus, they are not only comfortable using a range of technology in their learning, but they expect technology to be seamlessly woven throughout their educational experience for meaningful and engaged learning. In support of this notion, Lippincott acknowledges that “[h]igher education needs a new framework for promoting the value of information and technology skills for undergraduate and graduate students” (2007, p. 16). Second, new teachers graduating from teacher education programs today will be expected by their students and other stakeholders to integrate an ever-evolving array of educational technology tools into their teaching. Therefore, pre-service teachers need a range of technology skills, a comfort with classroom technology integration, and the habits of mind that result in valuing innovation and experimentation with new teaching and learning tools. The intent of the course was to develop the teachers’ skills in technology integration as well as a pedagogical philosophy that values studentcentered tool-based teaching.

368

The course itself is the second of two technology courses required by the university teacher education program. The first course is taken during the pre-service teachers’ sophomore year and the second is typically taken at the end of their senior year, before they enter a field experience to complete their certification requirements. In this course, the teachers are taught practical skills to use when developing curriculum for their future elementary school classrooms. The remainder of this chapter will provide background information on the theories that helped frame the course design, and discussion of the methods and findings of the study, followed by conclusions and implications.

BACKGROUND This section highlights the broad definitions that support the value of project-based learning with constructionist technology tools. The first subsection explains the theoretical framework of craft as it pertains to this topic.

Theory of Craft The theoretical framework for this chapter is that of “craft.” Sennett (2008) identifies craft by way of the Enlightenment period, a time when people saw a craftsman in everyone, and understanding of self was achieved by creating objects (Sennett, 2008). As Sennett says, “Every good craftsman conducts a dialogue between concrete practices and thinking; this dialogue evolves into sustaining habits, and these habits establish a rhythm between problem solving and problem finding” (Sennett, 2008, p. 9). In this regard, teachers are craftsmen, teaching students to craft in the process of developing skills and knowledge for their futures. Teachers are rhythmic and expressive of themselves and their beliefs and philosophies, allowing them to think on their feet and make changes to better the


learning experience. Teachers are engaged, and this engagement displays a “special human condition” of dedication to a skill (Sennett, 2008, p. 20). Teachers in turn strive to engage students and encourage them to demonstrate their dedication to the content. Teachers are specialized in what they do, and their specialized skills contribute to a culture of expertise that can be shared with the teaching community at large. In the teacher education course described here, the instructors work to motivate their students by encouraging imagination and creativity. According to Sennett, “…motivation matters more than talent” (2008, p. 11). Sennett says, through craft, “skills…develop[s] through the powers of imagination…knowledge gained in the hand through touch and movement …that attempts to direct and guide bodily skill” (2008, p.10). By motivating the pre-service teachers in their courses, the instructors’ goal is that, in turn, the pre-service teachers will take this level of engagement to their future classrooms. Prensky states, “All the students we teach have something in their lives that’s really engaging – something that they do and that they are good at, something that has an engaging, creative component to it” (2005, p. 62). In his opinion, the curriculum within today’s classrooms doesn’t lack relevance, but it lacks engagement. Sennett explains that, when students are not using both their hand and their head to learn something, “both understanding and expression are impaired” (2008, p. 20). Keeping students engaged is predictive of school achievement (Cook, Murphy & Hunt, 2000), and therefore essential in instruction. Also engaging for students is the collective experience that can occur from the making of objects. Making objects involves completing a job and using higher order thinking, especially when students are asked to present what they have done to others (Sennett, 2008, pp. 6-7). The act of discussing and judging others’ work is an evaluative exercise, leading to improvements in the skill of making. This collective experience can translate into group work. In group work,

people typically talk about what they are doing, making the experience a social activity that encompasses the creation of some artifact. Benefits of student-centered learning through group work are supported in research (Christie, 2000; Wang et al., 1998; Belanger, 2002). In craftsmanship, the marriage of group work and skill results in community (Sennett, 2008, p. 51). In this community, students exchange information while engaged in creating a shared project. This process is representative of “collective intelligence” (Russell, 1983; Atlee & Zubizarreta, 2003; Levy, 1994; Bloom, 1995; Heylighen et al., 1995; Engelbart, 1999). Atlee and Zubizarreta (2003) define collective intelligence as a process of a group cooperating on one goal as one entity, reaching higher order thinking and attaining quality outcomes. One issue that arises out of group work is mentioned by Sennett: “In any organization, individuals or teams that compete and are rewarded for doing better than others will hoard information” (2008, p. 33). In contrast, “doing a good job for its own sake” needs to be rewarded (Sennett, 2008, p. 36). Students who are not rewarded in this situation can feel demoralized, “when a collective goal for good work becomes hollow and empty; equally, sheer competition can disable good work and depress workers” (Sennett, 2008, p. 37). So part of the craft of teaching is mediating group work to make it engaging and rewarding, not competitive and unfulfilling.

Constructionism An educational form of craft is constructionist pedagogy, introduced by Seymour Papert, building upon Piaget’s constructivism, which claims that people learn best when they create tangible representations of their knowledge of a given concept (Papert, 1980). The concept that “making is thinking” demonstrates how people learn about themselves through the things they make. For example, “physical” manipulation

369


Figure 1. Planned and Observed Trajectory of Learning

of virtual representations of knowledge by preservice teachers results in these teachers learning about their educational identities. Applying these ideas of constructionism, specifically in the form of technology-craft, to the design and delivery of undergraduate pre-service teachers’ technology integration courses also scaffolds the teachers in using construction of digital materials with their K-12 students, who are likely to learn about their own values and talents through making. The students in these courses learn through design, finding solutions and creating their own understanding of what they are learning. In constructionism, like Sennett’s “craft,” there is no absolute standard; instead, rather than “recover someone else’s originality,” (2008, p. 79) the student creates his own representation of his own knowledge. Figure 1 displays this trajectory of learning. Figure 1 shows the planned and observed trajectory of learning. In the first step, the course immerses pre-service teachers in the craft of constructing digital objects; the teachers are in the role of learners, harnessing their professional craft. In the second step, the teachers are in the role of planners, crafting student-centered lessons, demonstrating their professional craft. In the third and final step, teachers support learner craft by allowing the students in their future classrooms to create digital content. Flake highlights the potential for teacher education when implementing technology into future classrooms; radical changes can occur if “students have more control over their learning and are

370

held accountable for developing…skills” (Flake, 2001, p. 46). Animation outlets such as Digital Content Producers’ Reel-Exchange (REX – http:// reel-exchange.com), MIT’s SCRATCH (http:// scratch.mit.edu), and Carnegie Mellon’s Alice (http://www.alice.org) allow students to explore through the art of making digital objects. As early as 1988, researchers found that students creating their own content had positive effects on achievement. Digital content creation experts like Papert, Resnick, Kafai, and Harel have applied learning by design ideas to educational technology, allowing students to design and create educational software. For example, using Logo programming, Harel and Papert had young students design a computer program to teach math concepts to fellow students (1990; 1991). Resnick and his team at MIT have concentrated much of their careers on working with students to create digital manipulatives, systems-based versions of traditional physical children’s toys (1998). In 2006, Kafai argued for constructionist perspectives in game studies, encouraging educators to allow students to learn by making games. These studies demonstrate progress; however, Resnick, in a 2002 chapter called “Rethinking learning in the digital age,” commented that, while the digital divide might be shrinking in terms of computer access, it is growing in terms of digital fluency. To promote digital fluency among all educators and learners, the technology integration course was designed to incorporate projects based on


the use of Web 2.0 and other constructionist technology tools.

Instructional Design In a constructionist-rich college classroom, deliberate instructional design and development processes are necessary. The instructional design of this course, as explained above, is based on constructionist principles with a particular emphasis on its central tenet of learning-by-making. Through this approach, constructing an object, whether real or virtual, is a powerful way to learn (Papert, 1991). To meet course expectations, students construct learning artifacts that represent their learning, understanding and application of course content. Several of these artifacts are designed using Web 2.0 tools such as wikis, blogs and podcasts. Thus, students not only learn how to use these tools in an educational setting, they also learn how to create their own content and lessons with these tools. More specifically, the course expectations require students to transition from the role of a consumer (learning-by-using) to the role of a producer (learning-by-making) in preparation to become teachers of makers. Through the construction process, students learn about the affordances and limitations of using these Web 2.0 tools as well as how to integrate the tools for teaching and learning. Students also develop reflective and evaluative habits by asking “Is it worth it?” Is the technology being integrated in a meaningful way, or should it be left out? As Sennett mentions, “People ought to decide which technologies should be encouraged and which should be repressed” (2008, p. 5).

Web 2.0 Technologies Tools used to enhance the course design are Web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 tools are examples of what Sennett deems “domain shifts”, which are “tool[s] initially used for one purpose [that] can

be applied to another task” (2008, p. 127). The course requires pre-service teachers to analyze what they are creating with the tools and to be imaginative about how the tools might be used in their future classrooms. Web 2.0 tools, rather than being tools that are “fit-for-purpose,” are ones that students can choose to use in ways that best express their conception of a given topic. So in this regard they are learning with technologies (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996) rather than learning about or learning from. The students are actively creating projects with these tools that help them understand the application of these tools in their future classrooms. While this tool adaptation process does challenge students, the variety of possibilities offered by the tools allows students to be creative. While using tools is a creative opportunity for pre-service teachers, the imagination applied in the use of these tools is liberating for K-12 students. Their imagination is often dampened in classrooms by worksheets, drill-and-skill practice, and the test-taking emphasis demanded by today’s school assessment systems. In many schools, students are told to read a textbook and then take a test on the information that was provided to them by the teacher and the book. Imagination can be stifled because of these requirements. Compare this limiting situation to a vending machine, where there are items inside already chosen for the consumer. Then contrast use of a vending machine to the affordances of access to a kitchen, where there are unlimited possibilities to create and consume. Constructionism is the kitchen and the Web 2.0 and other multimedia tools are the appliances in the kitchen, with which students are free to use their imagination to explore a problem and to find an answer to that problem that matches how they think. This range of choice and freedom helps to expand their confidence and competence (Murphy et al., 2007). An ever-expanding amount of literature demonstrates teachers’ use of Web 2.0 and multimedia tools in their classrooms. Duffy et al. (2006)

371


focus on wikis, blogs and really simple syndication (RSS) and their ability to offer students the option of co-creation of content. Lankshear et al. (2006) explore blogs as a means of socialization through participation and collaboration. Huffaker (2005) identifies gains in student literacy through the use of blogs. Duffy et al. (2006) discuss their students’ creation of blogs, resulting in an expansion of their students’ learning experience. Maloney et al. (2008) share the experiences of K-12 students who choose to learn to program using SCRATCH, while St. Pierre et al. (2007) provide young students with opportunities to learn difficult computer science concepts. In addition to K-12 classroom adoption of digital content creation tools, many teacher education programs are beginning to adopt a more technology-rich curriculum. For example, Banister et al. (2008) report using Web 2.0 tools in a reading curriculum course, where students create digital stories, digital yearbooks, and electronic storybooks. Buchannan et al. (2008) describe a teacher education program that collaborates with K-12 teachers to “bring [digital] immigrants and [digital] natives together,” working to effectively close the gap. Thomas and Li (2008) reiterate that pre-service teachers’ use of Web 2.0 tools in teacher education programs will lead to Teacher 2.0, teachers who identify “their true talents and interests and…develop them as they learn the language, tools and methods of their future careers.” Nikolov (2007) emphasizes a need for teacher education and teacher professional development to move towards a technology-integrated curriculum and one that promotes lifelong teacher training. Teacher 2.0 is currently occurring in this course and in others (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). To investigate this phenomenon more closely, this study was designed to examine an approach to teaching pre-service teachers by integrating constructionist technology tools, including Web 2.0 technologies – wikis, social bookmarking, podcasts, and other multimedia tools, etc. Four

372

research questions guided this study. After a semester-long technology integration course: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Does pre-service teachers’ complexity of knowledge about technologies increase? Does pre-service teachers’ awareness of Web 2.0 and other multimedia tools increase? Do pre-service teachers’ technology skill levels increase? Is there an impact on pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student constructionism?

To answer these questions, data were collected for the study using three methods: pre-post concept maps, pre-post preinternship interviews, and learning artifacts. Each of the data collection and analysis methods is described in the next section.

METHODOLOGY The data collection and analysis methods employed in this study were used to measure preservice teachers’ experiences with constructionist technology tools as well as to gauge their level of confidence in teaching with the technology in their own future classrooms.

Sample and Setting There were a total of 122 students in the technology integration course, divided across five sections, with an average of 24 students per section. Course participants were 98% female, which is representative of the elementary education program to which they belong. In addition, the students were highly academically capable, having met or exceeded admission criteria for a selective national university. Each section met face-to-face, one time a week for three hours at a time for sixteen weeks (one semester). Two of the authors of this chapter are the instructors of


this course, while a third author is a supervisor of the course and a fourth has been a source of advice on procedures and activities used in the course. The learning experiences in this pre-service course employ constructionist ideas so the teachers can experience a constructionist classroom. Students have a chance to work in teams and individually based on the assignments they are working on. Each assignment has a designated amount of time devoted to it inside and outside of the classroom. For the Digital Interactive Media Project, students are given approximately an hour of demonstration and one-on-one help in class, and then each individual student is responsible for creating a game in SCRATCH. For the Educational Podcasting project, students create a podcast in a group. They have a chance to explore in GarageBand during class to see the different options they have within the software. They create the podcast outside of class over a span of three weeks. For the My Classroom Wiki Project, students create their wiki during class and have time to start working on their wiki in class. Then they have approximately two weeks to complete their wiki outside of class. For the Social Bookmarking assignment, students create a social bookmarking account during the second week of class, and they are asked to add websites to their account throughout the entire semester. All of these projects count for the students’ assessment in the course.

Concept Maps A total of 122 students were enrolled in the technology integration course during the fall 2007 semester. Pre- and post-course concept maps were used to show knowledge gain of the pre-service teachers in the course. On the first day of the course, the pre-service teachers created a concept map using Inspiration software. The central theme of the concept map, developed by the instructors – “Teaching with Technology” – was given to the pre-service teachers to be the center node

of their concept map. They were given approximately fifteen minutes to complete the task. The task was to think of ways that they could “teach with technology” in their future classrooms. They were then asked to upload the concept map to the course website (all assignments were turned in via course management system). The same process was followed for the post concept map during the last day of class. The use of concept maps for learning and assessment (Novak, 1990) stems from Ausubel’s cognitive psychology, which posits that learners couple their existing knowledge with recently-acquired knowledge to form a new concept (Ausubel, 1968). Concept map analysis is well established as a method of gauging both knowledge creation and gain. A majority of the concept map analysis methods applied here stem from analysis done in conjunction with the learning of science content. The analysis of concept map data focused on both quantity, exemplified by the number of nodes present in the maps, and quality, instantiated in the content within the nodes. Students were not required to specify the relationships between nodes, so analysis involving the definition of relationships between nodes was not included. This analysis was modified from the Miller, Koury, Fitzgerald, Hollingsead, Mitchem, and Tsai (2007) method, which applied both a qualitative and quantitative approach. The modification to Miller et al. occurred in the qualitative analysis of the maps. Instead of incorporating an “expert” map as did Miller et al., this analysis made use of the students’ pre-course and post-course concept maps to see the progression of understanding. Content accuracy was rated (labeled as “correctness” in Miller et al.). In order to standardize the analysis of the concept maps, a rater, who was not associated with the course, scored the concept map along with the instructors. The independent rater chose a random sample of the total number of concept maps (a total of 10 pre- and 10 post- from each instructor) to ensure consistency of scoring using the rubric. Raters’ degrees of agreement

373


were calculated in order to gauge reliability in the analysis process, and this resulted in a 0.92 interrater reliability. The information that was collected per concept map included the following: 1) number of nodes; 2) number of links (lines); 3) number of levels; 4) number of Web 2.0 tools mentioned and what they were; 5) mention of constructionist-like procedures; 6) presence of text on links; and 7) presence of notes. The procedure for determining the number of nodes was n-1, n being the number of nodes, and subtracting one for the topic within the center node, which, as previously mentioned, was already assigned to the students. A similar method was used to determine the number of levels. The raters subtracted one from the number of levels (L) since the first level was the center node, already assigned to the students.

Interviews In order to get a more thorough idea of how the pre-service teachers perceived constructionist technology tools and their potential use in the classroom, interviews were conducted. Six, fourthyear pre-service teachers were randomly selected to participate in two semi-structured interviews; one occurring at the start of their preinternship, and the other occurring at the end of their preinternship. Random sampling was used in order to avoid bias in choosing interviewees from the population. Both interviews took place the semester after the pre-service teachers completed the technology

integration course. Each interview lasted 30 to 60 minutes. In these interviews, the pre-service teachers were asked to talk about what their future classroom would look like in regard to technology integration. The interviews were coded and analyzed with a close focus on identifying Web 2.0 technologies and constructionist-related ideas. To protect their identities, the interviewees’ names were changed, and only the interviewer knows the true identity of the participants. Table 1 provides general descriptions of each participant in regard to the grades they reported wanting to teach and also their self-reported comfort level with technology prior to the technology integration course. Bonnie is a soon-to-be practicing teacher who is interested in literacy in kindergarten through second grade. Before taking the technology integration course, she had little knowledge of technologies used in classrooms. Meredith, unlike Bonnie, is much more comfortable with technologies and admitted that she likes to teach herself how to do things rather than relying on others to give her instruction on new technologies. During the interview, she explained that she wanted to teach math to older children, namely fifth or sixth graders. Jill is interested in teaching second or third grade, and she was in the middle when it came to her comfort level with technology. Mary is a self-proclaimed “technology snob” and is planning to teach third, fourth, or fifth graders. Unlike Mary, Rita was in the middle in regard to technology know-how. She is interested in teach-

Table 1. Description of Interviewees Name

Desired Grade Level

Comfort Level with Technology 0 (Not Comfortable) ←→ 5 (Comfortable)

Bonnie

K-2nd

1

Meredith

5 -6

th

4

Jill

2nd-3rd

2

Mary

374

th

rd

th

3 -5 rd

Rita

3

Stacy

3rd-5th

5 3 0


ing third grade. Stacy, out of all six interviewees had the least amount of comfort with technology prior to the technology integration course, and she desires to teach third to fifth graders.

Learning Artifacts In addition to the pre-post concept maps and the pre-post preinternship interviews, examples of learning artifacts created by the pre-service teachers were collected and analyzed in order to gauge the pre-service teachers’ skill levels with constructionist technology tools. The learning artifact was a way for the students to escape the “same shape” mentality where everyone creates the same representation because that is what the teacher wants (Sennett, 2008, p. 112). The learning artifacts allowed learners to create their own content as was representative of their understanding of the text and the technology being covered that week. This flexibility was intended to provide the students with a sense of interest, of curiosity and motivation. While the students may be looking for “the correct way to do something,” the instructors urged them to explore their “willingness to experiment through error” (Sennett, 2008, p. 160). The four examples of Web 2.0 and multimedia projects assigned in the course and analyzed for the purposes of this study included the Digital Interactive Media Project, My Classroom Wiki, Educational Podcast, and Social Bookmarking Account, all of which are explained in detail below:

Digital Interactive Media Project The Digital Interactive Media Project was a way for the pre-service teachers to explore game making. They were assigned to design and create an interactive simulation, animation or game, using SCRATCH (http://scratch.mit.edu/), that addressed an appropriate Grade Level Expectation (GLE). The instructors used gradual release of responsibility to effectively introduce this assign-

ment to the students. First, the instructors talked about the project and showed examples of a few finished projects from previous courses. Then they opened SCRATCH to demonstrate the programs to the class. After this, the instructors allowed the students to work together in groups to try out the software. The instructors were available to answer questions. Then, the instructors assigned the project and announced lab hours when they would be available to answer questions about the project.

My Classroom Wiki The My Classroom Wiki was a project in which students designed and created wikis that represented their future classrooms. These wikis included an introduction to the teacher and the classroom, a set of classroom rules, a section that identified how the teacher would address Internet safety and cyber ethics in his/her own classroom, links to kid-friendly search engines and appropriate resources for his/her students, and anything additional the teacher chose to include. Their wikis had to also include some dynamic aspect that encouraged students and/or parents to visit the wiki regularly.

Educational Podcast For the Educational Podcast assignment, the preservice teachers created an original, educational podcast using GarageBand or Audacity. These podcasts were ones that could be used in a classroom and/or address an appropriate GLE. The podcasts were no longer than one to three minutes, contained lead-in and lead-out music and a sound effect, and had clearly audible speech.

Social Bookmarking Account Pre-service teachers were asked to create a Social Bookmarking Account, using Del.icio.us, as one of their course assignments. This account became

375


Table 2. Number of Nodes in Pre-Post Course Concept Maps

their organized space for a wealth of information. The social bookmarking account allowed them to keep their bookmarks in an online accessible space. The next section overviews the findings.

Type of Analysis # of nodes Average # of nodes per student

Pre-Course Concept Map

Post-Course Concept Map

1,257

3,809

10

31

FINDINGS examples demonstrated a significant increase in the students’ complexity of knowledge. Does teachers’ awareness of Web 2.0 and multimedia tools increase? Teachers’ awareness of Web 2.0 and multimedia tools increased after taking the technology integration course. This can be seen in the concept map analysis data shown in Table 3 below. Data show that, for the pre-course concept maps, only 10 students mentioned Web 2.0 and multimedia tools. However, in the post-course concept map, 116 students mentioned Web 2.0 and multimedia tools, showing a significant increase in the pre-service teachers’ awareness of and willingness to use the tools. The pre-course concept maps included Web 2.0 and multimedia tools such as blogs, wikis, games, and podcasts. In addition to these Web 2.0 and multimedia tools, the post-course concept maps included, social bookmarking, social networking communities, vodcasts, and discussion boards. The interview analysis also reported students’ awareness of and willingness to use Web 2.0 and game technology tools. Jill said that the knowledge of the terms that the students would understand, such as the social networking communities like

Four research questions helped to guide this study. The results and discussion of the data analysis are organized by the research questions below. Does teachers’ complexity of knowledge about technologies increase? This question is best answered using some of the data from the concept map analysis, which is presented in Table 2 below. As was mentioned before, there were a total of 122 students enrolled in the technology integration course, so there were 244 concept maps analyzed, 122 pre-, and 122 post-. As is shown in Table 2, when combining the number of nodes pre-course and the number of nodes post-course for all 122 students, data show more than three times as many nodes post-course (3,809) compared to pre-course (1,257). The average number of nodes per student for the precourse concept maps was 10, while the same for the post-course was 31. Moreover, the pre-course nodes contained basic knowledge of teaching with technology, for example, “grade sheet in Excel,” “email,” and “research on the internet.” The postcourse nodes contained specific, course-based knowledge, including “student-created videos,” “classroom wiki,” and “student blogs.” These

Table 3. Concept Map Data – Evidence of Students’ Knowledge of Web 2.0 and Multimedia Tools Type of Analysis

Pre-Course Concept Map

Post-Course Concept Map

Percentage of concept maps including evidence of Web 2.0 and multimedia tools

8%

95%

Percentage of concept maps not including evidence of Web 2.0 and multimedia tools

92%

5%

376


Figure 2. Screen shot of a student’s wiki

NeoPets and Webkins, helped her make a common connection with her students at her preinternship site. She also acknowledged that having the social bookmarking account helped her make sense of the vast amount of information available on the Internet and that it would also help her students make sense of it too. This dialogue demonstrates that the course topics and the Social Bookmarking Account assignment were useful in exposing Jill and other students to Web 2.0 and multimedia technology tools. Jill also said that some of her fellow preservice teachers wanted to establish a professional development community by using Web 2.0 technologies, such as wikis, blogs, podcasting, social bookmarking, social networking communities, in order to stay relevant and connected with their peers. This supports Nikolov’s (2007) emphasis on teacher education programs adoption of lifelong teacher training mentality. An example of the My Classroom Wiki Project is shown in Figure 2 below. In addition to the individual classroom wiki shown here, the same student made a wiki that put all of the projects and information from her teacher education program in one place. This

supports Nikolov’s urging of lifelong learning in teacher education programs. Web 2.0 and multimedia tools, in addition to improving teacher education programs, can improve K-12 curriculum and engagement. Rita spoke of her preinternship experience and how it made her sad to see students not engaged: students say they are interested in computers but in the classroom they don’t get a lot of time on computers, so I just feel that school is disconnected from their interests, and maybe a lot of students don’t like school because it’s just read from a textbook and answer the question basically, so I think technology would improve their learning that way. Because of this “disconnect,” Rita said that she will strive to incorporate Web 2.0 and multimedia technologies, such as wikis, blogs, simulations, games, and social network communities such as KidBiz. In addition, Stacy said she liked Web 2.0 and multimedia tools because “they’re a quick fix.” Web 2.0 and multimedia tools can be seen as a quick fix since the technology is typically free-

377


ware, not software-based, and easily attained. Many of the interviewees were looking at instant installations of technology. Stacy commented: “Things like the blogging could easily be used instantly.” As first year teachers, they want something that is easily implemented as to not have to spend much time on it. This is another reason why pre-service teachers will likely use these tools in their future classrooms. As was mentioned before, these Web 2.0 and multimedia tools can be seen as constructionist tools because they allow students to be creative and imaginative. Students’ knowledge of constructionist activities, as seen in the concept maps, is telling of the beliefs in the use of constructionist pedagogy in their future classrooms. In these students’ pre-course concept maps, the emphasis was more on how they were going to instruct students using technology and how the students were going to learn from technology. In the students’ post-course concept maps, the emphasis shifted to a more student-based, student-created learning environment, where the teacher is the facilitator and the students are in charge of their own learning. However, the majority of the students did not have a shift in beliefs. Ertmer writes extensively about pre-service teachers’ technology beliefs. In a 2005 article, Ertmer urges for increased research in teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and believes that a shift in pre-service teachers’ pedagogical beliefs is one of the key steps in increasing classroom technology integration. Wang, Ertmer and Newby (2004) emphasize a need for pre-service teachers to set goals for themselves in the technology classroom and to take part in learning experiences that put them in control of their own learning. This in turn will help them see the benefits of constructionist pedagogy on their students. The low representation of students who shift their technology pedagogical beliefs may be due to key factors. Maybe it is because one class cannot override years of K-12 experience and collegiatelevel methods with traditional instructionist

378

philosophies. It takes time for people to adjust beliefs, especially if they have been ingrained with them for twenty years. Do teachers’ technology skill levels increase? The pre-service teachers’ technology skill levels did increase during the technology integration course, and this was best witnessed in their learning artifacts. For their Educational Podcast assignment, they created travel diaries, book talks, songs about mathematics procedures, and jingles about colors. All of them reflected that this was the first time they used the tools. Examples of these podcasts can be heard at the following website: http://plaza.ufl.edu/kkenned/KathrynKennedy/ Home.html For the My Classroom Wiki assignment, the most impressive results were seen in what the teachers created for dynamic pages. Some examples of these dynamic pages showed that the pre-service teachers were interested in not only allowing their students to create their own content on the classroom wiki but also were interested in creating a community where collective intelligence could thrive. Included in these dynamic pages were student-created web portfolios, student-created photo galleries, and a student-created encyclopedia, similar to Wikipedia. Figure 3 shows the sidebar of a student’s wiki and what she chose to add to the wiki. The Digital Interactive Media Project also gave students a chance to develop and explore their technological skills by making digital media. See the following link for examples: http://scratch. mit.edu/galleries/view/12944. In addition to the learning artifacts, their increase in technology skills was expressed in their interviews. Meredith talked about how her preinternship experience included creating wikis with her students. She relayed some frustration she had during the process: “It took them forever! Some [wikis] were simple, others [students] took forever to type, and the other [student] is changing all colors…” While she was frustrated, she also


Figure 3. Sidebar of a student’s wiki showing page titles

said that her field advisor liked the wiki idea so much that he decided to implement it into his classroom. She thought “that was cool that he used it” because it showed that her technological skill level ideas were valued and noticed by the experienced teachers. Jill spoke about how she wanted to continue to learn new things in order to stay fun and innovative with her kids: “I see myself maybe getting a little comfortable but I really like to stay on top of things because it’s boring too for you as a teacher. It would be so boring, like if you are still using the overhead, twenty years in the future, YIKES, who knows what is going to be available then, so I would definitely want to keep up with the innovations.” This quote showed that Jill was interested in increasing her technological skills throughout her teaching career. Is there an impact on pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student constructionism? As shown by the concept map analysis data in Table 4, there was a moderate impact in beliefs about student construction in future classrooms. In the pre-course concept maps, out of the total 122 students, 16 students mentioned constructionist activities while only 33 mentioned

Table 4. Concept Map Analysis – Mention of Constructionist Activities Mention of constructionist activities in pre-course concept map

Mention of constructionist activities in post-course concept map

16 (13%)

33 (27%)

them in the post-course concept map. Pre-course concept maps show pre-service teachers having their students create their own content using image capturing, books, concept maps, movies, and websites. In the post-course concept maps, the pre-service teachers mentioned having students create videos, podcasts, plays, book reports, movies, animations, models, games, art, online environments and other interesting learning tools with technology like GarageBand, Photoshop, and iMovie. While the numerical data may seem disappointing and surprising, a closer look at the content shows teachers’ knowledge gains leading to a pedagogical shift that allows students to create their own content. Progress is being made, but it is slow. In addition, the analysis of this data demonstrated the pre-service teachers’ bridge between learner (novice) and educator (expert) in regard to knowledge gain of constructionist technology tools. In the interviews, this slow progression was observed. Bonnie confessed that she would allow her students to help her learn new things: I am not going to be the teacher that goes into the classroom and thinks I know everything you know nothing. I know that there is going to be a lot of stuff that I don’t know just because of their [the students] whole funds of knowledge, just what they do at home. Some kids just may be a whiz, and then I just say, ‘Okay, you teach us how to do this.’ I am not above having a student come to me before class and show me how to use a certain program, and then I think it’s great to let them see that, ‘Oh, I know something that my

379


teacher doesn’t.’ It makes the kid feel good, and then, hey, I learn something new as well. This is a start of constructionist mentality. Bonnie also talked about her incorporation of podcastlike activities in her preinternship. While she was slightly nervous about implementing technology during her preinternship experience at the start, she mentioned that she incorporated technology with her diad partner by doing character analysis recordings: “We took in our laptop…We recorded them [3rd-5th graders], and they loved it, they really liked listening to themselves afterwards…I thought we did a great job. Our first thought was a podcast for that project. Showing them the character voices was better than having us only do it.” This quote demonstrated Bonnie’s willingness to allow her students to create their own content to enhance their learning. She also mentioned wanting to move away from teacher-centered activities and towards student-centered ones. The tendency was expressed by Jill. She observed her supervisor teacher using teacher-created rather than student-created: …one of my teachers used a class website for the parents to access…it was more like a place where she could post pictures for the parents to be able to access online. It wasn’t really where the students would go – it wasn’t a blog or a wiki of any kind, like what we used in our class. They [students] weren’t recording their own information. It was done by the teacher, she was putting the information up there so that the parents could get it from home and I think there were newsletters posted on there as well. This comment conveyed Jill’s understanding that, while the technology that the teacher was using was creating a home-school connection for the parents, it wasn’t affording student-created content. She also noted how much more dynamic having a blog or wiki would be in regard to student involvement and interactivity. She related

380

ideas about podcasting and posting the recordings on a wiki or blog that is student-run so the “parents can listen to it to know what’s going on in school.” Jill definitely displayed potential as a future constructionist teacher. In addition, she really grasped the idea of meaningful, studentcentered learning: As an elementary school teacher, I just want to make my lessons as meaningful and personally relevant as possible, making sure that they [the students] feel engaged and that they want to learn. Because when you are doing something where you are not reaching out and touching each individual student, then school is not purposeful for them. Stacy, like Jill, came away with the mostdeveloped understanding of how important it is for students to create their own content and share their knowledge with others. I think I would give my students a choice as to how to show what they know, like creating a podcast, or a slideshow, a collage…it would be great for students to have a digital camera to take home and get pictures of things outside of the classroom… Everyone will be using computers, not just to type things, or if you have a question, how can you answer it, what tools are available, how can you best present what you know using technology. Unlike Stacy and Jill, Mary was less inclined to use a student-centered approach in her classroom. In her interview, Mary conveyed that she was much more willing to keep up with technologies than some of her classmates; however, she did not want her students to take control over her classroom. She said she was this way because she understands how teachers are now: “You know, being a 28-year teacher, they [the teachers] bring out the computer, and the kids are like ‘Oh, move over, I know how to do it, and you don’t!’ They [the teachers] might feel you know like it might cause chaos, and they’ll lose control.” While her


anxiety may be understandable, it may cause the students to get more of a teacher-centered approach to teaching as compared to a more student-centered approach. The technology integration course seemed to have a varying impact on different students, from leading to a profound support of student creation to a staunch loyalty to teacher centeredness. Mary’s lack of willingness to give up control of her classroom and refusal to allow her students to help teach her new ideas is a personality trait that perhaps cannot be changed. Instructors must be comfortable with transferring the autonomy within the classroom to the students, allowing them the authority to create their own content, making way for constructionist experiences. Giving support and freedom to the students to create their own content in turn results in students’ feeling proud of their work and a sense of their work having a “distinctiveness” and “’character’” (Sennett, 2008, p. 104).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The implications of technology-based constructionism for teaching and learning in teacher education are paramount to the teachers of the future using constructionism to motivate their students. As Jill urged, “You think about ok, how can we engage them more? Technology is beneficial especially when they are involved in it.” Web 2.0 and multimedia technologies, in particular, can get students involved in creating things with one another, and once students are involved in this craft, they build solid, trusting relationships and supportive communities. Sennett argues: the craft of making physical things provides insight into the techniques of experience that can shape our dealings with others. Both the difficulties and the possibilities of making things well apply to making human relationships. Material challenges like working with the resistance or managing

ambiguity are instructive in understanding the resistances people harbor to one another or the uncertain boundaries between people. I’ve stressed the positive, open role routine and practicing play in the work of crafting physical things; so too do people need to practice their relations with one another, learn the skills of anticipation and revision in order to improve these relations. (2008, p. 289) These relations stem from play. Sennett addresses play, stating play is not…“just an escape from reality…play teaches children how to be sociable and channel cognitive development; play instills obedience to rules but counters this discipline by allowing children to create and experiment with the rules they obey” (Sennett, 2008, p. 269). In particular, allowing children to experiment with Web 2.0 and multimedia technologies, such as wikis, games, blogs, podcasting, social bookmarking, social networking communities, affords them the opportunity to expand the idea of play into the virtual world, building their 21st century skills. It also gives the teachers a chance to make a conscious effort to connect with the students on their level, on their ‘play’ing field, that of technology. For teacher education programs, it is vital to talk about these technologies with preservice teachers and allow them to create and be expressive as they would eventually have their students be (Pickett, 2004). In addition, there are implications of collective intelligence software on the learning that occurs when pre-service teachers are learning to become practicing teachers. Because of their use of Web 2.0 and multimedia technologies in the technology integration course, pre-service teachers are more inclined to use the software not only in their future classrooms, but in their day-to-day lives. This was evidenced by their use of the social bookmarking account after the course was complete. Jill commented about her fellow pre-service teachers regarding their use of blogs and wikis outside of

381


the technology course: “You could see that it [the technology] was being used already.” Implications of a constructionist course design and delivery include the likelihood that pre-service teachers who use Web 2.0 and multimedia tools for learning will demonstrate specific technology skills or will perform technology-based tasks differently, possibly better, as compared to those who do not. The results of this study demonstrate how pre-service teachers grasped and applied the idea of constructionism by way of Web 2.0 and multimedia technologies. Although explicit evidence within the interviews was evident only in two of the six pre-service teachers, the pre-post concept map analysis and the learning artifacts showed that pre-service teachers saw the value in allowing their students to create their own content using technologies such as SCRATCH, iMovie, GarageBand, etc. The data indicate that the experience formed the foundation for the learner → educator transition. Further research should explore the perceptions of current teachers who utilize constructionist technology tools in their education practice. In addition, pre-service teachers’ technology implementation in their full internship experiences should be investigated.

REFERENCES Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Atlee, T., & Zubizarreta, R. (2003). The Tao of democracy: Using co-intelligence to create a world that works for all. Cranston, RI: The Writer’s Collective. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

382

Banister, S., Ross, C., & Vannatta, R. (2008). The Impact of Web 2.0 Tools in the Reading Classroom. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3617-3621). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Belanger, Y. (2002). Laptop computers in the K-12 classroom. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 27, 80–83. Bloom, H. K. (1995). The Lucifer principle: A scientific expedition into the forces of history. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. Buchannan, N., & Chi, R. (2008). Closing the Gap: Bringing Immigrants and Natives Together in Teacher Education Programs. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 1949-1952). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Christie, B. (2000). Topic teamwork: A collaborative integrative model for increasing studentcentered learning in grades K-12. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(8), 28–33. Cook, T. D., Murphy, R. F., & Hunt, H. D. (2000). Comer’s School Development Program in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 535–597. Duffy, P. D., & Bruns, A. (2006). The use of blogs, wikis and RSS in education: A conversation of possibilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the Online Learning and Teaching Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Engelbart, D., & Ruilifson, J. (1999). Bootstrapping our collective intelligence. [CSUR]. ACM Computing Surveys, 31(4es), 38. doi:10.1145/345966.346040


Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/ BF02504683 Flake, J. (2001). Teacher education and the World Wide Web. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 43–61. Harel, I. (Ed.). (1990). Constructionist learning: A 5th anniversary collection of papers reflecting research reports, projects in progress, and essays by the Epistemology and Learning Group. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 41-84). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Heylighen, F., & Campbell, D. T. (1995). Selection of organization at the social level: Obstacles and facilitators of metasystem transitions. World Futures: the Journal of General Evolution, 45, 181–212. Huffaker, D. (2005). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. AACE Journal, 13(2), 91–98. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40. doi:10.1177/1555412005281767 Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Blogging as participation: The active sociality of a new literacy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.geocities.com/c. lankshear/bloggingparticipation.pdf Levy, P. (1994). L’intelligence collective: Pour une anthropologie du cyberspace. Paris, France: Editions La Decouverte. Lippincott, J. K. (2007). Student content creators: Convergence of literacies. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(6), 16–17. Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with scratch. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 367–371. doi:10.1145/1352322.1352260 Miller, K. J., Koury, K., Fitzgerald, G., Hollingsead, C., Mitchem, K., & Tsai, H. (2007, December). Concept mapping as a research tool to evaluate conceptual change and learning gains. Paper presented at the meeting of the ACRES USA National Conference, Louisville, KY. Murphy, J., & Lebans, R. (2007, October). Using Web 2.0 tools in the secondary school classroom: Unexpected student learning, evolving teacher identity, and emerging pedagogical issues. Advanced Broadband Enabled Learning (ABEL). Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://portal. abelearn.ca/cms/One.aspx?portalId=248124&p ageId=248154 Nikolov, R. (2007, June). Towards Web 2.0 schools: Rethinking the teachers’ professional development. Paper presented at the meeting of the Joint IFIP Conference, Boston, MA. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ docs/00/19/00/77/PDF/Nikolov-Roumen-2007. pdf

383


Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.

Thomas, D. A., & Li, Q. (2008). From Web 2.0 to Teacher 2.0. Computers in the Schools, 25(3/4), 199–210. doi:10.1080/07380560802371037

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Wang, H. A., Thompson, P., & Shuler, C. F. (1998). Essential components of problem-based learning for the K-12 inquiry science instruction. Los Angeles: USC California Science Project and Center For Craniofacial Molecular Biology. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://www.usc.edu/ hsc/dental/ccmb/usc-csp/publications.html

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Pickett, L. (2004). Potential for play in a primary literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25(3), 267–274. doi:10.1080/1090102050250310 Prensky, M. (2005, September/October). Engage me or enrage me: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Review, 60–64. Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for lifelong kindergarten. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 43–55. doi:10.1007/ BF02299672 Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (E.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Russell, P. (1983). The global brain: Speculations on the evolutionary leap to planetary consciousness. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher. Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. St. Pierre, A. A., Carruthers, S., Coady, Y., DunnKrahn, R., Dunn-Krahn, S., Gibbs, C., et al. (2007). Young minds storming through challenging computer science concepts. In Proceedings of Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE).

384

Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 231–250.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Pre-Service Teacher: An undergraduate or graduate student preparing to be a practicing K-12 teacher. Digital Artifacts/Objects: Digital representations that learners create in order to represent their knowledge and understanding of a concept. Constructionism: A pedagogy centered around learning by making. Coined by Seymour Papert. Podcast: An audio file created by a student that can be distributed and shared through the Internet and played on MP3 devices and personal computers. Wiki: Hawaiian for “quick”. AWeb 2.0 tool that allows anyone to create a collaborative workspace on an easy-to-create website. Uses WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get - easy editing) editing mechanism, collaborators can contribute to the space at anytime, from any place Blog: Short for Web log. a Web 2.0 tool that allows the student to create a journal-type log where the student can reflect on experiences in the classroom Web 2.0: The read-write web where anyone can contribute to the Internet in a social way.

385

Chapter 23

Challenges for Teacher Education in the Learning Society:

Case Studies of Promising Practice Clara Pereira Coutinho University of Minho, Portugal

ABSTRACT In this chapter the author presents the results of a project developed in pre-service and in-service teacher education programs at the Minho University, Braga, Portugal. The main goal of the research was to test the importance of providing technological-rich experiences in teacher education programs as a strategy to promote the integration of technologies in the classroom. As educators in a public university we assume that the failure of ICT integration in Portuguese schools is due to a lack of teacher training in technology-supported pedagogy. We present and discuss a set of principles that we consider essential to understand and sustain the importance of the learning experiences we develop in teacher education programs both for pre-service and in-service teacher education. Different Web 2.0 tools were explored in different contexts and with different pedagogical goals: to build e-portfolios, to enhance cooperation and collaboration among peers, to develop skills in searching, organizing and sharing web resources and to facilitate interaction and communication competencies. Results are presented and discussed in order to infer a set of guidelines for the design of teacher education and training programs regarding the use of ICT in teaching and learning.

INTRODUCTION Thinking about the future of training in the knowledge-based society needs to be holistic as learning will become a lifelong activity that cuts across different learning generations and life spheres such as DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch023

private, public and work. The focus should therefore be not only on traditional formal learning institutions such as schools and universities but it should also embrace other forms of adult education and many forms of informal learning. Learners need to be prepared not only to operate the technology but also for higher-order skills such as knowing and understanding what it means to live in a digitalized


Challenges for Teacher Education in the Learning Society

and networked society and specially what it means to work in online collaborative teams where information is shared and knowledge collaboratively constructed (Punie & Cabrera, 2006). The first generation of the Internet had as main characteristic the amount of available information. However, the user’s role in this scenario was only of viewer of what was happening in that particular web page, as he didn’t have authorization to change or edit the content. This stage, that is also called Web 1.0, was very expensive to users, because most services were paid and controlled through licences; the systems were only available to those who could afford online transactions and buy software to create and maintain sites (Anderson, 2007). Along with the changes of paradigm in the internet, a huge and varied online service are now available for several aims and the use of these resources grows as the users produce information, sharing their knowledge through the Internet, in an easy, fast way (Fryer, 2005; Richardson, 2006). Hayman (2007, p.1) defines Web 2.0 tools as “a cluster of web-based technologies services with a social collaboration and sharing component, where the community as a whole contributes, takes control, votes and ranks contents and contributions”. According to Yuen & Yuen (2008), Web 2.0 applications hold a profound potential in education due to their open nature, ease of use and support for effective collaboration and communication; they change the traditional view of human knowledge and open up more opportunities in teaching and learning. Teachers can use Web 2.0 tools not only to attract students’ attention but to enhance new and varied learning experiences (Ferreira, 2007; Moura, 2007). Today, over several hundreds of the Web 2.0 applications are available and have potentials in education. Some of these tools include: podcasts (i.e., audacity, iTunes), Blogs or Weblogs (i.e., Blogger), wikis (i.e., Mediawiki, PBWiki), social bookmarking tools (i.e., del. icio.us), social networking tools (i.e., EduSpace, Facebook, MySpace), social media sharing tools

386

(i.e., Flickr, SlideShare, YouTube), virtual 3D community (i.e., Second Life), social library tools (i.e, LibraryThing), customized sites (i.e, Google Pages) and collaborative writing tools (i.e., Google Docs). Teachers can use internet resources for many pedagogical purposes and learning goals (Alexander, 2006). However recent research shows that, for technologies to be integrated in the classroom, teachers´ need specific training and time to reflect on the importance of using ICT as cognitive tools (Jonassen, 2007), that enhance student´s learning and communication skills (King, 2002). In this article we assume that, without changing teacher education programs in Portugal, there is no chance for technologies to be integrated in the classrooms routines: teachers will continue to teach in traditional ways and students will (rarely) use computers other than for drill and practice exercises and word processing. The key question that motivated the development of the research project started by the authors´ team in 2006, was to verify whether the introduction of a new ICT program with the Web 2.0 tools in pre-service teacher education as well as continuing professional development programs: a) helped students/teachers to embody best practices to create enriched and collaborative learning environments, and b) motivated students/ teachers to integrate and use technologies to create, in the classroom, learning opportunities to facilitate the students’ use of technology to learn and communicate.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ICT and Teacher Education The impact of ICT in our global societies held the development of different policies regarding the introduction of information and communication technologies in schools and educational systems. To live, learn, and work successfully in an increasingly complex, information-rich and knowledge-


based society, students and teachers must use technology effectively (Guerra, 2000; Punie & Cabrera, 2006). Very recently, the UNESCO (2008) published a policy framework untitled ICT Competency Standards for Teachers that states that the informed and responsible citizens of the 21st century must be technological prepared to be: a) capable information technology users, b) information seekers, analyzers, and evaluators, c) problem solvers and decision makers, c) creative and effective users of productivity tools and d) communicators, collaborators, publishers, and producers. At different levels, both professional development programs for teachers currently working and programs for preparing future teachers should provide technology-rich experiences throughout all aspects of the training (Mayo et al., 2005; Qi & Vandersall, 2007; Schwab, 2000; Woodbridge, 2004). According to the quoted 2008 UNESCO report, “Schools and classrooms, both real and virtual, must have teachers who are equipped with technology resources and skills and who can effectively teach the necessary subject matter content, while incorporating technology concepts and skills” (UNESCO, 2008, p. 1). To accomplish these goals the Portuguese government presented in 2007 the Technological Plan for Education (http://www.escola.gov. pt/inicio.asp) that established ICT competencies to be attained by all Portuguese K12 students by 2010. An enormous volume of public funds was invested in the supply of all public schools with computers and internet access. However, recent research indicates that Portuguese teachers lack adequate training in the use of computers and the internet, in their teaching and learning practices (Alves, 2008; Silva, 2004); they also show that most pre-service teacher have limited technology training in their education preparation programs and were rarely given the opportunity to create lessons using technology or opportunities to practice teaching with these technological tools (Gil, 2001; Piano, 2007).

In fact, teacher education programs both at pre-service and continuing ICT professional development often view technology as a subject to be added to the program rather than a transversal tool to be integrated into the current curriculum. Research shows that for changes to occur, teachers need to be introduced to new pedagogical activities with technologies, given time to practice and reflect upon the experiences learned during the ICT professional development program: Teachers needs more than a few courses focused on hardware or surveys on educational software; rather they require training that incorporates technology into the curriculum – and allows time for teachers to experiment with new technologies and to participate in relevant professional development activities (Léon, 2001, p. 6). New technologies require new roles for teachers, new pedagogies, and new approaches to teachers’ training. If we want teachers to use technology effectively in the classroom, within training programs one must consider that, as important as getting familiarized with technologies, teachers need time to experience learning ICT strategies which can facilitate the students’ use of technology both to learn and communicate, and time “to share problems and issues with instructors and peers” (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002, p. 410). More than quantity it is the quality of teacher development programs that is the key to a successful integration of ICT into the classroom. As educators in teachers’ training and initial education programs in a public university for more than fifteen years we assume that the failure of ICT integration is due to a lack of professional development of teachers in technology-supported pedagogy. A review of the literature sustained a set of principles and inspired, at a conceptual level, the development of the ICT professional development programs with Web 2.0 tools:

387


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

388

There is no chance of changing educational systems if teachers are not involved in the reform process (Downes et al., 2001); Teacher education programs are crucial for technology to be integrated into the classrooms (Coutinho, 2005; Piano, 2007); The successful integration of ICT into the classroom will depend on the ability of teachers to structure the learning environment in non-traditional ways, to merge new technology with new pedagogy, to develop socially active classrooms, encouraging cooperative interaction, collaborative learning, and group work (Woodbridge, 2004); Both professional development programs for teachers currently in the classroom and programs for preparing future teachers should provide technology-rich experiences throughout all aspects of the training (UNESCO, 2008); Using ICT it is possible to extend the teachers’ professional development so as to advance their skills in pedagogy, collaboration, leadership and innovative school development (Schwab, 2000); Effective ICT professional development is experiential, engaging teachers in concrete tasks in teaching, assessment, observation and reflection that illuminate the process of learning and development (Carlson & Gadio, 2002; CERI, 1998; Ulmer & Timothy, 2002); Effective ICT professional development is collaborative and interactional involving knowledge share among educators and the focus on teachers´ practice communities (CERI, 1998; Hargreaves, 1998; King, 2002); Through there are different perspectives for integrating ICT into teachers’ education programs, the literature supports that

integrated or interdisciplinary approaches are most effective to enhance the adoption of constructivist learning settings in real classrooms (Downes et al., 2001).

THE PROJECT At the Department of Curriculum and Educational Technology of the University of Minho (Portugal), we prepare teachers to use technologies in the classroom: from the audiovisual in the 80´s, the computer in the 90´s and more recently the Internet, we constantly had to adapt our teaching methods to the technological changes. Our responsibility is to prepare teachers who are proficient in creating technological learning environments that engage students in learner-centred environments where interaction and cooperation are essential for the success in the knowledge society we live in. Aware of the potential that the new internet generation can bring to the development of innovative learning environments, we started in the year of 2006, a research project entitled Learning, Training and Research on the Web financed by the Center of Research in Education-CIED of the University of Minho whose main goal was to discuss the potential of Web 2.0 in teacher education programs both for graduation and professional development of teachers. The main idea which was in the basis of the project regarded the development of teachers´ competencies for the integration of technologies in the classroom, as well as a philosophy which values pedagogical strategies in which ICTs are cognitive tools used by the teacher to help the student in knowledge searching, constructing and sharing. Since then, ten case studies were conducted enrolling different groups of teachers who attended pre-service education programs as well as continuing professional development. In total, 105 pre-service and 77 postgraduate teachers enrolled in education programs used Web 2.0 tools in different contexts and research goals. Like Brown (2006), we believed that an effective pedagogical


use of these tools could determine the promotion of innovative and collaborative learning strategies in the classroom. Taking into account the literature review stated above as well as our own experience of teaching Educational Technology assignments at the University of Minho, we designed an education program using Web 2.0 tools (Coutinho, 2008). According to this pre-service teacher education program students should: (a) get acknowledged with a variety of Web 2.0 tools as well as with pedagogic approaches to use these Web technologies in the classroom; (b) analysed and discuss relevant experiences related to the pedagogical use of this new web paradigm with implications for the future of lifelong learning; (c) design/ implement a classroom learning strategy using one (or several) Web 2.0 tools. The new program was developed throughout 15 weekly face-to-face sessions of 3-4 hours each, followed by at-distance activities. The at-distance activities were aimed at finalizing the didactic-pedagogic activities carried out during the weekly meetings, since the access and exploration of the virtual environments requires many hours of dedication. Each student, according to its own knowledge of the informatics tools, moved forward in the process according to its own rhythm. The non-presential period was destined to the accomplishment of the collaborative writing assignments as well as to the reflexion, discussion and evaluation of the subjects proposed during the meeting. At the end of the semester all students presented to the class the assignments they had developed as well as the learning artefacts designed for a real classroom activity. Formative evaluation was implemented all over the semester and all students had to participate in the final evaluation process (self assessment and hetero assessment by other class members) (Coutinho, 2008). The pedagogical activities with Web 2.0 tools had different purposes in ICT professional development programs. In fact, we worked with in-service K-12 teachers who attended a postgrad-

uate Master Program in Educational Technology. According to Glatthorn (1995, p. 41), “ Teacher development is the professional growth a teacher achieves as a result of gaining increased experience and examining his or her teaching systematically”. In fact, for most teachers who attended our Master Program the main objective is to develop ICT skills and competencies to improve teaching, not a mere career development.The curricular subject was Research Methods in Education (RME), a 3 hours/ week lecturer class that aims to provide teachers with competences in a broad range of social and scientific methods necessary for the development of an original dissertation that is compulsory for obtaining the Master degree in Education. Our previous experience of teaching RME in professional development programs of K-12 teachers who work and have difficulties to attend regular classes, suggest that much more could be done in order to prepare wiser teachers and researchers for the fast-changing knowledge-based societies we live in. We believed that learning would occur through the exchange and sharing of information and opinions among a group of teachers who aimed to develop ICT competencies as well as research skills. Web 2.0 tools – Blogs, Wiki, Del.icio.us, Google Page Creator and Google Docs – were used in different contexts and with specific goals: to build individual/group e-portfolios, for collaborative writing, to build a bibliography for a research project, to build a class repository of contents, to share and publish contents in the Web. Table 1 summarizes the ten studies carried out.

Web 2.0 Tools in Pre-Service Teacher Education Programs The term blog or weblog refers to a personalised webpage, kept by the author in reverse chronological diary form (Downes, 2004). Four studies were developed using blogs as e-portfolios with different classes of beginning teachers (Coutinho 2006; Coutinho 2007a; Coutinho 2007b; Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior, 2007a). A total of 105 graduate

389


Table 1. Summary of the ten studies conducted in teacher education programs Nº studies

Web 2.0 tool

School Year

Curricular Subject

Participants

4

Blog

2006/2007 2007/2008

Educ. Technology (3h/week)

75

2

Google Page Creator+ Blog+ Google Docs

2006/2007 2007/2008

Multimedia Education (4h/week)

30

1

Wiki

2006/2007

1

Google Page Creator+ Google Docs

2007/2008

2

Social Bookmarking (Del.ici.ous)

2007/2008

Pre-service teacher

Post Graduation (in service teachers)

students from the 3rd year of the academic licensure in Portuguese Language, Foreign Language and Physics and Chemistry were involved. The activities took place in the classes of the Educational Technology/Multimedia Education subjects (3-4 hours/week) which incorporates the pedagogical component of the initial teachers’ education at the University of Minho and aims the to prepare teachers´ to use technologies in the classroom. The future teachers used blogs as a pedagogical strategy in two of the modalities predicted by Davis (2004): as an individual portfolio (each student used the blog as a place to publish his own assignments and reflections) and as a support to the collaborative work (group portfolio). The assessment of the pedagogical activities with this Web 2.0 tool had resorted to different data collection techniques, which is common in exploratory case studies: interviews, observation, online enquiries and the content analysis of the artefacts. Concerning the results, the first registered data was the enormous motivation originated by the proposals among the future teachers who, in great majority, ignored both the concept of Web 2.0 and its tools. Only few of them used blogs, but only for personal purposes; none of the participants had previously used this tool in classroom context in the education program. Only two students reported having technical difficulties in the use of this tool; in all the studies, the blogs’ evolution

390

16 Research Methods In Education

24 37

was noticeable regarding interface quality as well as the domain of specific functions such as the assemblage of contents (RSS). We could verify that blogs run quite well when used as individual portfolios or e-notebook. However, we must warn to one fact that was inferred from our experiment with the future teachers and which should be considered in future studies: if there is a large group (more than 15 students) it becomes very difficult for the teacher to support and give feedback on a weekly basis (through comments on the posts) to each one of the students’ portfolio individually. However, if the teacher does not pay regular visits to the blogs to comment, the students will lose interest in the activity and a large part of the potential of this Web 2.0 tool for enhancing learning will be lost. On the other hand, when students use the blog as a group portfolio (3-4 students per group), the interactions in class are much more intense and dynamic, with the students visiting and leaving more comments in the colleagues’ blogs. The teacher’s role continues to be valued, but not as much as when the blog was used as an individual portfolio. The assessment issue was another aspect to highlight, since in the different studies where the blog was used for group work, the evaluation became a simpler and clearer process to the whole class. The blog’s potentialities for the promotion of cooperative learning strategies was also demonstrated with success in the study where the analysis


was focused on this issue (Coutinho, 2007b); the students recognized having developed group work competencies, feeling more responsible both for their learning as well as for the others. In synthesis and focusing the pedagogical potential of blogs, our research showed they are a good option: a) to manage knowledge in a community; b) to create individual or group e-portfolios; c) to develop cooperative/collaborative learning strategies; d) to facilitate students perception on his own learning (individual portfolio), e) to enhance interaction between instructor/student and student/student outside the classroom. In all the studies, the future teachers highly appraised the pedagogical experiments with blogs, concerning the ICT competencies’ development (greater enjoyment in using the ICTs and the internet, development of skills in information research and online publication) and they all finished their course stating a clear intention to use the same tools in the classroom with their future students (6 students said that this use would depend on the school’s conditions and 2 considered as vital the possibility of the students having access to the internet outside the classroom). They all agree that the blog motivates the students to become more responsible for their own learning process. They also agree that keeping the productions online and accessible to a global public motivates a more careful selection of the contents, both at the organizational level and the quality of the written texts. It is the empowerment of pupil and teacher to post and to comment, the sense of real worldwide audience and the ability to collaborate beyond the barrier of the classroom (and therefore the school) that makes writing and reading through weblogs a more educationally interesting proposal than others (Gomes, 2005b). To publish online is important for students to experience ownership and responsibility for their work and also to learn to criticize constructively in the global network. The teacher has also a great opportunity to improve writing and reading skills. Above all, the whole education

community loses out on the chance to motivate large number of learners by using technology that is available and which increasingly forms part of teenagers’ lives (Coutinho, 2008). Google Page Creator, is a free web-based application that allows the creation of customized Websites. The tool was used to build group websites in two studies developed in the second semester of school year 2007/2008. One study project enrolled 20 pre-service teachers of Portuguese Language and the other 10 student teachers of History who attended the curricular subject Multimedia Education (3h/week class) (Coutinho, in press). In small groups student teachers developed an electronic portfolio for class work and assessment. In order to promote class interactions each group also had a blog built in Blogger.com which was linked to the homepage of the group. The blog´s purpose was to be a space for debate and reflection on the class activities as well as for publishing essays related to the class assignment. Students also used Google Docs for collaborative writing and so, in this experience, a mixture of Web 2.0 tools was used to enhance learning, interaction and collaboration. The idea was to familiarize students with different Web 2.0 tools in order for them to have a critical insight into the potentials and limitations of each other, depending on the age and style of the learners, the curricular subjects and the learning goals. For the final assessment each group had to plan and present a classroom activity to develop with their own students in the next year (induction period) justifying the reasons that lead to the choice of a specific Web 2.0 tool as well as its´ adequacy according to the learners´ age and cognitive development. At the end of the semester, focus group sessions were conducted to obtain student teachers´ reactions to the pedagogical experience. All student teachers valued the learning experience, considering classes to be very “interesting” and “catching”; they also considered the curricular subject essential to “prepare the future teachers of the XXI century” who want “the school to be part

391


Table 2. Case studies with pre-service teachers Tool

Part.

Pedagogical Strategy

Methods for Data Collection

Results (synthesis)

Blog

75

Students build blogs for classroom work and assessment; Blogs were used as individual portfolio (1 study) or cooperative group work (3)

Direct observation. Focus group interviews Questionnaires.

Blogs are excellent tools - To create individual and group portfolios - To create a class space for debate and idea sharing - To develop cooperative learning strategies - To complement face to face classes - To promote interactions outside the classroom - To help develop auto-perception on learning - With syndication technologies enable groups of learners and teachers to keep track of new posts. - To build up a corpus of interrelated knowledge via posts and comments.

Google Page Creator+ Blog+ Google Docs

30

In small groups, students used Google Page Creator to build a website; The site included a link to a blog that was used for classroom interactions; Google Docs was used for collaborative written assignments.

Questionnaire. Focus group interviews. Content analysis of artifacts.

GPC+B+GP are useful: - to create online class repositories - to publish and share contents - to manage knowledge in a community - to enhance interactions (blog) - to enhance collaborative writing competencies (Google Docs) - to develop ICT skills

of the students´ lives”. The pedagogical proposals developed by the student teachers were also amazing and revealed a high sense of responsibility and a firm will to establish a classroom environment that takes into account the learning opportunities that facilitate the students’ use of technology to learn and communicate. Table 2 summarises the design and results of the case studies carried out with pre-service teachers.

Web 2.0 Tools in Post Graduate Education Programs Wikis are one of the most promising technologies that allow implementing collaborative techniques on the work group in virtual environments. A wiki is a website produced by several authors through a collective work. It is similar to a blog in its logical structure, but it also allows adding, editing or removing content created by other authors. Wiki allow publishing and sharing content on the web in a very easy way (Schwartz et al., 2004; Qian, 2007). According to Leuf & Cunningham (2001) wikis can be used in two different writing modes

392

or styles of usage: the document mode and the thread mode. In document mode contributors create collaborative documents and in the thread mode contributors carry out discussions in the wiki environment by posting signed messages. Although there is still few research regarding educational uses of wikis, findings support the use of this tool for collaborative learning (Augar et al., 2004; Santamaria & Abraira, 2006). The project with wiki technology was developed in the first semester of 2006/07 (October thru February) and enrolled 16 in-service teachers who attended a Master Program on Research Methods in Education (RME) (Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior, 2007b). We believed that learning would occur through the exchange and sharing of information and opinions among a peer group in an online community of practice and we used a wiki in order: a) to create a repository of contents for RME subject; b) to introduce blended learning solutions in our regular classes; c) to develop collaborative skills that enhanced students autonomy and habits of information search on the web. The instructor presented the project, defined timing and forms of assessment but all other


tasks were managed by students. The activity was proposed to students when they were already familiarised with the syllabus of RME program. The idea was that students would organize into groups and study in depth one of the research methodologies proposed by the instructor upon a selected bibliography. Students freely organized into groups and a wiki site was designed (http:// claracoutinho.wikispaces.com). All groups had different tasks and so, at final, the whole group built an enormous collaborative repository that has already been accessed by more than one thousand visitors! Students edited the wiki database whenever they wanted and the instructor visited the wiki to scaffold students learning through comments and suggestions. The teacher was a mediator who adjusted the level of information and support so as to maximize group ability to take responsibility for their own learning. Groups` contributions to the wiki database were assessed for final approval in the course. The quality of the essays exceeded all expectations: each topic was organized as an interactive index format that facilitated the search for relevant information; posts were written in an academic format including relevant citations; a final extended bibliography was suggested for further research on the topic. The wiki learning experience was also assessed thru the administration of an online questionnaire at the end of the semester. The feedback received from participants sustained the idea that wiki technology can be effective for collaborative work and professional development in ICT. Teachers´ recognized the importance of peer interaction to create a common identity, to promote the knowledge construction and sharing; they all agreed that a relational involvement was necessary to a mutual support and that this was a key factor in the success of the collaborative wiki activity. As stated by VanHarmelen (2007), we also verified Wikis are very useful to develop class projects, and are particularly suited to the incremental accretion of knowledge by a group, or production of collaboratively edited material; teachers can use

them to supply scaffolding for writing activities, providing supply for page structure, hints as to desirable content, and then provide feedback on student generated content. The second project was developed in the first semester of 2007/08 (October thru February) and enrolled 24 in service teachers who attended a postgraduate education program in Educational Technology. The idea was that teachers should work in teams and develop a research project on a program topic upon a selected bibliography (Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior, 2008a). In the first class all participants had to create a gmail account. Apart from the individual account on Google, each group also acceded to the Google Page Creator - to create a web site that worked as the e-portfolio of the group all over the semester. In this webpage, in addition to elements of the personal identification of the elements of the group (picture, contacts, mini curriculum) should be collected all documents (text, images, references, sites) that the group considered relevant for final evaluation. Each group took advantage of the features that the Web 2.0 tool provides, which led to e-portfolios in very diverse formats. At the end of the semester, each group digital portfolio became a repository of information on a specific research methodology and contents of the subject of RME, which all colleagues could consult and use for future research projects. The instructor also a site of the RME subject (mieuminho.googlepages.com), where all participants could access links to the sites of the other groups, as well as to all information considered useful to scaffold learning in the early stages of development of the group work. The sites of each group were visited every week by the instructor who sent feedback and comments using the group e-mail, in order to improve the quality of the portfolio both in terms of usability and layout as well as in the trustworthiness of the contents available. The main purpose of this project was to prove that in any teacher education program we can effectively teach a particular content – in our case the

393


compulsory curricular subject “Research Methods in Education” - while incorporating technology concepts and developing ICT skills and competences. The enthusiasm maintained by teachers all over the semester, the quality of the e-portfolios developed by the groups (the evaluation of the websites took into account pre-established criteria which focused on the quality and originality of the collection of artefacts available, as well as on the rigour of the academic writing, important in the context of a curricular subject which prepares novice researchers in educational contexts), as well as the feedback obtained on the final online survey, shows that teachers valued the learning experience of using this Web 2.0 tools and that they had a firm intention to incorporate the technologies they experienced in their own teaching practices. All participants agreed to have developed ICT skills and competencies. We also verified that the process of developing e-portfolios improved the teachers´ reflective thinking and fostered deep learning of RME core. Nevertheless, even though participants recognized that Google Page Creator was useful to build a class repository of the assignments for a whole class they, they also considered that it had limitations when used for group e-portfolio in the same classroom: the tool does not allow participants to share ideas and opinions and leave comments. Some teachers suggested that a blog was a better option when the learning activity demands and values communication among peers (Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior, 2008a). The third and fourth studies with in-service teachers involved the use of a social bookmarking tool Del.icio.us that allows users to quickly (through the use of “bookmarklets”) save desired website addresses and categorize them with one or multiple “tags” that are user defined (Hayman, 2007). As a social bookmarking service, the del. icio.us website indicates how many other users have linked to a particular website address, and allows users to link to the social bookmarks of those other users. Social bookmarks can be an invaluable aid for the development of research

394

projects and for personal use in keeping track of and sharing valuable Internet resources (Fryer, 2005). Attending to the characteristics of the subject - Research Methods in Education – as well as the teaching methodology adopted for class work and assessment (group work), teachers created a del.icio.us account and developed an online bibliography for the final project on a chosen research methodology of the RME program. Central to this project was the idea that there is a great benefit in collaboration among a group of peers and that it could produce a final written essay that reflects the interests and understanding of the group as a whole. By studying the usage of this Web 2.0 tool as well as the attitudes toward this collaborative activity, it would be possible to determine the next steps in the effective use of the new generation of web services in teaching and learning. On the other hand, as instructors in an education program we believed that the use of this new web tool could help to prepare teachers who are equipped with technology resources and skills and who can effectively teach any curricular subject while incorporating technology concepts and skills. A total of 37 in-service teachers (from two different classes) participated in the study and fulfilled an initial questionnaire to verify previous knowledge on social bookmarking; we verified that for the majority of the participants terms like “social bookmarking”, “Tags” and particularly “RSS” and “folksonomy” were unfamiliar. For final assessment of the learning activities teachers participated in different focus group sessions (5 subjects per session of 1h 30m). We purposely created an informal scenario for group interviews in order for participants to feel at ease to answer and interact. Teachers were informed that the interview session would be audio taped for research purposes. As to results, most participants said they had no difficulties in using Del.icio.us. Most reported as positive aspects of the tool, its’ ease of use and its’ availability from any computer with internet access. All teachers agreed that the social bookmarking tool has great potentialities


Table 3. Case studies in postgraduate education programs Web 2.0 Tool

Nº Partic.

Pedagogical Strategy

Methods for Data Collection

Synthesis of Results

Wiki

16

A class repository of contents for RME assignement in wikispaces. com; Each group of teachers was responsible for a specific methodology. The instructor and students added comments to group websites for assessment; at the end of the semester an online collaborative RME manual was available to the community.

Initial questionnaire; Direct observation; Written reports; Final online questionnaire.

Wikis are suitable: - to create class projects in b-learning environments - to increment accretion of knowledge in a group - to produce collaboratively edited material - teachers can supply scaffolding for writing activities (providing supply for page structure, hints to desirable content, feedback on student generated content) - Students can flag areas of the wiki that need attention, and provide feedback on each other’s writing.

Google Page Creator/ Google Docs

24

In small groups, teachers used GPC to build a website; The site included a link to a blog that was used for outside classroom interactions; GD was used for collaborative written assignments.

Observation Interviews Questionnaire Content analysis

GPC+GD are suitable: - to create online class repositories - to publish and share contents - to manage knowledge in a community - to create group e-portfolios - to enhance collaborative writing skills - to develop ICT skills

Social Bookmarking (Del.ici. ous)

37

In small groups. Teachers created an account in Del.ici.ous; For a semester, the group developed an online bibliography to share resources for the development of the final assignment on a selected research methodology.

Initial questionnaire Focus Group Interviews.

Easiness of use and availability from any computer with internet access were most valued; the downside are the difficulties in tagging in groups that have not pre-established a set of categories shared by all (collabury). The tool is suitable: - To create and organize (with tags) an online bibliography that is always available - to share preferred sites with colleagues - to develop skills in searching Web information - to find new and never thought resources that could be related to research areas of interest and let them available to the scientific community - to accede to lists of websites others searched before

for the development of a research project as it allowed to organize and share web resources consulted while searching the internet, to have a bibliography always available online, to find new and never thought resources that could be related to different research areas of interest (Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior, 2008b). The potential of the tool to enhance collaboration among peers was also highlighted by participants: to have a Del.ici.ous account was “an added value for the whole group”, because it allowed “to share with the group the researched sites makes the research project more collaborative, enhancing diversity and creativity”. Limitations were also reported: difficulties in tagging in groups that have not pre-established a set

of categories shared by all members (collabury) and low quality of the software interface (Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior, 2008b, 2008c).

CONCLUSION In this chapter we presented the results of case studies developed with Web 2.0 tools in teacher education programs at the University of Minho, Portugal. In all the studies the main goal of the research was to provide technological-rich experiences with Web 2.0 tools in pre and in-service teacher education programs in order to promote the integration of technologies in the classroom.

395


Different Web 2.0 tools – blogs, wiki, social bookmarking, Google Page Creator, Google Docs – were integrated in teacher education programs in different contexts and with different research goals: to build individual/group e-portfolios, to enhance cooperation among peers, to develop collaborative writing and publishing competencies, to develop skills in searching, organizing and sharing web resources and to facilitate interaction and communication in and outside the classroom. As an overall conclusion from the project we can state that almost all participants in the learning experiences were not aware of the emergence of the new social web paradigm that allows users to read, write and communicate in the global network. Most participants said they used the web for personal purposes or to prepare pedagogical activities; however, in the real classroom, pedagogical activities using the web resources were only reported by 5% of the teachers. As to pre-service teachers´ the scenario is not very different: the computer and the internet were used by most students do develop faculty assignments but never as a pedagogical tool in the classroom activities. For most participants it was a surprise to verify that the new internet generation had so much to offer to educators, enhancing learning environments and encouraging knowledge deepening and knowledge creation. The involvement and the enthusiasm in the different pedagogical activities, the quality of the artifacts produced and published on the web, the opinions obtained from online questionnaires, interviews and written open reports show that most participants enrolled in the project had a firm intention to use internet resources as transformative learning tools to integrate in classroom curricular activities. It was clear by the participants’ feedback that the successful integration of ICT into the classroom depends - as stated by Woodbridge (2004) - on the ability to structure the learning environment in non-traditional ways, developing socially active classrooms, encouraging cooperative interaction, collaborative learning and group work.

396

Regarding the use of each of the Web 2.0 tools in the case studies we verified each one has its own positive and negative features depending on the curricular objectives the teacher wants to pursue in the classroom. Our research shows that blogs are effective: a) to manage knowledge in a community; b) to create individual or group e-portfolios; c) to develop cooperative/collaborative learning strategies; d) to facilitate students perception on his/her own learning (individual portfolio), e) to enhance interaction between instructor/student and student/student outside the classroom. On the other hand, tools like Google Page Creator and Google Docs complement each other when the curricular goal of the pedagogical activity is to create online repositories of contents for a group of peers to publish and share; students can be organized into small groups and work a specific topic using Google Docs for outside classroom meetings; the assignments are then published in the website for the instructor and colleagues to read and comment; the addition of a blog to the site is a good idea for the creation of a complementary space for debate and discussion of the different contributions. The use of wiki technology is an alternative for similar purposes – to create a group repository of contents; they are particularly suited to the incremental accretion of knowledge by a group, or production of collaboratively edited material with the additional functionality of allowing commentaries to be done on each page: teachers can use them to supply scaffolding for writing activities, providing supply for page structure, hints as to desirable content, and then provide feedback on student generated content; the downside is that they are difficult to manage when the number of collaborators is big, what means more interference of the instructor in organizing the contents of the database. Social bookmarking tools are very useful when students have to develop a collaborative research project and need to search, share and organize Web resources; the downside is the difficulties in tagging in groups that have not pre-established a


set of categories accepted and shared by all collaborators (collabury). For younger students the teacher can also use the social bookmarking tool to help learners in a “guided tour” across internet resources, and also to use the functionalities of the tool to tutoring the students´ web searches for a specific assignment. As stated in the theoretical framework, there are different goals for integrating ICT into the school curriculum and teacher education programs: ICT as a subject of study, ICT as a tool for learning and ICT as integral to both matter and pedagogy. Our research project highlights the deficiencies of separate ICT subjects as the dominant strategy for teacher education programs: on the other hand, as suggested by Downes et al. (2001), we believe that the adoption of integrated or interdisciplinary approaches in ICT-based teachers´ training develops positive attitudes towards technologies and enhances the adoption of constructivist learning settings in the classroom routines. If we don´t show teachers how technologies can be used to learn then we will have a generation of highly competent monolingual technicians with nothing much to say. The key skills of the future will include the ability to develop innovative ways of using technology to enhance the learning environments, to encourage technology literacy, knowledge deepening and knowledge creation. In fact, as stated in the 2008 UNESCO report, “To live, learn and work successfully in an increasingly complex, information-rich and knowledge-based society, students and teachers must utilize technology effectively” (UNESCO, 2008, p. 1).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research project was financed by CIED, University of Minho, Portugal.

REFERENCES Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32–44. Alves, M. (2008). O Computador e a Internet como instrumentos pedagógicos: estudo exploratório com professores do 2º e 3º ciclo do ensino básico e do ensino secundário de escolas do concelho de Vila Verde. Unpublished master dissertation. Braga: Universidade do Minho. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for Education. Technology & Standards Watch. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf. Augar, N., Raitman, R., & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and Leaning online with wikis. Paper presented at the International Conference on Webbased Learning, ICWL, 2004, Beijing. Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00075-1 Brown, J. S. (2006). Growing up Digital: How the Web changes work, education and the ways people learn. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http:// journalism.berkeley.edu/conf/conference2003/ present/brown-paper.pdf. Carlson, S., & Gadio, C. T. (2002). Teacher professional development in the use of technology. In J. Sikula (Ed), Handbook on Teacher Education (pp. 978-1029). New York: Macmillan. CERI. (1998). Staying ahead: in-service training and teacher Professional development. Center for Educational Research and Innovation. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE).

397


Coutinho, C., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2007a). Blog e Wiki: os futuros professores e as ferramentas da Web 2.0. In M. J. Marcelino & M. J. Silva (org.), Actas do IX Simpósio Internacional de Informática Educativa (SIIE 2007), (pp. 199204). Porto, Brazil: ESE-IPP. Coutinho, C., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2007b). Collaborative Learning Using Wiki: A Pilot Study With Master Students In Educational Technology In Portugal. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.). Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimédia, Hypermedia e Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2007), (pp. 1786 – 1791), Vancouver, Canadá. Coutinho, C., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2008b). Using Social Bookmarking to enhance Cooperation/collaboration in a Teacher Education Program. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds). Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, Vienna - Austria. (pp. 25512556). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Coutinho, C., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2008c). Portuguese Postgraduate Teachers´ Opinions About Using Social Bookmarking: a descriptive study In a Master Course in Educational Technology. In McFerrin, K, Weber, R., Carslen, R. & Willis, A. (eds),Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education SITE 2008 (pp.3307-3312). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Coutinho, C. P. (2005). Percursos da Investigação em Tecnologia Educativa em Portugal: uma abordagem temática e metodológica a publicações científicas (1985-2000). Série “Monografias em Educação.” Braga: CIED, Universidade do Minho.

398

Coutinho, C. P. (2006). Utilização de blogues na formação inicial de professores: um estudo exploratório. In Panizo et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computers in Education, (Vol 2, pp. 157-164). Coutinho, C. P. (2007a). Infusing technology in pre service teacher education programs in Portugal: a study with weblogs. In R. Craslen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007, (pp. 2027-2034). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Coutinho, C. P. (2007b). Cooperative Learning in Higher Education using Weblogs: a study with undergraduate students of Education in Portugal. In A. Tremante et al. (eds.) Proceedings of International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applicattions, EISTA, 2007, (Vol I, pp. 60-64). Orlando, EUA. Coutinho, C. P. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in pre-service teacher education Programs: an example from Portugal. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on e-Learning-ECEL 2008, (pp. 239-245). Reading, UK: Academic Publishing Limited. Coutinho, C. P. (in press). Tecnologias Web 2.0 na formação inicial de professores: um estudo com alunos da Licenciatura em Estudos Portugueses. Revista Educação . Formação e Tecnologia. Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Junior, J. (2008a). The use of GooglePages and GoogleDocs to develop e-portfolios in a Teacher Education Program: an example from Portugal. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds.) Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 3135-3139). Vienna - Austria.


Davis, A. (2004). Ways to use weblogs in education. eSchool News. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/eti/ archives/2004/10/000190.ph

Hargreaves, A. (1998). Os professores em tempo de mudança: O trabalho e a cultura dos professores na idade pós-moderna. Lisboa, Portugal: McGraw-Hill.

Downes, S. (2004). Educational Blogging. Educause Review, 39(5), 14-26. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from at http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/ erm04/erm0450.asp?bhcp=1

Hayman, S. (2007). Folksonomies and Tagging: new developments in social bookmarking. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www. educationau.edu.au/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/papers/arkhayman.pdf

Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., et al. (2001). Making Better Connections: Models of Teacher development for the integration of information and communication technology into classroom practice. Report of the Australia Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from http://www.dest. gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/3A88BB29-9798-49A190DB-0E46590E96BF/1593/MBC.pdf Ferreira, L. (2007). O que aprendemos com a Web 2.0: novos rumos para a aprendizagem. In A. B. Alves (org.) Actas do Encontro Internacional “Discurso, Metodologia e Tecnologia,” (pp. 237247). Miranda do Douro, Portugal: CEAMM. Fryer, W. (2005). Teaching & Learning with the Read/Write Web. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.wtvi.com/TEKS/04_05_articles/readwrite-web.html Gil, F. (2001). Estratégias de utilização das TIC em contexto educativo: um estudo com professores do Ensino Secundário. In Actas do 3º Simpósio Internacional de Informática Educativa, Viseu, Portugal, (pp. 441-446). Glatthorn, A. (1995). Teacher Development. In L. Anderson (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education (2nd Ed). London: Pergamon Press. Guerra, M. (2000). A Escola que Aprende. Porto, Portugal: Asa.

Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Computadores, Ferramentas Cognitivas - Desenvolver o pensamento crítico nas escolas. Porto, Portugal: Porto Editora. King, K. (2002). Educational Technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, 39, 283–297. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00073-8 Léon, A. P. (2001). Higher Education’s Challenge: New Teacher Education Models for a new Century. Carnegie Corporation of New York Report. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from www.carnegie.org. Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: quick collaboration on the web. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison Wesley. Mayo, N., Kajs, L., & Tanguma, J. (2005). Longitudinal Study of Technology Training to Prepare Future Teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 3–15. Moura, A. (2007). A Web 2.0 na aula de língua materna: relato de uma experiência. In A. B. Alves (org.) Actas do Encontro Internacional “Discurso, Metodologia e Tecnologia (pp. 9-24). Miranda do Douro, Portugal: CEAMM. Piano, A. R. (2007). Vinte anos de investigação sobre Tecnologias Educativas em Portugal: uma sistematização da investigação desenvolvida entre 1985 e 2005. Master Dissertation (unpublished), Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.

399


Punie, Y. C & Cabrera, M. (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the Knowledge Society. Report on a Joint DG JRC-DG EAC Workshop, Seville, October 2006. Institute For Prospective Technological Studies. EU: Joint Research Center. Qi, J., & Vandersall, K. (2007). Facilitating Reflective Practice for Pre-Service Teachers Through Electronic Portfolio Development. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2609-2616). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Qian, Y. (2007). Meaninful Learning with Wikis: making a connection. In R. Craslen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007, (pp. 2093-2997), Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcast and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Santamaria, F. G., & Abraira, C. F. (2006). Wikis: posibilidades para el aprendizaje colaborativo em Educacion Superior. In L. Panizo et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computers in Education, (Vol 2), pp. 371-378. Schwab, R. (2000). Technology and the changing roles and responsibilities of teacher educators. Log On or Lose Out Technology in 21st Century [Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Publication.]. Teaching Education, 151–155. Schwartz, L., Clark, S., Cossarin, M., & Rudolph, J. (2004). Educational Wikis: features and selection criteria. The International Journal of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(1). Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.irrodl.org/index/ irrodl/article/view/163/244

400

Silva, A. (2004). Professores utilizadores das TIC em contexto educativo: estudo de caso numa escola secundária. Unpublished master dissertation. Lisboa: FPCE-UL. Ulmer, C. J., & Timothy, M. (2002) How do teachers reflections affect teaching practices. Follow up study. In G. Sheil & U. Ni Dhalaigh. (Eds) Other ways of seeing: Diversity in Language and Literacy, (Vol. 2, pp. 157-163). UNESCO. (2008). ICT competency standards for teachers. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from http://cst.unesco-ci.org/ sites/projects/cst/The%20Standards/ICT-CST Policy%20Framework.pdf Vanharmelen, M. (2007). Briefing paper on Web 2.0 technologies for content sharing: Web 2.0 – An introduction. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from www. franklin consulting.co.uk/LinkedDocuments/ Introduction%20to%20Web%202.doc. Woodbridge, J. (2004). Technology Integration as a Transforming Teaching Strategy. TechLearning. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http:// www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle. jhtml?articleID=17701367. Yuen, S., & Yuen, P. (2008). Web 2.0 in education. In McFerrin, K., Weber, R., Carslen, R. & Willis, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2008-( pp.3227-3228). Chesapeake, VA: AACE

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Web 2.0: Hayman’s (2007, p.1) defines Web 2.0 tools as “a cluster of web-based technologies services with a social collaboration and sharing component, where the community as a whole contributes, takes control, votes and ranks contents and contributions”.


Pre-Service Teacher Education Program: Education programs that prepare student teachers before they have undertaken any teaching for the multiple roles of classroom teacher, school team member, community leader, and education advocate. ICT Professional Development: ICT skills and knowledge attained for both teacher professional development and career advancement. According to Glatthorn (1995, p. 41) “ Teacher development is the professional growth a teacher achieves as a result of gaining increased experience and examining his or her teaching systematically”. Wiki: A wiki is a website produced by several authors through a collective work. It allows authors to add, edit or remove contents.

Social Bookmarking: Social Bookmarking is the practice of saving bookmarks to a public Web site. Blog: The term blog or weblog refers to a personalised webpage, kept by the author in reverse chronological diary form. Google Page Creator: Free web-based application that allows the creation of customized Websites. Google Docs: Free web-based word processor which allows authors to share and collaborate online.

401

402

Chapter 24

From Memorable to Transformative E-Learning Experiences:

Theory and Practice of Experience Design Pearl Chen California State University, Los Angeles, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter reviews the current state of theory and practice of experience design and suggests that the notion of experience should be regarded as an essential and unifying theme in guiding a broader perspective of design and study of e-learning. Underlying this chapter is a view that suggests a shift from designing learning environments to “staging” learning experiences. By looking at learning through the prism of experience design, we may begin to discover ways to create compelling, memorable, and transformative e-learning experiences. Some existing models and effective practices in education are considered as viable models for adapting experience design to e-learning contexts. Furthermore, this chapter identifies some converging areas of research from the fields of experience design and education, so as not to reinvent the wheel but to expand our knowledge on designing quality e-learning experiences that are engaging and valued by people.

INTRODUCTION In 1999, in an article entitled “Online Education as Interactive Experience: Some Guiding Models,” Hilary McLellan asked an important question that should be carefully considered by educators: “All aspects of education are imbued with a high potential for remembrance and nostalgia. But how does this experience change as the experience shifts more DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch024

and more from a physical location to cyberspace?” (p. 36). In the article, McLellan discussed some guiding models and concepts for creating engaging and memorable online learning experiences: experience economy (Pine & Gilmore, 1999), digital storytelling, social presence, and personal space and affordances. Of particular significance is Pine and Gilmore’s experience economy model that encompasses four realms of experience design: (1) esthetic – design that provides an inviting, interesting, and comfortable environment, (2) es-


From Memorable to Transformative E-Learning Experiences

capist – design that focuses on immersive, highly participatory activities, (3) educational – design that promotes active learning and exploration, and (4) entertainment – design that allows fun and enjoyment for sustaining learner attention and motivation. The four experience realms have important implications for e-learning design. In a later article, McLellan (2002) elaborated on using experience design as a framework for designing learning experiences in general. “Experience design is an emerging multidisciplinary approach to design that has important implications for the design of instruction. Experience design is actually an ancient practice, going back to the earliest human impulse to develop rituals, ceremonies, drama, and even architecture. But the design of experiences has become much more pervasive during the past century, with media, including radio, television, and interactive electronic media, playing a central role” (McLellan, 2002, p. 30). Examples of applying experience design in education include museum exhibits, case studies, and simulations that focus on highly interactive and participatory learning experiences. Now, almost a decade after McLellan’s 1991 article, how has e-learning evolved in terms of experience design? As e-learning is becoming a popular form of learning and training both in corporate and academic settings, many authors have contributed to the discussion of relevant topics. This chapter is an attempt to review the current state of theory and practice of experience design related to e-learning developments. It suggests that the concept of experience should be regarded as an essential and unifying theme in guiding the design and study of e-learning. It then considers some existing models and effective practices in education, including project-based learning (PBL), knowledge building, visual thinking, and cognitive apprenticeship, for creating highly participatory e-learning experiences that are not only memorable but also transformative. The main aims of this chapter are to:

1.

2.

3.

Review current state of theory and practice of experience design related to e-learning developments; Explore existing models and effective practices in education as viable models for adapting experience design to e-learning contexts; Identify converging areas of research from the education and experience design fields and suggest directions for future research and development.

EXPERIENCE DESIGN The major thrust of the work of Pine and Gilmore is that experience is a new type of economic offering that is distinct from the previous Service Economy. “When a person buys a service, he purchases a set of intangible activities carried out on his behalf. But when he buys an experience, he pays to spend time enjoying a series of memorable events that a company stages ─ as in a theatrical play ─ to engage him in a personal way” (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, p. 2). Pine and Gilmore regard every business as a stage where the buyers of experiences should be treated as guests and the company that engages its guests over a duration of time is comparable to the role of an experience stager. They define experiences as “events that engage individuals in a personal way” (p. 12) that could be on various levels: emotional, physical, intellectual, or even spiritual. Although the value of experience as an economic offering has been mainly exploited by the entertainment industry, Pine and Gilmore (1999) point out that “staging experiences is not about entertaining customers, it’s about engaging them” (p. 30). To help design engaging and compelling experiences, they propose an experiential framework (see Figure 1) that encompasses four realms of experiences based on the level of participation (active or passive) and the type of connection (absorption or immersion) one has with the event.

403


Figure 1. The experience realms (adapted from Pine & Gilmore, 1999)

For Pine and Gilmore, the four realms of experiences are mutually compatible and the richest experiences should include some aspects of all four realms. In staging an experience, the framework as depicted in Figure 1 can provide a set of prompts to explore how the aspect of each realm might be designed to enhance a particular experience over time. In addition, the following design questions should be considered (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, pp. 39-40): •

•

404

What can be done to improve the esthetics of the experience? The esthetics are what make your guests want to come in, sit down, and hang out. Think about what you can do to make the environment more inviting, interesting, or comfortable. You want to create an atmosphere in which your guests feel free “to be.” Once there, what should your guests do? The escapist aspect of an experience draws

•

•

your guests further, immersing them in activities. Focus on what you should encourage guests “to do” if they are to become active participants in the experience. The educational aspect of an experience, like the escapist, is essentially active. Learning, as it is now largely understood, requires the full participation of the learner. What do you want your guests “to learn” from the experience? What information or activities will help to engage them in the exploration of knowledge and skills? Entertainment, like esthetics, is a passive aspect of an experience. When your guests are entertained, they’re not really doing anything but responding to (enjoying, laughing at, etc.) the experience. Professional speakers lace their speeches with jokes to hold the attention of their audience, to get them to listen to the ideas. What can you do by way of entertainment


to get your guests “to stay”? How can you make the experience more fun and more enjoyable? One challenge in experience design would be to find the balance for each type of experience. As pointed out by Pine and Gilmore, for instance, there is a need to strengthen the educational aspect of experience design in business and entertainment contexts. In education, on the contrary, it seems imperative to infuse the esthetic, escapist, and even the entertainment aspects into its theory and practice to guide the design of richer and more compelling educational experiences for our students. These are the areas where the value of experience design should be considered as they are related to motivation, which is, as Spitzer (1996) put it, a neglected factor in the instructional design process.

Motivation and Experience Design Focusing on the characteristics of highly motivating activities, Spitzer (1996) reminds us to consider the nature of the task and the context in all types of activities. He explains, “The task is the basic activity. The context is everything else…It is interesting to note that most tasks are inherently boring, or will eventually become that way if they are repeated long enough” (p. 46). He suggests that instructional designers consider the inclusion of the following “motivators” in the learning contexts: actions, fun, variety, choice, social interaction, error tolerance, measurement, feedback, challenge, and recognition. The psychology of optimal flow experience is useful for understanding the nature of motivation and engagement. Csikszentmihalyi (1999) describes such experience as a state of deep concentration and enjoyment when a person is engaging in a task or activity. The phenomenology of this enjoyment state has several important components. Briefly stated, one needs to be able to concentrate on the task that is challenging yet

achievable. The state of concentration can be enhanced by the perception of clear goals and immediate feedback provided by the task. The effortless and deep involvement with the task or activity can be characterized by a merging of action and awareness, a sense of being in control, a loss of self-consciousness, and a feeling of transformation of time. This optimal state has been consistently found across cultures, age, gender, and in all sorts of activities. Relating optimal flow to technology and learning, Norman (1993) believes that the experiential nature of the optimal experience can be captured by multimedia education, as he puts it: Probably all of us have experienced this engaged state of focused attention, a form of trance. As all attention is focused upon the task at hand, the outside world fades away: Its noises and distractions subside…It is an enjoyable state, for when attention becomes so intensely focused upon the thing of interest everyday worries and fears are transcended and all else recedes. One lives for that task alone (p. 31). Relevant studies on human-computer interaction (HCI) have suggested that computers can encourage playfulness (Webster, Trevino, & Ryan, 1993). Based on the theory of optimal flow, Webster, Trevino, and Ryan, (1993) defined playfulness as the computer users’ perceived pleasure and intense involvement during computer interactions. They found that optimal flow experience in HCI is positively correlated with the computer users’ increased amount of experimentation and voluntary computer interaction. Similarly, Ghani and Deshpande (1994) found that flow experience is significantly linked with an individual’s exploratory computer use, perceived challenge, and feeling a sense of being in control. These findings are consistent with earlier studies on computer games (e.g., Malone, 1981; Malone & Lepper, 1987) suggesting that challenge, fantasy, curiosity, and control are important factors associated with

405


intrinsically motivating environments. Malone and Lepper (1987) referred to these four factors as “individual motivations” and recommended the inclusion of “interpersonal motivations” such as cooperation, competition, and recognition in creating an intrinsically motivating environment. Taken together, experience designers should consider the following motivators: enjoyment, concentration, exploration, challenge, control, action, fun, variety, choice, social interaction, error tolerance, measurement, feedback, recognition, fantasy, curiosity, cooperation, competition, recognition.

•

•

E-Learning and Experience Design E-learning is no doubt a designed experience. Looking at learning through the prism of experience design, where do we begin to create engaging and memorable e-learning experiences? Pine and Gilmore (1999) suggest that the first step would be to envision a well-defined theme. In keeping with the metaphor of work is a stage (or theatre), “themeing an experience means scripting a story that would seem incomplete without guests’ participation” (p. 48). Incorporating concepts from drama, HCI, and storytelling, McLellan (2002, pp. 35-36) expounds on a broader approach that offers the following design elements for adapting experience design to education: •

•

406

Theme: Identify a theme for the learning experience that will frame the broad, unifying vision and goal of the experience. Remember: engaging themes integrate space, time, and matter into a cohesive whole that alters a person’s sense of reality. Story: Stories are fundamental to the way people structure information. Make use of stories as much as possible, using different instructional strategies as best fits your goals. This includes creating stories, performing stories, role-playing, and

•

•

•

•

critiquing and discussing stories, including case studies, scenarios, simulations, etc. Stories, and all the other design elements, should help emphasize the take away, the central narrative that people remember from the learning experience. Take away: The take away is the central message (story) that participants should remember. Dramatic arc: Take advantage of the emotional impact [that] drama is designed to evoke. Sequence learning activities so that there is a clear trajectory of beginning, middle, and end. You can also think of this sequence as an attraction, an engagement, and a conclusion. Make sure to hook your audience’s attention at the beginning, maintain a dramatic tension that keeps their attention, and provide an emotionally and cognitively satisfying closure at the end: make sure the “birds come home to roost.” Dramatic strategies: Use dramatic strategies to shape the experience, including sequence, progression, and duration of events, and the rhythm and tempo. Experience clues: Design environmental clues as part of the learning experience. Identify and plan experience clues in great detail. Make sure the clues are all coordinated and that they serve to support the purpose of the experience. Make sure these clues all send the same message. Boundaries: Identify and articulate boundaries such as time and space. Boundaries help establish the scope of the experience, permitting you to design the experience comprehensively. Constraints: Identify and articulate constraints, such as computer processing power or students’ (lack of) prior experience. Use design strategies that turn constraints into elements that enhance the overall experience.


Table 1. Framework for Active Online Learning (Adapted from Salmon 2002, 2004) Stages

•

E-moderating/e-tivities

Technical Support

1. Access and motivation

Welcoming and encouraging

Setting up system and accessing

2. Online socialization

Familiarizing and providing bridges between cultural, social and learning environments

Sending and receiving messages

3. Information exchange

Facilitating tasks and supporting use of learning materials

Searching, personalizing software

4. Knowledge construction

Facilitating process

Conferencing

5. Development

Supporting, responding

Providing links outside closed conferences

Roles & Responsibilities: Identify the roles and responsibilities of all the different participants, including both students and instructors. Keep in mind that the experience should be highly participatory. At the same time, participating must be well-defined and tightly focused. Don’t overlook the instructor’s roles and responsibilities.

Ideally, e-learning experience design should be based on a global design vision that encompasses all aspects of the real world campus experience (McLellan, 2000), so as to emulate and extend the value of such experience to the online campus. Based on this view, Chuah (2007) proposed the e-Learning eXperience Design (eLXD) model that considers the major areas of a university structure: assessment and examination, instructional materials, presentation and delivery, and the supporting services. At the center of this model (the core experience) are the four realms of Pine and Gilmore’s (1999) experience model and the elements of storytelling and multiple representations as the foundation of design that engages learners on a personal level. While having a comprehensive design vision is important, what seems to be missing in Chuah (2007) and Pine and Gilmore’s (1999) model is a process model for promoting and sustaining online engagement. Salmon’s (2002, 2004) work may be able to fill this gap. Briefly stated, Salmon used the term, e-tivity, to describe a 5-stage framework for active and interactive online learning (see

Table 1). E-tivities are engaging and purposeful synchronous discussions designed and led by an e-moderator. Key features of e-tivities include: stimulus or challenge (the “spark”) → participant contribution → interaction → summary, feedback or critique from an e-moderator (the “plenary”). Instructions to take part in e-tivities are included in one online message (the “invitation”). A critical aspect of Salmon’s framework is the role of trainer/instructor/facilitator/teacher as e-moderator in supporting participants’ development of skills needed for “working together” online. This practical approach is useful in the following aspects: • •

• • • •

emphasizing teaching techniques as opposed to content delivery; regarding the role of the e-moderator as “process designer” as opposed to content expert; addressing online emotions and participants’ psychological needs; focusing on “taking part” and skill development as opposed to accessing content; paying attention to “motivators” and “demotivators” in the learning process; easy to implement with simple ideas and inexpensive systems.

Relevant work has also been carried out by Iverson (2005) on e-learning games and by Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, and Tinker (2000) on e-moderating strategies for promoting critical

407


thinking and online community-building. Such work could potentially enhance all four realms of experiences within a compelling e-learning environment. More critically, e-learning designers should strive to design experiences that are not only memorable but also transformative—i.e., experiences that affect and change everyone involved. Pine and Gilmore (1999) argue that transformations last longer than a memory and are more valuable than the experience itself. While experiences are staged and revealed over a period of time, transformations need to be guided, elicited, and sustained through time. Two important questions to ask at this juncture are: What constitutes an effective model for designing highly participatory and transformative e-learning experiences? Are there existing models and effective practices in education that can be adapted for transformative e-learning experience design? The following will consider how we might adapt a popular educational approach, project-based learning (PBL), and instructional practices of cognitive apprenticeship, visual thinking, and knowledge building to e-learning experience design.

PBL as an Experience Design Model for Education PBL can be defined as “a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning knowledge and skills through an extended inquiry process structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully designed products and tasks” (Buck Institute for Education, 2003, p. 4). It has much in common with other activity-based approaches such as problem-based learning (Barrows, 1985; 1996), case-based reasoning (Kolodner, 1993); Learning by DesignTM (Kolodner, et al. 2002; Kolodner & Gray, 2003), and constructionism (Papert, 1991). To various extents, all these approaches include common elements of student working on authentic problems or questions, construction of material or knowledge artifacts, collaborative research,

408

using technology tools, and public sharing of experiences. Krajcik, Bluemenfeld, Marx, and Soloway (1994) encapsulate the essence of PBL with the following five features: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A driving question or problem that sets the scene for the project Student construction of an artifact and presentation to an outside audience Student collaborative research often over an extended period of time Community of inquiry Use of technology-based cognitive and communication tools

A review of literature on PBL shows that this approach can enhance learning that often leads to a higher-level of cognitive development (Newell, 2003). More comprehensively, PBL enables students to develop a wide range of skills such as research, organization, project/time management, communication, presentation, and metacognitive skills. The development of social skills is also evident in the process of peer evaluation of projects (McGrath, 2003). Most significant of all, students in PBL environments have been found to be highly engaging, enthusiastic, and proud. Findings from the author’s own research (Chen & McGrath, 2003b; Chen & Chen 2007) suggest that when students are given the role and responsibilities as knowledge designers within a PBL community, the experience appears to encourage them to reevaluate their own beliefs about themselves as learners. For some students, particularly those do not do well in traditional learning environments, PBL provides them “a chance not just to know their way around something academic, but to know what it is to know their way around something academic” (Perkins, 1996, p. viii). These findings are consistent with previous studies and numerous teacher reports in which the resulting PBL experiences are often described by learners as memorable and even transformative. While this type of transformative experience should


be regarded as an important goal of experience design in education, how might it be designed, elicited, guided, and sustained? How do we tailor the PBL experience for e-learning environments? The following three approaches may be used as general principles for designing transformative PBL experience.

Cognitive PBL: Integrating Visual Thinking and Cognitive Apprenticeship for Transformative Learning A main challenge of PBL is to structure the experience for students to engage in focused and sustained inquiry and for teachers to scaffold students’ development of a range of skills during the process. Nine decades later after Kilpatrick’s (1918) influential essay that defined the four phases of project as purposing, planning, executing, and judging, we still have much to learn about using the project method in education. More recently, the Buck Institute for Education (2003) identified several attributes of an effective project, including projects that recognize students’ inherent drive to learn; are central to the curriculum; lead to in-depth exploration of authentic and important topics; use of essential tools and skills; specify products generated through investigation, research, or reasoning; include multiple products and frequent feedback; use performance-based assessments; and projects that encourage collaboration. Similar to these attributes are the elements identified by Barron and colleagues (1998) emphasizing doing with understanding: learning-appropriate goals, scaffolds that support both student and teacher learning, frequent opportunities for formative selfassessment and revision, and social organizations that promote participation and result in a sense of agency. To sustain engagement, Blumenfeld et al. (1991) stressed factors such as students’ perceived interest and value of the project, students’ perceived competence, task focus and the nature of the project. Novelty, authenticity of the driving question, choices, challenge, closure (the

production of authentic artifacts), and opportunities to work with others all contribute to students’ interest and perceived value of a project. Students’ perceived competence can be enhanced by insuring sufficient access to resources, adequate level of tool skills, the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies during the project, and by helping them to accept their errors as necessary steps for learning. Factors affecting students’ task focus include procedures for evaluation and task goals. Taking a step further, Chen and McGrath (20042005) suggested that after engaging students in simple (“hands-on”) projects, it is important to increase the complexity of the projects by (1) dealing with typical learner difficulties such as conceptual difficulty, foreign knowledge, knowledge transfer, and self-regulation, (2) specifying a set of cognitive and metacognitive goals, and (3) scaffolding students’ use and development of effective cognitive/metacognitive skills. They used the term cognitive PBL to describe projects that are designed to support deep learning and sustained cognitive engagement. The goal is to lead students to mindful and deliberative use of explicit cognitive strategies and the exercise of self-regulatory and judgment skills. In this regard, they suggested that creative use of technology can be very effective in helping students escape from their passive and habitual learning patterns—the first step necessary toward active and transformative learning. Technology, both as a tool and an outlet, can make learners’ developing understandings visible by opening ideas, thought processes, and structures of knowledge for critical examination and assessment (see relevant work by McFarlane, Bonnett, & Williams, 2000; Chen & McGrath, 2003a; 2003b). Lehrer (1993) and colleagues (Lehrer, Erickson, & Connell, 1994), for example, observed four types of cognitive processes in students’ construction of PBL projects: planning, transforming, evaluating, and revising. Subsequent studies conducted by Chen and McGrath (2003a; 2003b) further revealed different knowl-

409


edge structures and thought processes in students’ development of digital artifacts. In online PBL, learners’ developing understandings can be made visible by preserving electronic dialogues from communication technologies and using them as objects of reflection for individual and community knowledge building (Goldman., Duschl, Ellenbogen, Williams, & Tzou, 2003). Cognitive PBL combined with appropriate technology tools and visual thinking strategies can help learners process information at a deeper level, enhance sharing and communicating knowledge, and encourage learners to recognize alternative or new ways of learning. In particular, tools for knowledge representation can help to stimulate,

organize, and manipulate ideas in a visible and traceable format. “This is why it is so important to make thinking visible—you are able to talk about it, think about your understanding, and fine-tune or reorganize your thinking. It is important to make both the learner’s thinking process observable to him/herself and to the teacher or expert, and to help the learner to observe a teacher’s or an expert’s thinking process” (Chen & McGrath, 2004-2005, p. 55). Furthermore, this process can be enhanced by teaching methods based on cognitive apprenticeship: modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration (see Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989; Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991).

Table 2. Adapting Experience Design to PBL Design Design Elements

Design Guidelines

PBL Design

Theme

Identify a theme for the learning experience that will frame the broad, unifying vision and goal of the experience

Develop project themes that are authentic and relevant

Story

Stories are fundamental to the way people structure information

Artifacts to be completed by participants.

Take away

The central message that participants should remember

The driving question in PBL

Dramatic arc

Sequence learning activities so that there is a clear trajectory of beginning (attraction), middle (engagement), and end (conclusion)

PBL sequence typically includes project planning (beginning), research, organization, representation, evaluation, revision (middle), presentation, and reflection (end)

Dramatic strategies

Use dramatic strategies to shape the experience, including sequence, progression, and duration of events, and the rhythm and tempo

Use scaffolding strategies such as modeling, coaching, articulation, reflection, and exploration; pay attention to the socio-cultural, emotional, and technological dynamics of the community of inquiry

Experience clues

Design environmental clues as part of the learning experience

Create the look and feel of the learning environment to match project themes

Boundaries

Establish the scope of the experience

Decide the scope of the project such as duration, breath, technology, resources, and audience

Constraints

Identify and articulate constraints

Identify students’ experience and skills, course schedule and outcomes, the subject, tools and resources, etc.

Identify the roles and responsibilities of all the different participants, including both students and instructors

Students as knowledge designers (or workers); instructors as coaches, facilitators, and co-learners

Roles & responsibilities

410


Staging Experiences with Milestone Artifacts

Enhancing Group Experiences with Knowledge Building Tasks

In using cognitive PBL, visual thinking, and cognitive apprenticeship as design foundations, the transformative experience can be elicited and mediated by various milestone artifacts—a form of collaborative representation in which group members instantiate their developing knowledge in text, graphics, digital products, or physical artifacts (Polman, 2004). Such artifacts can provide a rich resource to engage participants in sustained inquiries, meaningful interactions, and creative work with ideas. In keeping with using storytelling as the core experience in Chuah’s (2007) model, each milestone artifact may be viewed as a story framed by the experience designer and can only be completed by guests/students’ participation. McLellan’s (2002) experience design elements can be incorporated into each milestone artifact, or they can be embedded within the overall PBL experience as suggested in Table 2.

The social and emotional dynamics of a knowledge building culture can be a powerful motivator to engage participants in intentional, focused, and collaborative learning process with peers (Chen, 2006). Similar to the function of a milestone artifact, the task of knowledge building can also be viewed as a form of digital storytelling embodied in collaborative knowledge representations. Based on a set of principles (Scardamalia, 2002, see Table 3), the process of knowledge building can be enhanced by working on an external artifact or a communal database in which collective discussion and syntheses of ideas are made visible through this artifact. In a recent study, Chen and Chen (2007) looked at knowledge building and technological dynamics in an online PBL community. They observed participants’ experiences in communicating and constructing projects online using

Table 3. Knowledge Building Principles and Indicators (Adapted from Scardamalia, 2002) Real ideas, authentic problems – Real knowledge problems arise from efforts to understand the world. Improvable ideas – All ideas are treated as improvable. Idea diversity – Different ideas create a dynamic environment. Epistemic agency – Participants negotiate a fit between personal ideas and ideas of others. Community knowledge, collective responsibility – Participants take responsibility for the overall advancement of knowledge in the community. Democratizing knowledge – All participants are legitimate contributors to the shared goals of the community. Symmetric knowledge advancement – Interleaved communities provide successively more demanding contexts for knowledge work. Pervasive knowledge building – Creative work with ideas is integral to all knowledge work. Constructive uses of authoritative sources – Participants use authoritative sources and other information sources as data for their own knowledge building and idea-improving processes. Knowledge building discourse – Discourse serves to identify shared problems and gaps in understanding and to advance understanding beyond the level of the most knowledgeable individual. Embedded and transformative assessment – The community engages in its own internal assessment, which is both more fine-tuned and rigorous than external assessment. Rise above – Participants achieve new syntheses and higher-level formulations of complex problems.

411


four tools embedded in a learning management system (LMS): chat room, discussion board, concept mapping tool, and Web authoring tool. Findings from this study provide evidence that the online PBL experience, integrated with knowledge building tasks, visual thinking, and collaborative representations/milestone artifacts, can support a knowledge building culture in terms of these indicators: improvable ideas, real ideas/ authentic problems, democratizing knowledge, idea diversity, and pervasive knowledge building. The technological dynamics of the four tools supported the process of knowledge building when participants were trying to build on each others’ ideas through electronic dialogues, collaborative representations, and construction of digital artifacts. As noted earlier, electronic dialogues can be preserved and used as objects of reflection for knowledge building (Goldman, Duschl, Ellenbogen, Williams, & Tzou, 2003). This requires participants to (1) articulate their thinking through composing discussion entries, and (2) inspect and reflect on others’ entries. Moreover, ideas represented in the forms of collaborative representations such as concepts maps and Webpages can be shared, examined, revised, and reflected upon by everyone involved in the knowledge building community. These processes helped to promote both cognitive and social interactions (e.g., negotiation of tasks and responsibilities) in Chen and Chen’s study. Overall, they found that the technological dynamics of the LMS allowed participants to contribute to a shared knowledge base. However, due to the limitations of the LMS as a knowledge building tool, knowledge building discourses were found to be more evident in the small group communities as compared to the whole class community. This made symmetric knowledge advancement (i.e., knowledge building across different PBL groups) difficult. As revealed by participant comments, this problem seemed to be social rather than cognitive in the sense that participants did not feel as comfortable interacting

412

with members outside of their own group.

Social Presence and Social Space “Experiences based upon engaging with other people must include a sense of social presence. This is the sense of being present in a social encounter with another person. This includes a sense of immediacy and a sense of intimacy—psychological closeness—between the people in the encounter” (McLellan, 1999, p. 40). In the study described above, the small group format provided a sense of intense involvement for participants to form strong social and emotional connections that were important for establishing a knowledge building community. The group interaction can be described as “an intensive process targeting fewer people but involving strong interaction among them” (Trentin, 2000, p. 18). This intensive process can “permit the creation of a full-fledged learning community where individuals can overcome their isolation and draw benefits from interacting with the group” (Trentin, 2000, pp. 17-18). However, there were considerable differences in small groups’ patterns of interaction that need to be considered. Notably, in dealing with complex tasks under the constraints of existing e-learning tools, most participants preferred to meet faceto-face instead of communicating online. Group members were more likely to engage each other in online communication when they are geographically remote from each other. As a result, they had a more engaging, interactive, and successful e-learning experience. The strong need for a sense of immediacy and intimacy in online encounters is evident when participants attempt to go online at the same time to make immediate responses to each other’s comments (Chen, 2003, Chen & Chen 2007). This suggests that merely providing interactivity in e-learning environments is not enough to foster a sense of online social presence. Dillenbourg (1999) noted that the features of interactivity, synchronicity, and negotiability are essential for collaborative


learning. Moreover, the degree of interactivity should not be defined by the frequency of interactions, but by the extent to which those interactions influence group members’ cognitive processes. In e-learning experience design, features related to social presence should be considered in terms of their social, emotional, and cognitive impacts in relation to the four realms of experiences. At the same time, it is important to examine the negative aspects of those features that may be disruptive and leading to loss of the learner’s attention, boredom, information overload, and frustration (Berge, 1999, cited in Liaw & Hung, 2000). Undoubtedly, active communication by the participants is a critical component for developing online knowledge building communities (Swam, 2000). Chen (2003) found that online learners felt most engaged during the intensive process of interacting with group members. When others responded directly to their comments, they felt their ideas were being valued. This online encounter can contribute to a transformative experience such as increasing one’s confidence and self-esteem. On the contrary, online learners felt most distanced, disconnected or confused when waiting for responses from others. Notably, participants formed opinions about others’ written comments early in the semester and they usually distanced themselves from comments that were not clear, written in poor English, too long, superficial, irrelevant, or overconfidence/ not neutral in voice. Some participants seldom received responses from their peers and often felt lonely, sad, and disconnected from what was happening online. Discussion forums and chat rooms can be highly interactive, but it is unlikely that all participants will find the intensive social contact enjoyable. Personal factors as well as challenges inherent in current e-learning systems may all play a role in affecting the dynamics (cognitive, social, and emotional) of online interactions. Some participants may find it difficult to participate in the interpersonal communication and

seek only personal support from the instructor (Trentin, 2000). Also, as noted by Shotsberger (2000, p. 56) in asynchronous learning, “there is a natural informality in synchronous dialogue that is difficult to replicate in asynchronous communication. In a sense, much more is expected of asynchronous experiences in terms of both content and format.” Kirschner, Jochems, and Kreijns (2005) pointed out that communication is essential, but not a sufficient condition for collaborative learning. According to them, collaboration in any environment (face-to-face and online) provides a set of challenges that require much more than simply placing participants in groups. Because collaboration is a social act, the learning environment needs to be conducive for ensuring participants’ learning performance as well as social performance. Moreover, social interactions will not take place automatically, but need to be elicited by certain conditions. Examples of conditions that compel collaboration include group members depending on each other (positive interdependence) and helping one another succeed (promotive interaction) while they are held responsible for their own part of the work (individual accountability). The conditions should also foster participants’ development of interpersonal skills and group processing—i.e., “group determines what behavior needs to be changed, so as to be successful on the basis of past performance” (p. 10). Design that enables social performance has important implications for using PBL as a framework for e-learning experience design. Two important areas of PBL research should be considered here. The first area focuses on the structures for participation. Related studies include: creating social structures to promote participation and a sense of agency (Barron et al., 1998), providing activity structures such as action-based activities and discourse-based activities (Kolodner & Gray, 2002), and the use of dialogic activity structures to guide discourse activities (Polman, 2004). These studies are important to inform the design

413


of effective scaffoldings not only for the inquiry process, but also for the dialectical and social process in a PBL knowledge-building community. The second research area focuses on the space for participation. Barron (2003), for instance, noted a dual-problem space involved in collaboration: “a content space (consisting of the problem to be solved) and a relational space (consisting of the interactional challenges and opportunities)” (p. 310). This is similar to Spitzer’s (1996) distinction between the task and the context in all types of activities as noted earlier. In experience design terms, the concept of context or relational space has been discussed as social space or a third place.Pine and Gilmore (1999) pointed out that “staged experiences require a sense of place to entice guests to spend more time engaged in the offering” (p. 42). They suggested that cyberspace would be a great place for providing active and immersive social experiences. It has become a third place, analogous to a physical place such as cafe, coffee house, or community center where people actively connect, converse, and form communities as observed by sociologist Ray Oldenburg (1997). The concept of a third place would be an important topic for future research on e-learning experience design, especially related to the development and application of new technologies that will be discussed next.

Technology and Experience Design New technologies are enabling us to design new types of experiences that were simply not conceivable until very recently. Taking the 2008 Beijing Olympics as an example, the daily Internet updates and the innovative high-tech employed in the spectacular opening and closing ceremonies all constituted an intricate part of our viewing experiences. Regarded by many as one of the most epic and inspirational ceremonies in the modern era, the 2008 Olympics became not just a stage for the athletes, but also a theatrical event that engaged the entire world and left behind a shared

414

memory that is likely to be lingering in the minds of many long afterward. Undoubtedly, technology can provide a powerful means for cognitive and social aspects of e-learning design. While there are many new developments in e-learning, of particular relevance to the themes discussed so far is a new way of using technologies as “community tools,” i.e., tools that support the social processes of learning (Pea, 2004). New developments from the work of the Center for Innovative Learning Technologies (CILT) at Stanford University are exploiting advanced technological functions and infrastructures to support collaborative knowledge representation, socio-cognitive scaffolding, and social networking. In particular, collaborative representations are “enabling remote interactions mediated by diverse visualizations, notations, and models that can be constructed together” (Pea 2004, p. 15). This application of technology is likely to elicit meaningful online interactions that can lead to active, immersive, and transformative learning. While new technologies are being developed, it should be clear that our goal is to “utilize personal space and other parameters of the technology to support, rather than interfere with, the desired experience” (Mclellan, 1999, p. 41). Press and Cooper (2003) reminded us to design for the useful and meaningful rather than for possible, as they put it: “In his pursuit of the possible, Robert Oppenheimer developed the atomic bomb and in our pursuit of the possible we develop cultural irrelevance, unusability, dysfunctionality and, of course, ever-increasing piles of garbage” (p. 8). This is important to consider as so many questions have been raised concerning teaching and learning in today’s ever-changing digital landscape. The new learning ecology, increasingly unfamiliar to the previous generations of learners, has evolved into a place where “learning, working, and playing co-mingle” (Brown, 2000, p. 12). The widening gap between today’s learners and the traditional form of education has become a common concern for many people. Notably, the “net generation”


has been actively participating in creating content for the Internet. With the current estimate of about 93% of teens (between ages 12 and17) who are using the Internet, 64% of them are engaging in creating content and sharing digital media online (Fox & Madden, 2008). They are the primary citizens in the new user-generated participatory Web, known as “Web 2.0” or the “read-write Web” (Gillmor, 2004, Richardson, 2006). The emerging Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, wikis, and social spaces have opened up new possibilities for e-learning experience design. However, their educational benefits are not yet very clear (Churchill, 2007). At the time of this writing, the concept of Web 2.0 (and e-learning 2.0) is still hard to define precisely, as Madden and Fox (2006, p. 2) put it, That the term has enjoyed such a constant morphing of meaning and interpretation is, in many ways, the clearest sign of its usefulness. This is the nature of the conceptual beast in the digital age, and one of the most telling examples of what Web 2.0 applications do: They replace the authoritative heft of traditional institutions with the surging wisdom of crowds. In contrast to the previous metaphor of Web 1.0 as “Internet as information superhighway,” the metaphor of Web 2.0 has shifted to the following concepts (Jaokar, 2007, p. 44): “(a) the use of the Web as a platform; (b) harnessing collective intelligence; (c) consumption vs. participation (i.e., user-generated content); and (d) pushing content out: consuming content away from its source (through RSS, mashup, widgets, etc.). These concepts fit well with the notion of experience design emphasizing participation and engagement. Future research is needed to explore how we might harness the power of new applications to enhance each realm of experience (education, esthetic, escapist, and entertainment), with the aim of creating a new e-learning ecology in which all students can thrive and enjoy learning. It would be particular useful to

experiment with the use of emerging applications to support the social processes of learning.

THE FUTURE: IN SEARCH OF QUALITY EXPERIENCE IN THE DIGITAL LANDSCAPE Similar to the views expressed earlier, Alexander and Boud (2001) emphasized that new developments should be based on an understanding of how learning is influenced by technology rather than driven by exploring the limits of technology. Two of their suggestions reflect the main ideas of this chapter: (1) the online learning environment should be viewed as another physical space for us to apply what we already know about effective teaching and learning, and (2) it is productive to view online learning as examples of students’ learning from experience. According to them, key features that enhance learning from online experience include: establishment of a climate for learning that values the learner, active engagement with problems and challenges, interactivity and responsiveness, simulation of rich environments, and peer discussion. In addition to these features, this chapter extends the discussion to consider some educational models and practices for adapting experience design to e-learning contexts. In e-learning literature, much attention has been focused on instructional design (ID) for content design and delivery instead of on experience design (ED) for engaging learners both cognitively and emotionally. Despite that e-learning is increasingly important, most e-learning courses are not engaging and motivating (Chuah, 2007). In light of this chapter, ED can provide us a broader design perspective. Below are some ways to incorporate Pine and Gilmore’s four realms of experiences into e-learning environments (Chuah, 2007, p. 46): •

Esthetic – this could include making the interface of the learning environment more inviting, intuitive, and usable, and the designing of look and feel (visual presentation)

415


•

•

•

of the learning environment. The ultimate goal of this realm is to ensure that your learners enjoy coming back to the learning environment. Escapist – this requires the learners to actively participate or perform certain activities when they are in the learning environment, including downloading materials such as course notes or PowerPoint slides, taking part in a virtual lab activity, going through a simulation, chatting with tutor or peers in the same course…In addition, learning activities can be designed so that learners can share personal experiences in the form of storytelling using various multimedia elements. Educational – this requires the learners to actively absorb the information and instructions presented. This could means presenting an online lecture (pre-recorded via streaming media or live), having learners to visit external resources including Websites or online interactive readings that encourage exploration of knowledge and skills. Appropriate instructional strategies such as cooperative learning or problembased learning can be used to design the learning experience. Entertainment – this is a passive aspect of an experience where relevant illustrations such as comic strips, quotable quotes, or even sharing fun experiences could be used to make the learning experience more fun and enjoyable. All these are hope to replace the heavy chunks of text that might not be suitable for online delivery.

Nevertheless, many questions remain to be addressed. For example, how can we understand the nature of experience in the dynamics of elearning? What constitutes an effective model for designing memorable and transformative elearning experiences? How can such experience be designed, guided, and sustained? What is the value and quality of experience? And, what is our

416

role as e-learning experience designers? In an article entitled “At the heart of interaction design,” Alben (1997, p. 9) reflected on the vital aspect of experience design: Joseph Campbell wrote, “What people seek is not the meaning of life but the experience of being alive.” This provocative view challenges us to look inside ourselves and at the work we do. What does it take to provide enlivening experiences for others? I find that professional training and years of experience are not enough. By themselves, they seem somehow inadequate in our evolving world, in which design and technology come together. What is vital, I have discovered, is our humanness: who we are and the ways in which we express our fundamental human qualities in our work. When these qualities are included as an integral and natural part of the design process, everyone benefits: those for whom we are designing, as well as ourselves.” According to this view, at the center of experience design should be people, not theories or abstract concepts, as we are “human beings first and designers second…Our deep-rooted human qualities are what brings the greatest vitality and relevance to our work” (p. 26). For Alben, the quality of experience is the experience that is engaging, productive, and valued by people. Looking at the fundamental human qualities, such as vision, discovery, common sense, truth, passion, and heart, will give us a better sense to offer experiences that are needed and desired. For our role as a designer, Press and Cooper (2003) suggest we think of ourselves as a maker of culture who is creating experience and meaning for people. “Designer is not just a creator of objects, but is an enabler of experiences—and it is this idea of experience that should be the starting point and focus of design” (p. 69). This requires us to see the world through participants’ eyes and to feel what they are experiencing online. Moreover,


“the experience of being a designer is radically and irrevocably changing. New roles, methods, and activities are emerging that place a far greater emphasis on innovative, relevant research linked to creative methods, effective communications, and proactive entrepreneurship (Press & Cooper, p. 8). According to these authors, designers are making their own future, which is their most crucial creation.

CONCLUSION This chapter begins by describing the concept of experience design then considers some widely studied educational approaches as viable frameworks for experience design in e-learning contexts. Underlying this chapter is a view that suggests a shift from designing learning environments to “staging” learning experiences. By looking at learning through the prism of experience design, we may begin to discover ways to create compelling, memorable, and transformative e-learning experiences. On the basis of cognitive PBL, three general principles have been suggested to guide the design of online PBL experiences: (1) integrating visual thinking and cognitive apprenticeship for transformative learning, (2) staging experiences with milestone artifacts, and (3) enhancing group experiences with knowledge building tasks. These principles should be explored at the center of the e-learning experience design model in conjunction with the four realms of experiences: education, esthetic, escapist, and entertainment. Particularly, the value of experience design to e-learning research and development should be considered in the realms of esthetic, escapist, and entertainment so that motivation may no longer be a neglected factor in our efforts to engage today’s learners. At this time, experience design in its theory and practice appears to be more conceptual than empirical, and a well-integrated experience design model for e-learning is yet to be fully explored and developed. Nevertheless, the concept of

experience should be viewed as an essential and unifying theme in guiding a broader perspective of design and study of e-learning. Studies are needed to observe online behaviors associated with the four realms of experiences. It is also important to find the optimal balance for each type of experience and design highly engaging tasks with new technologies that are not interfering with the desired experience. Some converging areas of research from the fields of experience design and education have been identified, so as not to reinvent the wheel but to expand our knowledge on designing quality e-learning experiences that will be valued by people. We should continue to look into other fields of study and at the same time continue to explore existing models and practices in education that can be adapted for transformative e-learning experience design. Most critical of all, at the center of experience design should be people, not technologies, theories, or abstract concepts. Experience design should be regarded, as Alben (1997, p. 26) put it, “an opportunity to design not only quality experiences but our own humanity.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author would like to thank Dr. Elaine Chen, Lori Rozelle, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments in the preparation of this article.

REFERENCES Alben, L. (1997). At the heart of interaction design. Design Management Journal, 8(3). Retrieved September 21, 2008, from http://www.albendesign. com/downloads/heart_of_interaction.pdf

417


Alexander, S., & Boud, D. (2001). Learners still learn from experience when online. In J. Stephenson (Ed.) Teaching and Learning Online: Pedagogies for New Technologies (pp. 3-15). London: Kogan. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1 Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D., & CTGV. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_2 Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problembased curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine & beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3–12. doi:10.1002/tl.37219966804 Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369–398. doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep2603&4_8 Brown, J. S. (2000, April). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2). Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.usdla.org/ html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html Buck Institute for Education. (2003). Project based learning handbook. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education. Chen, P. (2003). Creating Memorable Online Learning Experiences. Paper presented at the meeting of the Technology in Education International Conference and Exposition (TechED), Ontario, CA.

418

Chen, P. (2006). Learning by building knowledge with peers. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 20(2), 12–16. Chen, P., & Chen, H. (2007). Knowledge building and technological dynamics in an online project-based learning community. Special Issue of International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1/2), 1–16. Chen, P., & McGrath, D. (2003a). Knowledge construction and knowledge representation in high school students’ design of hypermedia documents. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(1), 33–61. Chen, P., & McGrath, D. (2003b). Moments of Joy: Student Engagement and Conceptual Learning in the Design of Hypermedia Documents. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 402–422. Chen, P., & McGrath, D. (2004-2005). Visualize, visualize, visualize: Designing projects for higher-order thinking. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(4), 2–5. Chuah, C. K. P. (2007). Experience redesign: A conceptual framework for moving teaching and learning into a flexible e-learning environment. In P. Tsang, R. Kwan, & R. Fox (Eds.), Enhancing learning through technology (pp. 37-50). Hong Kong: World Scientific Publishing. Churchill, D. (2007). Web 2.0 and possibilities for educational applications. Educational Technology, 47(2), 24–29. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6-11, 38-46. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from http://www.21learn.org/ arch/articles/brown_seely.html


Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instructions: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed). Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier. Ghani, J. A., & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human computer interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 381–391. Gilmor, D. (2004). We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. Goldman, S. R., Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., Williams, S. M., & Tzou, C. (2003). Science inquiry in a digital world: Possibilities for making thinking visible. In H. van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a Digital World (pp. 253-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Iverson, K. (2005). E-learning games: interactive learning strategies for digital delivery. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Jaokar, A. (2007). Mobile Web 2.0, microlearning, intertwingularity, and mobile widgets. Educational Technology, 47(6), 43–45. Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 318–334.

Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W. M. G., & Kreijns, K. (2005). Is technology-based collaborative learning antisocial? or, What are we doing to make it so! Educational Technology, 45(5), 8–12. Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2002). Learning by designTM: Promoting deep science learning through a design approach. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved May 27, 2005, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/pdfs/ deepscience.pdf Kolodner, J. L., & Gray, J. (2003). Understanding the affordances of ritualized activity structures for project-based classrooms. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from http:// www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/pdfs/activitystructures.pdf Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483–497. doi:10.1086/461779 Lehrer, R., Erickson, J., & Connell, T. (1994). Learning by designing hypermedia documents. Computers in the Schools, 10(1-2), 227–254. Liaw, S., & Huang, H. (2000). Enhancing interactivity in Web-based instruction: A review of the literature. Educational Technology, 40(3), 41–45. Madden, M., & Fox, S. (2006). Riding the waves of “Web 2.0”More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http:// www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Web_2.0.pdf Malone, T. W. (1981). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. Pipeline, 6(2), 49–51.

419


Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R.E. Snow & M.J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McFarlane, A. E., Bonnett, M., & Williams, J. (2000). Assessment and multimedia authoring - a technology for externalising understanding. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 201– 212. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00133.x McGrath, D. (2003, March). Designing to learn: A focus on design in project-based learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(6), 50–53. McLellan, H. (1999). Online education as interactive experience. Educational Technology, 39(5), 36–42. McLellan, H. (2000). Experience design. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 3(1), 59–69. doi:10.1089/109493100316238 McLellan, H. (2002). Staging experiences: A proposed framework for designing learning experiences. Educational Technology, 42(6), 30–37. Newell, R. J. (2003). Passion for learning: How project-based learning meets the needs of 21st-century students. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Norman, D. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Oldenburg, R. (1997). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York: Marlowe & Company. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

420

Pea, R. D. (2004). The importance of community tools for learning technologies research, development, and educational practices. In N. Sabelli & R. Pea, (Eds.), Center for Innovative Learning Technologies (CILT): Six years of knowledge networking in learning sciences and technologies (pp. 14-23). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://ctl.sri.com/ publications/displayPublication.jsp?ID=372 Perkins, D. (1996). Mind in the hood. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. v-viii). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Pine, B. J., III, & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and ever business is a stage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431–466. doi:10.1207/ s1532690Xci2204_3 Press, M., & Cooper, R. (2003). The design experience: The role of design and designers in the twenty-first century. Ashgate: England. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Corwin Press. Thousand Oaks, California. Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Routledge Falmer. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2nd ed.) London: Taylor & Francis. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.) Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://ikit.org/ fulltext/inpressCollectiveCog.pdf


Shotsberger, P. G. (2000). The human touch: Synchronous communication in Web-based learning. Educational Technology, 40(1), 53–56. Spitzer, D. R. (1996). Motivation: The neglected factor in instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(3), 45–49. Swam, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact, and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383. Trentin, G. (2000). The quality-interactivity relationship in distance education. Educational Technology, 40(1), 17–27. Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., & Ryan, L. (1993). The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 411–426. doi:10.1016/07475632(93)90032-N

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Experience Design: A design approach that integrates concepts from a number of fields (e.g., drama, psychology, human-computer interaction, multimedia design, economics, architecture) to create engaging and successful experiences for people in any environment Esthetic Design: Design that provides an inviting, interesting, and comfortable environment for people in any medium

Escapist Design: Design that encourages active participation through engaging people in immersive activities. Transformative Experience: A carefully guided, elicited, and sustained experience that affects and changes everyone involved Project-Based Learning (PBL): A teaching approach that engages learners in collaborative research, construction, and presentation of digital or physical artifacts over an extended period of time Cognitive PBL: A specific type of projectbased learning that engages learners in mindful and deliberative use of explicit cognitive strategies and the exercise of self-regulatory and judgment skills. Visual Thinking: A process of creating a mental image of one’s thinking or the ability to conceptualize and represent thoughts, ideas, and data as patterns, structures, or images Milestone Artifact: A form of collaborative representation that instantiates group members’ developing knowledge in digital or physical artifacts. Knowledge Building: A process of producing and improving ideas of value to a community of learners through working on an external artifact or a communal database in which collective discussion and syntheses of ideas are made visible through this artifact. Online Social Presence: A sense of psychological closeness between people in online communications.

421

422

Chapter 25

Authentic Learning in Second Life:

A Constructivist Model in Course Design Carl Scott University of Houston, USA Youmei Liu University of Houston, USA Madhuri Kumar University of Houston, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter will examine the relationship between a constructivist teaching approach and online learning experiences in the Virtual Worlds of Second Life, using a specifically constructed MBA-level course teaching Systems Analysis and Design. A research study was incorporated in the course design to test the Constructivist Learning Design (CLD) model (Gagnon & Collay, 2006) and social (use of individual- vs. group-oriented activities) domains. This chapter will cover: (1) fundamentals of Systems Analysis and Design course; (2) current research of Second Life in education; (3) course design based on CLD models; and (4) research data analysis of course delivery through constructivist learning in Second Life and student learning experiences in the Virtual Worlds.

INTRODUCTION Information Systems (IS) lie at the heart of many of today’s technological wonders. Without information systems our communications networks, energy systems and even such simple systems as automobiles would not function. Information Systems curricula can be found in disciplines ranging from Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to

Health Information Management Systems (HMIS) to Management Information Systems (MIS). A key element of any Information System is the Analysis, Design and Implementation or the system. Most educators in the Information Systems disciplines regard Systems Analysis and Design (SAD) as the critical course for IS students (Avison, Cole, & Guy, 2006; Bajaj, Batra, Hevner, Parsons, & Keng, 2005). The teaching of SAD is affected by many factors such as the instructor’s experience, the pro-

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch025


Authentic Learning in Second Life

file of the class and the needs of the employers to mention but a few (Harris, Lang, Oates, & Keng, 2006). Technology Mediated Learning (TML) and Distance Education (DE) are emerging as a key method for the delivery of instruction to students. Distance Education is predicted to increase by over 300% in the next 5 years (Moller, Foshay, & Huett, 2008). But at the same time the depth and breadth of research on TML and DE is limited (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). This chapter examines the intersection of the domain of teaching SAD and TML. In particular, it seeks to examine if a Constructivist Learning Theory applies to learning in the Virtual Worlds of Second Life.

Description of Systems Analysis and Design Courses Systems Analysis and Design (SAD) seeks to create, develop and implement an Information Systems using the Systems Development Life Cycle model of Planning, Analysis, Design and Implementation (Dennis, Wixom, & Roth, 2006). The two major approaches to SAD are: 1) the structured approach that seeks to improve the system by examining the processes inherent in the system and then developing a new system from these processes, and 2) the object-oriented approach that seeks to improve the system by examining the data associated with the system and then developing a new system based on the data. The object-oriented approach was initially developed by software engineering professionals. The object-oriented approach takes a bottom up approach to systems development. Thus, the system is described based on the business processes and the data required to drive them. The system is described using various diagrams, with the most common being the Unified Modeling Language diagrams developed by Booch, Jacobson and Rumbaugh (Booch, Rumbaugh, & Jacobson, 2005; Rumbaugh, Jacobson, & Booch, 2004). At the heart of UML are three cardinal

principles: Iterative and incremental – since system development proceeds through a continuous series of reevaluations and improvements, all UML diagrams describing the system must be reviewed and revised to reflect the reevaluations and improvements. Use case driven – The starting point for all UML modeling is a text description of how the system interacts with its environment. This environment is typically the human end users or other information systems. This text description is then converted into a graphical description of the information systems interactions in a use case diagram. Software Architecture Centric – UML diagrams evolve from the use cases into three general but related types of diagrams that model the system: functional, static and dynamic. The functional diagrams model the system from the end user’s point of view. The static diagrams model the system from the systems unchanging view. Finally, the dynamic diagrams show how the systems changes depending on the changes in data and time. While the proceeding principles are at first glance elegantly simple, the expression of them into actual descriptions of the system is complex. When teaching this method the instructor ultimately will use thirteen different diagrams to describe the system (Dennis, Wixom, & Tegarden, 2005). The structured approach to Systems Analysis and Design is analogous to the approach for building a bridge. First, there must be the basic idea for the bridge or the information system. Second, the bridge is drawn as a simple picture, or for the information system as a simple diagram. Third, the bridge picture is transformed into a series of detailed blueprints, or for the information system detailed process models and data models. Fourth, the detailed blueprints are used to construct the bridge, or for the information system, the models are used to implement the system. The structured approach uses the structure of the Systems Development Life Cycle model to give a series of

423


phases. These phases are called the Planning phase, Analysis phase, Design phase and Implementation phase. Teaching this method has the advantages of being intuitively obvious to the student and a large existing base of texts (Dennis, Wixom, & Roth, 2006; Hoffer, George, & Valacich, 2007; Kendall & Kendall, 2007; Satzinger, Jackson, & Burd, 2006; Shelly, Cashman, & Rosenblatt,, 2007).

Motivation to teach Systems Analysis and Design as TML Both the structured and the object oriented methods have strengths and weaknesses. The structured approach is more intuitively obvious and has a large base of texts. The object oriented (OO) approach is being used to develop more and more new systems. Many of the newer Computer Aided Software Engineering tools are moving to supporting only the OO approach (Harris, Lang, Oates & Keng, 2006). The result of this dual approach to SAD has been to try to teach both approaches to students. Universities today teach most SAD courses with the majority structured and a lengthy into to object orientation (Dennis et al., 2006; Mahapatra, Nerur, & Slinkman, 2005). These courses require instructors to deliver an enormous amount of information in a very brief period to the students! One attractive approach to transferring this information from instructor to students is the use of Technology Mediated Learning. Over 2000 years ago Socrates spoke to this transfer when he said: “ - that the gods compel to be a midwife, ….It is quite clear that they never learned anything from me; the many fine discoveries to which they cling are of their own making” (Plato, 1952, p. 512). Somewhat more recently, Vygotskii argued that learning is a mediated process by which some external stimulus triggers the learners psychological process to transfer the knowledge internally resulting in the development of higher order mental functions (Hsiao et al., 2006; Vygotskii, 1978). The advent of

424

the Internet provides a novel way of “mediating” the process of learning with Internet technology. Alavi and Leidner described Technology Mediated Learning that learners are using advanced information technologies to interact with learning materials, activities, peers and instructors. Using TML the students can be provided with a wide range of tools to learn with. Research has already established the effectiveness of using web based tools for TML. Hardaway and Scamell conducted a study in 2005 and they used Course Management System (CMS) – WebCT as an example. They found various tools to be very useful to achieve teaching and learning objectives, such as Calendar tool, which is used to post notes and web resource links to better organize class content material; Bulletin Board is used to post threaded discussion to facilitate student asynchronous discussion activities, and Quiz tool is used to enhance student online testing experiences and improve the efficiency of course assessment. Other tools like Group Management tool, Mail tool, URL tool and Grade Book all have added value to TML learning. Research by Arbaugh (2005) proposes that a framework of online rich resources with adoption of useful software can enhance course quality and flexibility as well as engage students in interactive learning.

SECOND LIFE IN EDUCATION Existing Research on Second Life Web tools have been developed from a simple text-based information transfer platform to very rich and powerful 3-D Virtual Worlds, which have brought us a completely new stage of collaboration, cooperation, communication with an even higher level of interaction, complexity and value creation (Fetischerin & Lattermann, 2007). More and more people are leading their real life and conducting first life business in Virtual Worlds. One of the uniqueness of the Virtual Worlds


is globalization. There are no bounds between countries, cultures, races, and religions, which truly promote cross-culture communication with less bias and prototypes as compared to the real world. The virtual culture is characterized by its combination of real and virtual life representations and activities (Park, Jung, & Collin, 2008). Second Life is one of the Virtual Worlds that has been used as a new 3-D platform for education. According to Pathfinder Linden (2007), more than two hundred universities or academic institutions have already involved in Second Life. In spring 2007, New Media Consortia (NMC) conducted a survey focusing on educators in Second Life(Consortia, 2007). Second Life as a teaching/learning environment is not limited to certain discipline areas. The reported educationrelated areas include computer science, technology, healthcare, business, social sciences, art, theater performance, English writing, and language learning, etc. There are some very successful cases where Second Life is used as a very effective and powerful teaching and learning tool. One of the best examples is Virtual Harlem – teaching Harlem Renaissance in Second Life by Professor Bryan Carter from Central Missouri State University. The course created a living history to allow students experiencing the historical events before they were born, putting students in the shoes of the runaways to relive the past and help students experience and understand their cultural heritage (Sosnoski, Harkin, & Carter, 2006). What students learned in this process is totally impossible if the course was taught in traditional classroom settings. Second Life provides a learning environment that facilitates students in constructing and understanding new knowledge. More importantly, this course is not replicating what can be done in a traditional classroom setting; instead, it is using the power of Virtual Worlds creatively to allow students relive the history! In Virtual Worlds, people can perform what they are doing in real life as well as something impossible in real life (Park, Jung, & Collins, 2008).

Rationale of Using Constructivist Learning Approach in SL Virtual Worlds originated from online gaming for fun and entertainment, and human beings were represented in 3D avatars. When Virtual Worlds was used for educational purpose, this concept was adopted as well. Both instructors and students need to create avatars in order to interact in the Virtual Worlds. The created images sometimes resemble the users, and sometimes the users craft themselves totally different images. Constructivist learning is featured in authentic learning in real life contexts. Students construct knowledge from their own experiences, peer-topeer interaction, social networking and real life project learning. Will virtual environment support constructivist learning? Antonacci and Modaress argue that when students are learning in the virtual environment, they are interpreting, analyzing, discovering, evaluating, acting, and problem solving. This approach to learning is much more consistent with constructivist learning (2005). Group learning and collaboration are important elements in constructivist learning. Based on the research studies by Fetscherin & Lattemann and NMC, Second Life is high interaction in nature. Seventy percent (N=250) of respondents perceive the improvement of collaboration and 61% report the improvement of cooperation between people from Fetscherin’s study. In NMC study, fortyfive percent (N=165) participants described their positive experiences as interactions, meeting with new people, expanding networks and generosity of community (Fetscherin & Lattemann, 2007). And 58% (N=162) reported professional gains in Second Life in their expanded professional network and increased collaboration. The top four characteristics of Second Life summarized by NMC study are interactive (51%), engaging (45%), global (44%) and social (40%). Besides communication tools, avatar’s gestures will also add to the improvement of interaction and communication.

425


In addition to social networking feature, business in Second Life is increasing daily. More and more companies, banks, entertainment entities are establishing market in Second Life to promote their products and services. These are not simulated games, but real business, which provides an authentic learning environment for students. The global characteristic of Second Life allows students to explore the world without physical limitations and increases learning opportunities to the global scale. This virtual reality has created the constructivist learning possibility for this course.

environments by nature are also authentic learning environments, involving students in tasks that have real world relevance and utility, and provide appropriate levels of complexity. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990) describe authentic tasks as ‘generative’ because the completion of the task requires the students to generate other problems to be solved. After an extensive literature review, Reeves, Herrington and Oliver (2002) have defined ten broad design characteristics of authentic learning environments: 1.

Constructivist Theory in Information Systems Studies As a philosophical, epistemological, and pedagogical approach, the term “constructivism” is characterized by two main principles: learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge, and instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). According to Driscoll (1994), these principles can be implemented when certain contextual conditions for learning are met. These are: • • • • •

Complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity; Social negotiation as an integral part of learning; Support for multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation; Nurturing of reflexivity; and Emphasis on student-centered instruction.

Jonassen (1994) further defined constructivist learning environments as those that are best designed for advanced learners. According to him, “constructivist environments stress situated problem-solving tasks because those are the nature of tasks that are called on and rewarded in the real world” (Jonassen, 1994, p.2). Constructive

426

Authentic activities have real world relevance. 2. Authentic activities are ill-defined, requiring students to define the tasks and sub-tasks needed to complete the activity. 3. Authentic activities comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time. 4. Authentic activities provide the opportunity for students to examine the task from different perspectives, using a variety of resources. 5. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to collaborate. 6. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to reflect. 7. Authentic activities can be integrated and applied across different subject areas and lead beyond domain specific outcomes. 8. Authentic activities are seamlessly integrated with assessment. 9. Authentic activities create polished products valuable in their own right rather than as preparation for something else. 10. Authentic activities allow competing solutions and diversity of outcome. Within the Information Sciences (IS) studies, the design and development of information systems is a focal point of professional training (Tétard & Patokorpi, 2005). The study of systems


is typically core in undergraduate and postgraduate courses related to information systems. As a rule, learners learn to solve the types of complex problem they will face in real life. Therefore, a course in IS design should be process-oriented and must give the students an opportunity to apply relevant design methods and techniques to a real world problem. However, the abstract and complex domain of systems analysis and design, critical to the development of modern information systems, is a part of the curriculum that learners find difficult. There is some evidence that employers believe that the new graduate recruits bring insufficient analysis and design skills to cope with the complexities encountered in developing real world systems, but if the teaching is motivated by principles of constructivist epistemology, learners can be provided with higher-order skills necessary to understand and perform analysis and design effectively as a professional practitioner (Connolly & Begg, 2006). Now, Virtual Worlds, like Second Life, represents an environment wherein educators can implement student-centered teaching pedagogies (Kluge & Riley, 2008). This 3-D environment holds the promise of immersive, authentic and constructivist learning. The enhanced sense of social presence, lacking in other media, significantly expands the educational activities available to instructors and students (New Media Consortium, 2007).

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODEL Many researchers have argued that applying collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based mechanisms, using the asynchronous and synchronous tools provided by the online technologies, and virtual learning environments, could be the foundation for multiple constructivist conditions for learning (Driscoll, 1994; Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Schank, 1994). However, most of the literature on constructivist approaches focuses

on instructional theory rather than instructional systems design models. The most widely-used ISD models are objectivist rather than constructivist (McVay, 1998). The Constructivist Learning Design (CLD) model, a collective effort by Gagnon and Collay (2006), emphasizes on a constructivist approach to “designing for learning” instead of “planning for teaching.” While honoring the basic principles of constructivist epistemology, this model puts the spotlight on the development of learning “situations” by the instructor, where learners are “constructing” knowledge, rather than the behaviors that demonstrate the knowledge and skills of the instructor. Bruner (1966) calls this “discovery learning.” Through obtaining knowledge by themselves, learners select and transform information, and construct knowledge. They make decisions in the context of a cognitive structure that provides meaning and organization to their experiences, which allows the students to go beyond superficial information. Students are actively engaged in determining how they will study or gain understanding. The CLD model also holds that reflection is essential to constructing knowledge, and is therefore an integral part of the framework of designing a learning experience. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) characterize reflexivity as “the ability of students to be aware of their own role in the knowledge construction process” (p.172). It is best described as learners taking ownership of their own thinking and learning processes. Driscoll (1994) attests that reflexivity and critical thinking are central to the constructivist methodology, enabling learners to understand how and why a meaning was created the way it was. This enables goals such as reasoning, understanding multiple perspectives, and expressing and defending personal beliefs (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

427


The CLD Framework

4.

Constructivist Learning Design model (Gagnon & Collay, 2006) offers a six-step framework for lesson planning and assessment: 1.

2.

3.

428

Situation: Develop goals, tasks and curriculum standards. The focus here is on what the students will do to learn and how the instructor will support that learning process. The situation is a purpose driven “learning episode” or task. This task can take any format – a problem, question, metaphor, decision, essay, puzzle, etc. – that engages the learner in active discovery and construction. It usually involves a single topic - a key concept, process or attitude – that requires collaboration to accomplish, and connects students learning to real-world experience. Grouping: Group students and materials, and use cooperative learning. For learning to occur “the way students are grouped and supported to think together in making meaning is central” (Gagnon & Collay, 2006, p. 58). Small groups provide a forum for the social construction of knowledge, and mimic real-world work environments. As students engage with others, and think together to make meaning, the learning is deeper and learners are more engaged. Groups can vary in configuration. The nature of the topic determines how the groups are arranged. Bridge: Recall prior knowledge using students’ cognitive maps, skills, values, motivation and expectations. Before any new learning can take place, learners must revisit their prior knowledge, surface conceptions and misconceptions, and make connections to real life experiences (Gagnon & Collay, 2006, p. 86-87). In this element, the instructor designs ways to prompt learners to share what they already know. This can be either a whole class or group-based activity, and can be related directly to each situation.

5.

6.

Tasks: Use higher level thinking skills and problem based learning. The task is the keystone of the CLD model. It is an activity or exercise for the students, during which they are engaged in learning and thinking, through a deliberate but delicate balance between challenge and frustration. “A good task is open ended and encourages students to think together as they construct their own shared meaning about a topic” (Gagnon & Collay, 2006, p.115). Exhibit: Arrange student portfolios and work samples. “The notion of the Exhibit describes student presentations of meanings they made to accomplish the Task framed by the Situation” (Gagnon & Collay, 2006, p.136). Its primary purpose is to make visible the students’ thinking and learning. It is fundamentally different from assessment strategies to look for correct answers, or individual products. A collaborative group presentation requires learners to engage with each other’s thinking, communicating and relating ideas, and negotiating around an effective portrayal of their learning in the presentation. Peer review offers a powerful assessment methodology for group exhibits. Reflection: Synthesize critical thinking and knowledge. “The purpose of the Reflection element is to invite students to reflect on their thinking and learning, as they make personal, shared and collective meaning during the learning episode” (Gagnon & Collay, 2006, p.163). The CLD model emphasizes this metacognitive element of learning and meaning making. Refection activities take two formats – one is the public presentation of thinking during the group Exhibit of the Task, and second is the private thinking solicited in writing for the capstone project or learning experience.


All of these six elements of the CLD model are intended to support instructional planning, and work as an integrated whole for constructive activities that engage the learners in making their own meaning and knowledge.

Using CLD Framework for Course Design

Table 1. Components of the CLD model and graphing it to MIS7376 syllabus CLD Components 1. Situation

2. Groupings 3. Bridge 4. Questions

Authentic learning engages students in problem solving and critical thinking that researchers and experts use on a daily basis. If authentic learning is the goal, then the CLD model provides an appropriate framework for designing experiences that expose students to such an engagement as shown in Table 1. Using it as an overarching guiding principle, the Systems Analysis and Design class incorporates multiple “situations” where student learning is connected to real world experiences through active exploration, discovery and collaboration. With recent advances in technology and cyber infrastructure and the latest innovations in 3D environments like Second Life, the barriers to the design and implementation of authentic experiences is greatly reduced. Leveraging the power of both the virtual environment of a Learning Management System (WebCT Vista), and the nascent space of a Second Life island called IT World, this course exploits the concept of “learning by doing.” There were 15 students enrolled in this course. They were grouped into teams, of 4-5 students each, during the face-to-face orientation required by the instructor in the first week of classes. Unlike fully online courses, this event provides the unique opportunity for students to get introduced to the instructor and their fellow students. Since these teams must endure and work productively over the next 16 weeks, the initial face-to-face meeting set a strong foundation. In the first week, students tackled the first assignment, which required them to interview one other team mate in Second Life and post a sum-

5. Exhibit 6. Reflections

Class Activities • YourTurn homework assignments • Case Study analysis • Technical Presentation Student Teams Interviews • Thursday night session in SL • YourTurn assignment • Exams • Case analysis presentations • Technical Presentation • Weekly Blogging in SL • Reflections during presentations

mary for the class on the Peer Interview discussion board. This constitutes the “bridge” activity where learners engage in a mutual dialogue to recall and share their prior content knowledge, skills, values, motivation and expectations. Using broad instructional guidelines for the interview, students were prompted and encouraged to revisit and surface conceptions, misconceptions and professional experiences in Systems Analysis and Design. In online environments, instructors are often challenged to meet the students’ need for belonging. This need is met when students are engaged in positive interactions with their peers (Cohen, 1994). A chance to know one’s team mates early in the semester lays the foundation for smoother collaboration in team-based activities. Additionally, participation in Discussion Board is assumed to promote communities of shared knowledge and understanding of diverse perspectives, realizing the goals of social constructivism (Gagnon & Collay, 2006; Reeves, Herrington & Oliver, 2002). During the first online synchronous class meeting in the first week, students were introduced to the virtual classroom in Second Life. Students must create avatars and gain access to Second Life as directed by detailed instructions in the syllabus. Designed to mimic a brick and mortar conference-

429


style room, the virtual classroom is the venue for online meetings once a week. This required activity fills the unique gap experienced in fully online courses, that of physical isolation of the learner. A 3D virtual environment bridges this gap more successfully than other synchronous technologies that support online conferencing through 2-way voice and video over internet protocol. Personalized avatars convey a sense of presence lacking in other media (New Media Consortium, 2007). Using a combination of text-chat, voice chat, a variety of other tools offered by the Second Life application, each week the students came to the virtual classroom after a week of engaging with the content through a podcast lecture (using iTunes U delivery channel), and required readings, and turning in their YourTurn homework assignment through WebCT Vista. At the virtual meeting, the instructor engaged the students in a question / answer, problem solving session, and status check on Case Study projects. The case method has been used for decades in business school curricula as a way for students to apply analytical and decision making skills in situations that simulate realistic situations (Mauffette-Leenders, Erskine, & Leenders, 1998). In this methodology, a problem of some kind becomes the central element in a constructivist learning situation. Just as in the real world, there is no one correct answer to these cases. When used in a group setting, learning becomes a cultural interchange between group members. Collaboration among group members creates an opportunity for learners to share their understandings of the cases with others. This provides multiple perspectives to each learner, and this negotiation process between peers leads to enhanced understanding (Bruner, 1986). Driscoll (1994) further found that when students worked in teams on case study projects they gained skills and experiences in leadership, teamwork, communication and organization. Case studies provide the ideal “situations” for authentic learning. Each team selected a case to

430

study and was required to make a group presentation in the virtual classroom. This was the first of the two “exhibits’ required for each team. These presentations were scheduled every 3 weeks and teams picked the date based on their readiness. Teams were graded on their oral presentation, the PowerPoint that accompanied the presentation and the case analysis paper submitted through WebCT Vista. The capstone project or “task” for the course was the Technical Presentation. Leveraging the Second Life platform to take advantage of the ever expanding business networks and growing number of business entities that are establishing a presence here, this project required student teams to seek out business “clients” in Second Life, to study and analysis for a capstone experience, while consolidating and applying their learning. In a world with no boundaries, Second Life provides a unique space to contact and establish a partnership with businesses that have deployed the Second Life application to achieve critical and strategic business objectives. These could be for marketing, sales, training and development, simulations, virtual teamwork, collaboration, philanthropy, outreach, research, and education, etc. Students were required to establish contact with key executives in the client organization, interview these executives to understand the reasons for choosing Second Life, their experiences in deploying the system, and what if any competitive / strategic difference. This final “task” is a single complex task with real-world relevance that was accomplished by student teams over a sustained period of time. Students must detect and discover relevant information on the client through research, design tasks to tackle the relatively ill defined activity, bring supportive strengths like communications and technical savvy, but collaborate as team to produce the final “artifacts,” namely, the oral presentation in the virtual classroom, PowerPoint, analysis paper, and preferably a key executive / representative of the client


In authentic learning environments, “reflection” enables abstractions to be formed. Activities such as blogging support the public presentation of arguments, and enable a defense of learning (Holmes, Gibbon, Savage, & Meehan, 2001). As the keystone element of the CLD model, each student was required to maintain an individual reflective diary, connected to Second Life using the blogging tool BlogHUD. Here, students made weekly entries to articulate their learning experiences in the class, and to summarize the work done on the Second Life Technical Presentation project. Students shared the links of the blog pages with the rest of the class, which created a unique opportunity to make their learning transparent, and compare it with other learners.

RESEARCH STUDY AND COURSE EVALUATION Needs of Research Component Many instructors do not use constructivist learning design in their practices, and those who do are not judicious in their selection of technology use (Rakes, Flowers, Casey, & Santana, 1999). We should have a good understanding of technology so that we can fully benefit from it when we apply it to the teaching. We should not use it for the sake of it or simply because it is available. If the technology is used for wrong reasons, the novelty environment may well distract from learning rather than enhance it (Czervik, 2006). Nanjppa and Grant (2003) also propose that technology needs to be viewed in a three-dimensional perspective: “semiotic, epistemic, and pragmatic, enabling the construction of knowledge by learners through a process of acculturation” (para, 1). Above and beyond needs assessment, cost effective on both sides of instructor and students is an important aspect that needs our attention. Will the implementation of SL technology worth the time investment from instructor and students? Will the technology

increase student learning curve and take away student subject learning time? Will the approach “build it and they will come” work? This is the first time that Second Life is used purposefully as an educational context to design a constructivist learning by leveraging the unique features of Virtual Worlds. It is very important and absolutely necessary for the instructor, the course designer and the researcher to find out if 1) constructivist learning is truly supported in Second Life as claimed by other research studies, 2) if the course design matches the constructivist learning design model proposed by Gagnon and Collay (2006), and 3) how students benefit from Second Life learning environment with any quantifiable or perceptible characteristics.

Research Methodology and Implementation A survey method was used to conduct the research study. Students who were enrolled in the course of Systems Analysis and Design were automatically qualified for the study. The study was completely voluntary and anonymous. There were two surveys, a pre-survey and a post-survey. The pre-survey was conducted at the beginning of the semester right after student face-to-face orientation. The post-survey was administered at the end of the semester. Both surveys were delivered online. When students took the pre-survey, they were required to create a personal code, and this code was entered in the post-survey so that the data from two surveys can be linked together. The online surveys were controlled by a third party that had no access to student identification. The instructor and researchers only had access to the collected data without student private information attached.

Instrument Constructs The pre-survey consists of three sections, 1) Student demographic information, collecting student

431


information on age, gender, semester hour taking, work load, living distance, commute time, computer experiences, internet connection speed, comfort level of using computer, Second Life knowledge and use experiences if any, as well as the technology they use for online social networking. The intention of collecting these data is to find out if Second Life use is affected by above-mentioned factors or if there are any correlation between those factors and student learning experiences in SL; 2) Work experiences, intending to find out if student prior knowledge and experiences are associated with the course subject matter, and how those experiences contribute to constructing new knowledge and group project-based learning in this course; and 3) System Analysis knowledge, trying to find out how much students already knew about this subject matter, and how they will affect this course. Post-survey is much more comprehensive in measuring student Second Life use experiences, constructivist learning outcomes in Second Life and student overall feedback on the quality of course delivery. The questionnaire has nine sections. Section I – Second Life use experiences, finding out what kind of computer they use to access SL, from what location students access SL, how much time they spend on SL activities, SL ease of use, student perceived improvement of SL skills, perceptions of SL as network and communication tools, if the use of SL affects their routine life activities, what SL activities they participated in besides course work. Sections II to VII are measuring six constructivist learning components based on Gagnon and Collay’s CLD model. The six components are Situation (learning engagement), Groups (collaborative and community learning), Bridges (surfacing prior knowledge), Reflection (in-depth learning and critical thinking), Exhibit (thinking presented), and Presentation (sharing and demonstrate learning). Section VIII is gathering student opinions about SL used as a learning environment specially to find out the effectiveness, efficiency, and authenticity.

432

Section IX is soliciting general feedback from students on course delivery quality, and student overall view of SL as a learning tool. Most questions are Likert-scale questions. There are three open-ended questions at the end of the survey to ask students to describe what they like and what they dislike about learning in SL as well as any technical issues or challenges in using SL in their learning.

Participants and Their Demographic Information There were 16 students enrolled in the course at the beginning of the semester, and all of them took the pre-survey. Ten students (63%) were under the age of 30, and six students (37%) were over 31 years old. The oldest was 41. There were 13 male students (81%) and only 3 female students (19%). Their majors were almost equally distributed to Accounting (5, 31%), MBA (5, 31%) and MSA (6, 38%). Thirteen of them were full-time students, and seven of these students were fulltime employed. Seven students worked between 11-30 hours. Only one student worked less than 5 hours per week. Ten students lived more than 20 miles away from school and their single travel time to school was over half an hour to 50 minutes. Fourteen students had more than 8 years computer use experiences, only 2 students had less than 8 years of computer use experience. Fifteen students had high speed Internet connection, one student did not specify. All of them reported that they felt comfortable in using computer to finish their daily tasks. Ten students (63%) reported that they knew about Second Life before they took the course, the other six students had no knowledge about Second Life at all. Only two students (13%) accessed SL before this course, one took a course in SL and the other one was just surfing and browsing around in SL. All of them were using certain social networking tools for communication, interaction and information sources. See Figure 1 for those applications.


Facebook is top-used application in networking. Wiki is most-used tool for resources. Several students used multiple applications at the same time. Two students used six tools simultaneously. Three students used four tools, another three students used three tools, seven students used one tool and one student did not identify any tools. Students in this course work in various fields, IT, education, oil and gas industry, transportation, financing, manufacturing, service and aerospace, business intelligence, etc. All students had team work experiences, and thirteen (81%) of them liked to work in team. The major reasons that they reported for enjoying team work are: team synergy, learning from each other, get to know different ideas, perspectives, brainstorming, interaction, etc. The reasons for not favoring team work are wasting time, dependence on others and slacking off. Eleven (69%) students reported that their work required their communication with others, five (31%) of them work independently. Every student thought that collaboration is the key to career success. Most students (15, 94%) considered social networking is important in their life. Thirteen students expressed their interest in joining social network. As to the knowledge related to Systems Analysis and Design, eleven students never took any course related to this subject area, and five students had some experiences with SAD because of their work requirement. The reasons for them to take this course are in the order of personal interest (10, 63%), degree requirement (9, 81%), and work requirement (5, 31%).

Student SL Use Experiences One student dropped the course, thirteen out of 15 students took the post-survey, and the response rate is 87%. Two students skipped the first section and did not report their experiences of using Second Life. So the data reported here are collected from 11 students. Eight students accessed SL from campus and three of them from home. Averagely

Figure 1. Social Networking Tools Used by Students

speaking, they all spent 1-3 hours in SL related to course activities. Seven students (64%) stated that SL was easy to use. Nine students (82%) felt comfortable to participate in SL activities. More students disagreed (45% vs. 36%) that SL is effective in searching for learning resources. Six students (46%) did not think SL is effective in networking with people, only three students (27%) had the opposite opinion. With regard to communication, seven (64%) students reported that SL is effective in communicating with other people, and 73% agreed (8 students) that SL is an efficient tool in collaborating with other people, which corresponds to the study results from Fetscherin and Lattemann. Since this was the first time use of SL as a learning environment for the majority of students (87%), it is important to know if students invested too much time or had to give up their routine life activities for this purpose. Figure 2 shows their responses. Thirty-six percent of students reported that SL learning did not affect their daily life activities, and 27% of students either indicated that they had to give up some of their time for watching TV or leisure reading for SL activities. The other activities reported include physical exercises and study time for other classes. Eighty-two percent (9 students) reported that besides class activities, they also spent some time randomly surfing

433


Figure 2. The Effect of SL on Students’ Daily Life Activities

Learning Engagement (Situations)

in SL. In terms of avatar appearance, forty-five percent of students (5) designed their avatars to resemble themselves, only one student designed the avatar with a different appearance, and 73% of students never changed their avatar images during the semester.

Students in this course were required to conduct course activities mostly in SL; ten students (77%) reported that they had a good understanding of achieving course objectives in SL learning environment. Nine students (70%) either strongly agreed or agreed that the SL activities fostered a positive atmosphere for learning engagement. Engaged learning requires the participation from each student in the group activities. Eight students (62%) indicated that they were able to express their personal opinions and ideas in SL activities to involve themselves in the learning process. Two students did not provide any opinions and another two students disagreed with it. One of the objectives of the SL activities in this course was to request students to explore on their own the resources and knowledge for their group project. The purpose of the activities was to encourage students to learn more and to actively involve in the knowledge construction process. Eight students (62%) stated that SL activities stimulated them to learn more in the subject area, and 54% of students felt that they were more involved in the subject knowledge learning with the integration of SL activities. Overall speaking, Second Life as a learning environment has a positive effect on the learning engagement when the course activities were designed based on group project learning and involving students in the learning process to construct knowledge on their own.

Feedback on CLD Model The following data are student feedback on the six learning components of CLD model – learning engagement (situations), collaboration/community learning (groups), surfacing knowledge (bridges), in-depth learning/critical thinking embedded in tasks (task), thinking explained (exhibit), and learning reflection. The questions are formulated by the chapter authors based on the understanding and interpretation of the CLD model in consideration of the unique features and functions in SL learning environment. Gagnon and Collay’s CLD model was proposed specifically for classroom course design. We transferred the activities from classroom to SL, and tried to maintain the same constructivist learning teaching approach. All the participants (13 students) responded to each question.

434

Collaborative/Community Learning (Groups) Fifteen students were divided into four groups, 4-5 students in each group, based on four group projects in this course. Each group had its own discussion forum besides SL group activities.


Group members post messages and shared their ideas to contribute to the mutual learning and the collaboration on the group project. Ten students (77%) strongly agreed or agreed that they enjoyed working in collaboration with their classmates through SL group activities. Group learning benefits the social construction of knowledge, and students can learn from each other in the process. Again, 77% of students positively reported that they learned to value new viewpoints of others in this course through SL activities. Eleven students (85%) thought that the exchange of individual experiences benefitted their learning of course subject, and 7 students (54%) learned to work with others better in this class through SL activities. Communication is the key to a successful collaboration. Seven students (54%) felt that SL activities helped to promote communication between students and instructor.

Surfacing Prior Knowledge (Bridges) The purpose of this component was to find out if student’s prior knowledge contributed to their new knowledge learning, if they had a correct understanding of the knowledge, and connect what they learned with real life experiences. Equal number of students (5, 39%) either agreed or disagreed that the SL learning activities helped them recollected their prior experiences related to course subject. Three students (23%) did not provide any opinions. Nine students (69%) reported that their prior experiences contributed to the construction of the new knowledge in this course. Seven students (54%) strongly agreed or agreed that the knowledge learned in SL was beneficial to their real-life work / profession. From the student demographic information, five students’ work requires SAD knowledge. Eleven students (85%) stated that they were able to transfer the knowledge they learning from other courses to the construction of the new knowledge of this course through SL activities.

In-Depth Learning/Critical Thinking (Task) In-depth learning and critical thinking were imbedded in the process of finishing the tasks for the group projects. SL activities in this course required students a deeper level learning instead of just information processing. Students were assessed beyond the recall of factual information. They must work together creatively to finish their project. Eight students (62%) reported that SL activities required them to do more than just remembering of factual information. Ten students (77%) stated that the comments and feedback from the classmates on their part of the work caused them to think deeper. Nine students (69%) said that the feedback from the instructor stimulated their exploration of new knowledge. Seven students (54%) either strongly agreed or agreed that SL activities developed their skills in critical thinking in the subject area.

Thinking Explained (Exhibit) Students need to show the product of their thinking through their work. In this course, the assessment included the finished group project and case analysis presentations. The group project was presented collaboratively by students and invited speakers from real business in SL. Seven students (54%) reported that they were able to express their thinking process through SL activities, and eight students (8%) stated that those activities reinforced the new knowledge they learned in the course. Eleven students (85%) thought the assessment gave them an opportunity to re-evaluate the knowledge they learned in the course.

Learning Reflection (Reflections) Reflection is the last component of CLD model, which requires students to synthesize critical thinking and knowledge. The tool that students used for reflection activity in this course was SL

435


blogging tool. Students were required to blog and reflect on their thinking, what they learned and their personal opinions on the projects, assignments and activities. Six students (46%) indicated that those reflection activities caused them to reevaluate some of their past experiences, and nine students (70%) reported that the self-reflection activities improved their understanding of the course subject matter. The reflection activities also help students document what they learned (agreed by 62% of students) and help them synthesize the information they received (agreed by 77% of students). Nine students (70%) stated that their analytical skills were improved though self-reflection activities in SL. Figure 3 shows the average feedback from students on each CLD model component through the activities they conducted in SL. We can see that group collaboration and self-reflection activities were more favored by students in SL learning environment. Students were working in teams, collaborating in SL. The reflection activity also involved students working in groups by blogging in SL and posting messages to group discussion forums. The next favorite activity was task, which was the process of reflecting critical thinking in their work and mutual learning through making comments and feedback on each other’s work, which required students to communicate and interact with each other in SL. The results indicate that SL learning environment is helpful to students’ collaboration, communication and interaction with each other. This characteristic is also supported by the study conducted by Fetischerin & Lattermann (2007) that SL is highly interactive in nature.

SL AS A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND OVERALL FEEDBACK SL is a new learning environment for most of the students, and their feedback will be very valuable for the instructor’s future improvement. Eight students (61%) reported that SL did not get in the

436

Figure 3. Summarized average feedback from students on each CLD component (in %)

way of their learning. Eight students (61%) did not think they would learn better in SL environment even though they found SL environment made learning fun. Seven students (54%) thought SL can provide equally genuine learning environment as real life, five students (39%) disagreed with them, and one student did not provide any opinions. As a result of this course, eight students (61%) felt more positive about using SL for learning environment. Eleven students (84%) either strongly agreed or agreed that the course made an excellent use of SL technology; nine students (69%) indicated that SL activities were well coordinated with course leaning objectives. Eight students (61%) thought SL technology should be used for other courses, and 9 students (69%) would recommend this course to other students. In the open-end question regarding what they liked most when they were taking the course in SL, the most frequent response is convenience and flexibility, being able to access the classroom at any location without geographic limits. One student commented that SL environment provided a learning experience similar to face-to-face classroom. Another student was motivated to attend the class because of SL learning environment, he commented that “the virtual environment is engaging, entertaining, and fosters good communication. It makes it harder for ones to be overpowered by other speakers and everyone has a chance to com-


municate. I looked forward to each class because it was interesting.” There are always challenges with adoption of new technologies. SL technology requires users to install SL application on their computers and this application needs updating quite often to improve performance. Students also need microphone in order to talk to each other. Internet connection speed presented an issue. Students reported that sometimes computers froze up when the connection slowed down; chat and presentation became buggy, and interruption of communication. Survey data indicate that students who experienced more technical problems had more negative feedback on the use of SL learning environment. For the students who never used SL before, it is absolutely necessary to provide in-class training besides the instructions provided with the orientation materials.

The Value of Research Study The daunting technology challenge faced by higher educational institutions is the technology explosion and difficulty of tracking and managing (Dell, 2008). When we implement any new technology, we need to fully assess it, find out the real value of it in the process of teaching and learning as well as provide valid data for effective management and strategic implementation. There are several benefits from this research study. First of all, this study provided us a full picture of how SL was used in teaching Systems Analysis and Design course and we found out SL virtual environment is supporting constructivist learning to certain extent, especially in promoting communication and interaction between students and real business in Virtual Worlds. SL used as an educational context is still new to most of faculty members. There might be more faculty members joining the board later on. This study gave us an opportunity to evaluate what works, what needs our attention, and what needs improvement for the followers. We have generalized best practice

based on the data collected and student open-end feedback. The research data can also provide administrators with important decision-making information on what extent to which the school leadership choose to build support infrastructure for the endeavors. As Kelton points out that “history has proven that higher education incurs risk when entering into a close alliance with a forprofit company when consistency for academic purposes is such and important issue” (Kelton, 2007, p. 9), will this investment worth this risk for academia? Any new technology has pros and cons. This research provided us with valuable feedback from student direct experiences in Second Life. Learners/users have the final say about usefulness and real value of technology.

CONCLUSION This is one of the first studies to examine the effectiveness of constructivist learning theory in Second Life and the impact of that theory on learning and satisfaction in an online MBA Systems Analysis and Design course. This chapter provides several contributions to the current literature. For the field of Systems Analysis and Design the paper demonstrates the importance of constructivist learning theory constructs in a Virtual Worlds to the learning achieved by MBA students. At a more general level, it shows how each facet of constructivist learning theory can contribute to learning perception and satisfaction in a virtual environment such as Second Life. This chapter suggests that constructivism combines the best of both real and Virtual Worlds, by giving learners a clear sense of what needs to be learned and providing them with the reinforcement and social support structure traditionally found in group activities. It is the social dimension of learning that is addressed in the Virtual Worlds of Second Life that appears to be a key for the success of online courses, where the sense of the classroom in an online environment is otherwise lost. This

437


insight supports Parker Palmer’s (1998) thesis that to have a successful learning experience, teachers who are truly present in their courses and deeply engaged in learning together with their students and their subjects is even more accurate for those teaching in Virtual Worlds.

REFERENCES Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: Technology-mediated learning-a call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 1. doi:10.1287/ isre.12.1.1.9720 Antonacci, D. M., & Modaress, N. (2005). Second life: The educational possibilities of a massively multiplayer Virtual Worlds (mmvw). Retrieved on October 20, 2008, from http://www2.kumc. edu/tlt/SLEDUCAUSESW2005/SLPresentationOutline.htm Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Is there an optimal design for on-line mba courses? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 135–149. Avison, D., Cole, M., & Guy, F. (2006). Reflections on teaching information systems analysis and design: From then to now! Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(3), 253. Bajaj, A., Batra, D., Hevner, A., Parsons, J., & Keng, S. (2005). Information technology and systems - i. Systems analysis and design: Should we be researching what we teach? Communications of AIS, 2005(15), 478. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., & Jacobson, I. (2005). Unified modeling language user guide (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Consortia, N. M. (2007). Spring 2007 survey educators in second life. Retrieved on August 15, 2008, from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007-slsurvey-summary.pdf

438

Dell. (2008). The software-as-a-service (saas) solution, Campus Technology. Retrieved on August 15, 2008, from http://www.everdream.com/ resources/campustech/DellCTWP_SaaS_for_Education-0725.pdf Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., & Roth, R. M. (2006). Systems analysis and design (3 Ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., & Tegarden, D. (2005). Systems analysis and design with uml version 2.0: An object-oriented approach. New York: Wiley. Fetscherin, M., & Lattemann, C. (2007). User acceptance of Virtual Worlds – an explorative study about second life. Retrieved on August 10, 2008 from http://www.secondliferesearch. blogspot.com Hardaway, D. E., & Scamell, R. W. (2005). Use of a technology-mediated learning instructional approach for teaching an introduction to information technology course. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(2), 137. Harris, A. L., Lang, M., Oates, B., & Keng, S. (2006). Systems analysis & design: An essential part of is education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(3), 241. Hoffer, J. A., George, J. F., & Valacich, J. S. (2007). Modern systems analysis and design (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hsiao, R. L., Kuo, F. Y., & Chu, T. H. (2006). The more we study, the less we learn: A primer on the analysis of tml effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 149–176. doi:10.1207/ s15327744joce1602_4 Kelton, A. J. (2007). Second life: Reaching into the Virtual Worlds for real-world learning, EDUCAUSE, 2007 (17).


Kendall, K. E., & Kendall, J. E. (2007). Systems analysis and design (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shelly, G. B., Cashman, T. J., & Rosenblatt, H. J. (2007). Systems analysis and design (7th ed.). Boston: Course Technology.

Mahapatra, R., Nerur, S. P., & Slinkman, C. W. (2005). Special theme of research in information systems analysis and design - iii teaching systems analysis and design -- a case for the object oriented approach. Communications of AIS, 2005(16), 848.

Sosnoski, J. J., Harkin, P., & Carter, B. (2006). Configuring history. Teaching the Harlem renaissance through virtual reality cityscapes. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(4), 66. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach [electronic resource]: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Park, H., Jung, J., & Collins, C. M. (2008). Effect of activities in second life as a tool for understanding gender roles. Paper presented at the Conference of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Las Vegas, NV. Plato. (1952). Dialogues of Plato (1 ed. Vol. 7). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, Incorporated. Rakes, G. C., Flowers, B. F., Casey, H. B., & Santana, R. (1999). An analysis of instructional technology use and constructivist behaviors in k-12 teachers. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 1–18. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., & Booch, G. (2004). The unified modeling language reference manual (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series. Satzinger, J. W., Jackson, R. B., & Burd, S. D. (2006). Systems analysis & design in a changing world (4th ed.). Boston: Course Technology.

Vygotskii, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Authentic Learning: Conduct learning activities / projects in real life contexts Constructivist Learning: Centered learning approach and learners construct new knowledge by doing and experiencing focusing on critical thinking, deep-level learning Constructivist Learning Design Model: A design process suggested by Gagnon and Collay to design student learning activities and course content delivery based on constructivist learning Information Systems: Computer Systems Second Life: A virtual world developed by Linden Lab used as a learning environment in this chapter. It is a computer-based 3D environment where students meet and interact with each other. Social Networking: A social structure established through the use of Internet communication technologies by the people who share the same value: vision, task objectives, ideas, etc Systems Analysis and Design: Software Engineering, Business analysis Technology Mediated Learning: Technology-supported learning Virtual Worlds: A computer-based simulated 3D environment where students can interact with each other through avatars in real time

439

440

Chapter 26

Student Perceptions and Pedagogical Applications of E-Learning Tools in Online Course C. Candace Chou University of St. Thomas, USA

ABSTRACT This study explores student views of various E-Learning tools as teaching and learning media in an online course for pre-service and in-service teachers. This chapter also examines the pedagogical applications of E-Learning tools in an online course. The capabilities of a system that allows meaningful interaction, reflection, personal identification, and a sense of community play a key role in the degree of social presence. This study highlights some key findings regarding the efficacy of E-Learning tools from student perspectives and make recommendations for future pedagogical practice.

INTRODUCTION The utilization of both synchronous and asynchronous communication systems has been a common practice in online instruction. While the majority of distance education is conducted over asynchronous communication mode, the introduction of E-Learning 2.0 tools such as Weblog, podcast, wiki have opened a new door for more learner-centered and interactive instruction. The introduction of ELearning tools has enabled learners to take more control of their learning. E-Learning 2.0 tools are characterized as tag-based, participatory, playDOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-788-1.ch026

ful, social networking, and collaborative editing through tools such as blogs, wikis, RSS, podcasting, flickr, del.icio.us, and wikipedia (O’Reilly, 2005). As these tools are being utilized in classroom or online learning environments, educators are also seeking research-based evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of E-Learning tools. They are especially interested to know what are the student views on the effectiveness of these tools for online learning? In what ways can the new E-Learning technologies be effective pedagogical tools for online instruction? The purposes of this chapter are twofold: compare indicators of social presence with various E-Learning tools and examine the changes in degrees of social presence during the course


Student Perceptions and Pedagogical Applications of E-Learning Tools in Online Course

of an online class. Blog, podcast, Breeze, and Blackboard Discussion Board are the four tools chosen for comparisons from an online graduate course in a teacher education program.

Figure 1. Perspectives on learning environments (Adapted from Bransford et al., 1999, p.122)

LITERATURE REVIEW Many models have been proposed to explain frameworks and important components of learning environments. A review of these models will provide a better understanding of how to achieve effective online learning.

Bransford’s Model of Learning Environment Bransford, Brown, Cocking, Donova, and Pellegrino (1999) proposed a model for designing effective learning environments. The learning environment should be learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered as shown in figure 1. An effective learning environment must be learnercentered so that the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs of the students are taken into consideration by the instructors. Learners often use their current knowledge to construct new knowledge. In a learner-centered environment, instructors would attempt to understand what students think, discuss their misconceptions, and integrate instructional strategies that can help learners to acquire new knowledge. Bransford et al. (1999) stated “Overall, learner-centered environments include teachers who are aware that learners construct their own meanings, beginning with the beliefs, understanding, and cultural practices they bring to the classroom” (p. 124). The teacher is the bridge that helps learners build new understandings. An effective learning environment is knowledge-centered. It is not sufficient to only teach thinking skills and problem-solving skills. These abilities require well-organized knowledge that can be retrieved for the appropriate context. A

knowledge-centered learning environment focuses on curriculum design in which students are expected to achieve desired learning outcomes. The curriculum should “help students develop interconnected pathways within a discipline so that they learn their way around in it and not lose sight of where they are” (Bransford et al, 1999, p. 141). Good learning environments should also be assessment-centered so that students can have many opportunities to receive feedback for improvement. Assessment must reflect the learning goals. Assessment can not only help the students to improve their learning but also the instructors to revise their instructional approach. Finally, effective learning environments should be community-centered, which share norms and value high standard learning. The norms include ways for learners to interact, receive feedback, and learn. These guidelines provide a clear pedagogical framework for designing effective online learning environments. These principles are well-supported in the literature. However, for higher education distance learning, the role of the instructor is not clearly defined in this model. In addition, the attributes of technology are missing. The community of inquiry model by Garrison, Anderson, and

441


Archer (1999) does address the roles of instructor, students, and learning in distance learning environments.

Figure 2. Elements of an Educational Experience (© 1999 The Elsevier Science Inc. Used with permission.)

The Community of Inquiry Model Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999) proposed the model of critical thinking and practical inquiry to demonstrate how learning takes place through the interaction of three core elements: social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence. These three elements are crucial in providing a successful higher education learning experience. The researchers examined the transcripts of textbased asynchronous computer conferences and analyzed indicators that occurred in a computer conference. Cognitive presence means the extent to which a student can construct meaning though sustained communication. Cognitive presence reflects an important element in critical thinking. This element also represents a process and an outcome for achieving learning goals in higher education. Social presence is defined as “the ability of participants in the Community of Inquiry to project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to the other participants as ‘real people’” (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999, p. 89). Social presence can play a key role in supporting cognitive presence in which it indirectly facilitates the thinking process by the

community of learners. Cognitive presence can be easily sustained when social presence is established (Garrison, 1997; Gunawardena, 1995). Teaching presence refers, primary to, the responsibilities of the teacher. It serves two functions: the design of the educational experience and facilitation of learning. A teacher is responsible for the selection, organization, and presentation of course content. In addition, a teacher designs the learning activities and conducts assessment. Teaching presence can support both cognitive

Table 1. Community of Inquiry Coding Template (© 1999 The Elsevier Science Inc. Used with permission.) Elements Cognitive Presence

442

Categories

Indicators (examples only)

Triggering event Exploration Integration Resolution

Sense of puzzlement Information exchange Connecting ideas Applying new ideas

Social Presence

Emotional Expression Open Communication Group Cohesion Instructional Management

Emotions Risk-free expression Encouraging collaboration

Teaching Presence

Instructional management Building understanding Direct Instruction

Defining and initiating discussion topics Sharing personal meaning Focusing discussion


presence and social presence for the purpose of attaining educational goals. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999) contend that the interplay of the three presences contributes to a better educational experience. Each presence has unique indicators to reflect the process of an online course (see table 1). These indicators help to identify the meaningful learning activities in online learning.

Model of Success Factors in Online Learning Environments Many factors contribute to the successful learner experiences in an online learning environment (OLE). To explain these factors, Bekele (2008) proposed a model of success factors based on a meta-analysis of 82 studies that were published in major educational technology journals between 1995 and 2006. These factors include: human factors, course factors, leadership factors, technology factors, and pedagogic factors (figure 3). Bekele’s model represents the complex interplay of human, technology, pedagogy, and leadership. The human factors denoted the perceptions, understanding, and competencies of OLEs by the students and instructors. It is assumed that higher levels of motivation, information, communication and technology (ICT) competency, attitudes, and experiences in OLEs would result in a more successful online learning experience. The course factors referred to instructional design and organization of a course. A course needs to have clear goals and expectations, provide relevant information and challenges to students, and offer high quality of content. The leadership factors were linked to the roles by the administration in terms of technology provision, staff/student training, ICT support, and other logistics. The pedagogic factors referred to learning and instruction in OLEs. The use of collaborative, problem-based, and process oriented learning strategies could usually yield more successful experiences. The technology factors referred to the attributes of

educational technologies. Learners need to have reliable access to a variety of technologies for various learning contexts. When multiple tools are available, online collaboration, interaction and communication can all take place. Through this framework, a more complete picture of factors contributing to successful online learning can be better examined. The model of success and success factors is further supported by a longitudinal study by Menchaca and Bekele (2008). They examined the experiences of students and teachers in distance education. Qualitative analysis and coding of survey data and focus groups have identified eleven major factors that are deemed important factors for success in online learning. The eleven factors are grouped in three categories. The factors are: 1.

2. 3.

Technology tools: multiple tools, technical proficiency, asynchronous tools, synchronous tools Pedagogy strategies: situated learning, face-to-face, change, faculty importance Programmatic issues: overall experience, enrollment, program difficulty

The findings indicate that both faculty and students responded favorably on the use of multiple interactive tools. Technology tools allowed reflection, meaningful conversation, and constructive feedback from peers. A mix of synchronous and asynchronous communication could enhance student experience. Student felt less isolated when there is a variety of ways to communicate with each other. Faculty in favor of multiple tools emphasized the advantages of addressing different learning styles. Menchaca and Bekele (2008) suggested the following best practices for online learning: • •

Integrate multiple tools for different contexts; Promote a positive attitude toward technology and OLE;

443


Figure 3. Model of success and success factors in Internet-supported learning environments (© 2008 Teklu Abate Bekele. Used with permission.)

• • • • •

Incorporate a social and situated learning environment; Include some level of f2f interaction; Involve and rely on faculty at many levels; Help participants develop appropriate skills, experience, and training; and Provide sustained administrative support (p. 249)

The first model of learning environment points out how people learn and the essential elements for designing effective learning. The second model of community of inquiry offers the conceptual framework and tools for enhancing educational experience in an online learning community. The third model of success factors specifically examines the role of technology and the success factors in online learning. One might wonder what the research evidence is. The following section will specifically focus on research in social presence and teaching presence.

444

Social Presence and Teaching Presence Social presence has been an important indicator of student satisfaction in online learning (Richardson & Swan, 2003; Hostetter & Busch, 2006). Social presence is originally defined as the “degree of salience of the other person in the (mediated) interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships” (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Short, William, and Christie (1976) have employed this concept to examine how users respond to different types of media. They hypothesized that users of communication media interacted differently according to the degree of social presence of each medium. Gunawardena and Zittle’s (1997) extensive research in social presence and computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems concluded that social presence could “be cultured” among different CMC systems. Their research findings have departed from the traditional views that social presence is largely


an attribute of the communication medium. In a study that compared the degree of social presence of video-conferencing, audio-conferencing, text-chat, 3-D virtual Words, and asynchronous discussion Board, Chou (2001) has found that the frequency in using a communication medium can also enhance the degree of social presence. Recent studies have shifted the focus from media attributes to pedagogical applications of the media while examining the degree of social presence. Richardson and Swan (2003) found strong correlation between perceived social presence of various online activities and perceived learning satisfaction. Students who have more online course experience have a higher degree of social presence. The connection between social presence and community building has also being highlighted in recent research (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Gunawardena (1995) postulated that “the development of social presence and a sense of online community becomes key to promoting collaborative learning and knowledge building” (p 164). She emphasized that collaborative learning is supported by learner’s sense of social presence and community. Hostetter and Busch (2006) found that student perception of social presence is similar for both online and face-to-face groups. They have also found that social presence is a more significant predictor for online courses than face-to-face courses. In short, in empirical studies, social presence has shown strong connection with quality learning. The roles of an instructor play a vital part in the success of online learning. Teaching presence is a term that best describes the multiple tasks of an instructor. Anderson et al. (2001) defined teaching presence as “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (p. 5). With supporting evidence from the content analysis of asynchronous text-based conferencing transcripts, Anderson et al. (2001) asserted that teaching presence fall into three categories: (1)

design and organization, (2) facilitating discourse, and (3) direct instruction. Online teaching starts with the design and planning of an online course. The activities involve building curriculum materials, planning student activities, and establishing communication etiquettes. For the second category of facilitating discourse, a teacher provides modeling to encourage participation, mediate between active and inactive students, and set the tone for student discussion. For the third category on direct instruction, an online instructor provides leadership in scholarly and intellectual activities. Teachers as the subject matter experts are expected to provide direct comments to students and organize activities to achieve the learning goals of the course. Teaching presence and social presence play equally important roles in online education. While many studies have devoted to the importance and effectiveness of social presence in online learning, Yang (2007) proposed a STEP model on the specifics of establishing social presence for online collaborative learning. STEP consists of four key phases: scaffolding, transactions, evaluation, and presentation. In the scaffolding phase, the instructor could present relevant materials, sequence instruction, and facilitate initial online discussion to ease student anxiety and reduce social distance among students. In the transactions phase, the instructor interacts with the students through both private and public channels. The private channel could be one-to-one connection such as email or a “private folder” in a course management system. The public channel could be posting answers and comments in the discussion area. The transaction phase serves the purposes of engaging students in active learning and reducing feelings of isolation. The teaching presence and student social presence will need to be delicately balanced to achieve a successful transaction phase. In the evaluation phase, two purposes are served: “to remind inactive students to contribute ideas and/or react to others’ contributions, and to reinforce interactive students continuing their journey on their knowledge and

445


skills from emergent to mastery” (Jonassen, 2000, cited in Yang, 2007, p. 119). The presentation phase assists students in reflecting the learning processes and reinforcing student performance in an authentic environment. The STEP model contributes to the understanding of the complex processes of online teaching and provides specific suggestions for enhancing teaching presence and student social presence.

Pedagogical Applications Technology along cannot provide effective learning. The pedagogical models of an online course can provide a framework on how to maximize E-Learning tools. Pedagogical models refers to the “views about teaching and learning. Pedagogical models are cognitive models or theoretical constructs derived from learning theory that enable the implementation of specific instructional and learning strategies” (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005, p. 164). For example, in a behaviorismbased pedagogical model, a strong emphasis of the learning environment will be on direct instruction and drill-and-practice types of exercises. In a constructivism-based pedagogical model, stronger emphasis will be placed on learner-centered instructional strategies. To be more specific about the pedagogical applications of E-Learning tools, a Web-based learning environment can be a venue for knowledge construction. Virtual worlds are ideal for simulation and role play. The audio can be used for one-way lecture broadcast or interactive feedback comments. Ice, Curtis, Phillips, and Wells (2007) found that the use of asynchronous audio feedback could enhance teaching presence and sense of community. Students showed higher rate of satisfaction when receiving embedded asynchronous audio feedback. Driscoll (2000) offered the following instructional design principles for utilizing technologies: 1.

446

Embed learning in complex, realistic, and relevant context.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Provide for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. Encourage ownership in learning Nurture self-awareness of the knowledge construction process. (p. 382)

Careful consideration of the pedagogical applications of E-Learning tools is necessary to foster a highly effective learning environment. The follow sections offer examples of the pedagogical applications of E-Learning tools and examine student experiences in an online course.

COURSE BACKGROUND AND PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF E-LEARNING TOOLS Menchaca and Bekele (2008) highlighted the importance of multiple tools for facilitating successful online learning experience. The research study in this chapter focused on an online course that has utilized multiple synchronous and asynchronous communication tools for teaching and learning activities. The subjects for this research were students in an online graduate course titled “Use of Technology for Instruction.” Fifteen students, including six pre-service and nine in-service teachers, attended a six-week intensive summer course in 2007. The objectives of this course were to increase student proficiency in technology integration in the classroom with emerging technologies and to examine the social ethical aspects of technology applications in education. This course utilized a number of E-Learning 2.0 (e.g., Blog, podcast), multimedia-enabled communication system (e.g., Breeze), and text-based communication system (e.g, Blackboard discussion board). Instructional activities were carried out in both synchronous and asynchronous modes. The assignments and activities for each communication system are summarized below:


Breeze: Students were required to meet through the Breeze video-conferencing system, a Flash video application that allows multiple simultaneous video connections. Four one-hour Web-based seminars (Webinar) were scheduled over the sixweek course. Students were encouraged but not required to use a Web cam to interact with each other. In the first week, there were four students using web cams, three using microphones, and nine students using text chat. By the second meeting, thirteen students were using a Web cam and two students remained on the text chat. The instructional activities over Breeze included: course orientation, student introduction, guest lecture on copyright issue, demonstration of blog creation, and student final project presentation. The pedagogical objectives were to familiarize students with synchronous multimedia-mediated communication system and gain competency in utilizing this tool. Weblog: Students were required to use the Blogger.com service to create their own blogs to reflect on emerging technologies for teaching. A minimum of three Weblog entries was required of each student. Students used Bloglines (http://

bloglines.com) to aggregate their classmates’ blogs. Students had the choice of a blog topic. Each student had to comment on at least two other Weblogs. The pedagogical objectives were to (1) encourage students in the integration of blog in their own teaching, (2) evaluate emerging technological tools, and (3) reflect how instructional strategies can be enhanced with the emerging technology. Podcast video: A class blog with RSS feed was set up to provide podcast video tutorials to assist students in the following topics: instructor’s greeting, course overview, and application demonstration such as Inspiration, PowerPoint, Excel, blogs, and other tools. The pedagogical objective was to provide video-on-demand instructional materials so that students could master the software applications utilized in the course. Blackboard Discussion Board (Forum): Students posted their technology projects and brainstormed about various ways to integrate technology into the K-12 classrooms in the weekly Forum discussion in Blackboard. There were a total of 13 Forums with different topics. Students were required to provide at last two comments to others’

Table 2 Examples of pedagogical applications of E-Learning tools to establish a Community of Inquiry in online education CMC tools

Social presence

Teaching Presence

Cognitive Presence

• Student presentations • Small group discussion in breakout rooms

• Instructor presentation on courserelated topics • Instructor-facilitated class discussion • Trouble-shooting

• Archived videos for review • Multimedia presentation with PowerPoint, polling, whiteboard, Q&A

Weblog

• Peer feedback • Student-generated knowledge base

• Teacher comments on student works • Instructor organization of topic categories

• Student reflection on trends, issues, and course topics • Student master skills through hands-on practice

Podcast

• Student-generated podcast • Peer feedback

• Podcast/Webcast for social greetings and course lectures • Increased teacher-student contacts via voice and sound • Feedback on student projects

• Instructional video tutorials for reviewing course materials or learning new topics

• Student sharing of course projects • Peer feedback on course projects

• Instructional organization • Facilitating discourse

• In-depth reflection of course topics

Breeze Video-conferencing

Asynchronous Discussion Board

447


postings in each Forum. The pedagogical objectives were to (1) encourage student participation in online activities, (2) showcase mini-projects and receive feedback from peer, and (3) reflect on the trends and issues in technology integration in the K-12 classroom. The Community of Inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999) has provided the framework in determining how the E-Learning tools can be employed to enhance social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Table 2 summarizes learning activities for each tool that has been utilized to facilitate social, teaching, and cognitive presence in this online course.

Methodology Research Questions To examine student perceptions toward E-Learning tools and the degree of social presence associated with each tool, this study asks the following research questions: 1.

2. 3.

What is the perceived social presence among Weblog, podcast, Breeze, and forum? And Why? Is there a significant change in the perceived social presence at the end of a course? What are the perceived benefits and satisfaction for learning by each communication system?

Method This study is based on a case study that utilizes surveys and email communication as the main source of data.

Participants Fourteen out of fifteen students completed the survey. Eight were females and six were males. The

448

students were all graduate students at the School of Education. Nine of them (64.3%) had never taken an online course before and five (35.7%) of them had taken at least two online courses.

Instrument A web-based anonymous survey with ten Likertscale items and three open-ended questions was sent to the students through the instructor’s email announcement. The pre-test was conducted at the end of the second week and the post-test was conducted at the end of an online graduate course. The pre-test was conducted at the second week so that all students would have used each of the tools at least once and had some knowledge of the tools. The questions used a five-point response scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) and prompted students to indicate the degree to which they agreed with each statement. The open-ended questions were about their perceptions of benefits related to the communication systems in terms of their learning and satisfaction with them. The survey instrument was originally developed by Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) and then revised by Richardson and Swan (2003). This survey is based on the version by Richardson and Swan (2003) with minor changes on the wording to make it more suitable for the course in this study. Instead of comparing the social presence between different online activities as in previous research, this survey asks the participants to compare the degree of social presence among blog, podcast, Breeze, and discussion board.

Data Collection Quantitative and qualitative data were both collected. Quantitative data were collected from the Web-based survey and then analyzed in SPSS. Qualitative data were collected from open-ended questions in the survey and follow-up emails with participants.


Data Results and Analysis

Change in Perceived Social Presence

Degrees of Social Presence by Communication Systems

The overall SP ratings decreased for all tools except for Weblog. Students commented that Weblog was “creative,” “satisfying,” and useful for the K-12 classroom. The fact that the students could take ownership of the content and continue to build on what they have done in the class was a major accomplishment. A Paired Sample Test (Figure 5) has shown that Breeze has a significant difference in the pre-test and post-test means. The degree of social presence at the beginning of the semester (M=4.2, SD=.29) is significantly higher than the post-test (M=4.0, SD=.39), p <prerequisites> <style> <entry> ........ ....... <modifier>…. ….. <specifically> ....... <modifier>…. The above XML schema represents LO information along with necessary metadata in modified Dublin Core Metadata Format. To exhibit intelligent behavior, fuzzy rules can be embedded

within the above LO schema with and tags. The power of fuzzy logic comes from linguistic variable. As shown in the above format, a linguistic modifier (Soto et al, 2003; Sajja, 2007) is attached with XML rule to deal with the vagueness associated with the situation. The meaning of the linguistic modifier used in every rule can be extracted from the Fuzzy Interface Tier in the architecture.

Presentation Tier The presentation tier contains modules for searching, querying, reporting and session management to present suitable content to the learner. This layer also contains information about presentation style in which the content is to be represented. As different learners have got their own learning style, it becomes necessary for an ideal learning solution to identify the learning style and presentation method according to user’s ability and requirement. Such customized presentation aids user friendliness and flexibility of the system. The scope of the system can also be increased by such personalized presentation to handle various target groups of the users. For such flexibility, the LOR should contain necessary metadata about the XML tag presentation style. According to Silveira et al (2004), few examples of learning style can be Global, Innovative, Active, Sequential, Visual and Verbal. The information about the users can be obtained from the application tier, which manages user profiles and history.

Fuzzy Interface Tier It is obvious that the computer-based learning systems need to be equivalent, if not superior, to the traditional learning systems (Darbhamulla & Lawhead, 2004). However, just increasing the technological potential does not guarantee better applications (Nykänen, 2006). According to Dodds (2001), the standardization of the application interfaces certainly improves the development of

483

Multi-Tier Knowledge-Based System Accessing Learning Object Repository Using Fuzzy XML

learning systems, and it is possible to semantically integrate different sources of information by using standard general-purpose query languages (Boag et al, 2005; Prud’hommeaux & Seaborne, 2005). Otherwise, the technical details engaged with the operation may confuse students and instructors. Fuzzy interface planned here makes it possible to store information like students’ progress technically and to classify verbally. For example, assignments of users can be classified as ‘easy’, ‘intermediate’ or ‘difficult’. The fuzzy interface facilitates working with environmental vague parameters in users own terminology; convert them into their equivalent crisp values and vice-versa for friendly interaction with the system. The users profile and session history are the major inputs to this layer besides users choice. As and when user interacts with the system using his ‘natural’ terminology and style, the meaning of the linguistic parameter used like poor…large…hot etc. can be retrieved from the fuzzy membership functions. These functions facilitate conversion of linguistic/fuzzy value to crisp values and vice-versa. Many fuzzy membership functions like evaluation of students to identify special category students like slow learners, selecting presentation style, firing proper material and question to the students, etc. can be developed and placed in this tier.

Figure 5. Fuzzy Interface Tier

484

Figure 6 presents a sample fuzzy membership function (Sajja, 2006) which maps speed correctness ratio (number of questions answered correctly within the given time) to a value in [0,1] interval. Presence of such multiple fuzzy membership functions help in presenting system logic in simple and flexible form. The fuzzy membership functions are to be utilized to execute fuzzy rules. Table 2 demonstrates sample fuzzy rules identifying level of learners using the demonstrated fuzzy membership functions: The mathematical approximation of the above fuzzy membership function can be given as follows:

L_Level S/C <w> high change presentation <specifically> select simulated-information // this is the case where learner has good grasping power and has above average learning skills comparatively. Though the learner couldn’t answer correctly after repeating topic sufficient number of times, it is suggested to change the presentation media.

L_Level <modifier =”Poor “> <w> high show current topic <specifically> select easy questions // this is the case where learner has low grasping power and can learn the topic after some revision, it is suggested to repeat current topic.

485


//…….. // Formal models & general problem solving strategies can be stored in format of a block. <model name= “…”> ...... ….where name is the encoded name of the model //rules ….. ........ .......<modifier>…. …. <specifically> ....... <modifier>…. …. ……. To obtain crisp values of the vague linguistic variables used, there is a need of defuzzification process. The formula for defuzzification along with its operators can also be placed in the above structure. Using such friendly interface working in learner’s native style and language, users will have flexibility to fire narrative queries and learn in the customized fashion. The fuzzy linguistic functions used in users interaction helps in understanding and answering queries; and aids decision making about session management and presentation style.

Application Tier This tier manages learner’s historical information, maintains individual learner profiles and provides

486

workspace to evaluate user answers. User profile contains learner’s information, objective for study and learning styles. Having such user profile is helpful in customized learning. Information about every user is acquired at this level. The individual profile considers parameters like registration information and category of users to provide access to the different utilities of the system. As the utilities like learning object editing, session management etc. have limited access, access rights for administrators, instructors and learners are different. The prerequisites and skills to learn the course and history of the sessions undertaken etc. are other consideration for the user profile. Such user profile for every user helps in understanding users need and level; and manages the presentation of the learning material.

Users of the System The possible users of the system can be domain experts, technical experts and administrators to manage resources and provide service through base technology and learners. Domain experts use the system to contribute and verify content. Here, systems need to take care about contradictory and/or redundant material given by the experts. Determination of the basic ontology for the contributed material (in the form of lower level objects) may be decided manually by the technical experts or through the system by providing an editorial interface to the non-technical professionals and experts. The domain experts of the subject may use this system as an assistant for their teaching; as colleague for documentation and cross verification of the topics and to train the trainers. In many cases the domain experts are the teachers. They may utilize documentation and learning material frequently on need bases. Above all, the system supports the basic transactions and utilities of the teaching and learning business (like preparation of study material, maintaining learners’ history, evaluating


their assignments etc.) in knowledge-based way which makes instructors job easy. Another important category of users of such system is students’ category for learning, practicing and self evaluating. Being available on the platform like the Internet, many users can take advantages of the system. If full-fledged system is not affordable to place on the Internet (for security or economic limitations), only the learning object repository tier could be deployed on the net and other tiers may be locally installed.

CONCLUSION As educational institutions, especially those specializing in open and distance learning, move towards digital storage and electronic delivery of course materials, there is a growing need for more sophisticated content management. The use of learning object to some extent increases flexibility and reusability and hence promises the cost-effectiveness of an e-Learning solution. In other words, LOR can be a good source of managing instructional material on the Internet. The system can be used for any on-line learners, administrators, trainers and institutes as main or parallel (supplement) learning mode. One or more such inter-operable repositories of LOs available on the net serve many advantages to learner community. However, working with such repositories has its own problems and challenges. The proposed multi-tier architecture accessing the LORs in knowledge-based fashion shows that how the system operations like retrieval, search, query and presentation of material can be carried out in highly effective way. The main emphasis is given on the friendly access of learning material in most customized way, which satisfies most of the learners’ perspectives. Typical LOR based systems have their own advantages of availability and flexibility. In addition to this, knowledge-based approach increases the usability

and user-friendliness of the system and supports three phases of knowledge management namely - knowledge discovery, knowledge management operations and knowledge use. Here, the presentation tier contains different functions for searching, querying and presentation, which are interrelated and application specific. In future these functions can be developed as independent components called agent and make the presentation tier a multi-agent system to add more structuredness into the system. However, as most of the functions are general and not application specific, need of going for such agent-based approach is a matter of discussion. As stated earlier, the quality of such educational solution directly depends on the content it offers. Even, high level presentation and user friendliness are not much appreciated without proper content. This is the major limitation of the approach proposed here. A repository with full fledged content of even a single subject results in content explosion (high volume). Combining such multiple repositories and their interoperability mechanism result in a very complex system, which are difficult to handle. Once a proper content has been entered, the truthfulness and validity of the content is required to be checked from time to time. With the emerging technologies and advancement in the world, the content becomes rapidly obsolete. Providing an interactive editor and partial self-learning (artificial intelligent technique for knowledgebased systems) may help in dynamic update of the content. On the other hand, it increases the cost and effort of the system development. However, development of such editor results in generic multi purpose product in the field. That is, such framework with empty LORs can be developed and made available centrally or on the Internet for an open/restricted access. Above all, one has to think about the newly invented standards of learning material representation. Even along with these issues, e-Learning through such inter-operable learning object reposi-

487


tories in the multi-tier knowledge-based approach certainly leads to advantages from three different aspects: advantages of on-line LOR management system; advantages by the knowledge-based access and advantages of modular (structured) approach by multi-tier architecture.

REFERENCES ADLNET. (2008). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.adlnet.org/ Arms, W. Y., Hillmann, D., Lagoze, C., Krafft, D., Saylor, J., Terrizzi, C., & Sompel, H. (2002). A spectrum of interoperability: The site for science prototype for the NSDL. D-Lib Magazine, 8(1). doi:10.1045/january2002-arms Baruque, C. B., & Rivera, L. A. (2006). Using the clustering technique in the development of learning objects digital libraries. Computers and Advanced Technology in Education 2006. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http:// www.actapress.com/Content_Of_Proceeding. aspx?ProceedingID=409 Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernández, M. F., Florescu, D., Robie, J., & Siméon, J. (2005). (Eds.) XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language, W3C Working Draft. Retrieved November 24, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WDxquery-20050404/. Careo (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008 from careo.netera.ca/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Repository/ Christiansen, J. & Terry, A. (2004). Feasibility of course development based on learning objects: Research analysis of three case studies. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Education.

488

Darbhamulla, R., & Lawhead, P. (2004). Paving the way towards an efficient Learning Management System. In S-M. Yoo & L. H. Etzkorn, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Southeast regional conference (pp.428-433). Huntsville, AL: ACM Press. Dietinger, T. (2003). Aspects of e-learning environments. Ph.D Thesis, Graz University of Technology. Dodds, P. (2001). Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORMTM) Version 1.2: The SCORM Overview. Advanced Distributed Learning. Retrieved November 24, 2005, from http:// www.adlnet.org. Dublin Core Metadata Initiativa (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008 from http://dublincore.org/ Duval, E., Forte, E., Cardinaels, K., Verhoeven, B., Van Durm, R., & Hendrikx, K. (2001). The ARIADNE knowledge pool system: a distributed digital library for education. Communications of the ACM, 44(5), 73–78. doi:10.1145/374308.374346 E-Content Report. (2004). E-learning technologies and its application in higher education: A descriptive comparison of Germany, UK and USA. Edusplash (2008). RetrievedAugust 23, 2008, from www.edusplash.net/default.asp?page=Home Gaurav, A. (2008). On fuzzy XML and fuzzy relational databases. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~gaurav/ presentations/Paper771.pdf Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J., & Richards, R. (2002). The nature and origin of instructional objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp.25-58). Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology and Association for Educational Communications & Technology.


Glenn, M. (2002). Learning objects 101: A primer for neophytes. Sidebars, November 2002, a publication of the Learning Resources Unit of the British Columbia Institute of Technology. Goldrei, S., Kay, J., & Kummerfeld, B. (2005). Exploiting user models to automate the harvesting of metadata for Learning Objects. In Proceedings of 2005 Conference on Adaptive and intelligent Webbased educational systems, Málaga, España. Gotschall, M. (2000). E-learning strategies for executive education and corporate training. Fortune, 141(10), S5–S59. Hall, B. (2000). How to embark on your e-Learning adventure: Making sense of the environment. eLearning, January-March, 2000. Hodgins, H. W. (2002). The future of learning objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp.281-298). Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology / Association for Educational Communications & Technology. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee. (2008). Draft standard for learning object metadata. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http:// ieeeltsc.org/. IMS Global Learning Consortium (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://www. imsglobal.org/ Lee, T. B., & Fischetti, M. (1999). Weaving the Web. San Francisco: Harper. Massart, D., & Dung, L. T. (2004). Federated search of learning object repositories: The CeLeBraTe approach. In Proceedings of International Conference RIFV’04, Hanoi, Vietnam. Merlot (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://www.merlot.org/Home.po

MPEG. (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/ mpeg-7/mpeg-7.htm Nykänen, O. (2006). Inducing fuzzy models for student classification. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 223–234. Petrinjak, A., & Graham, R. (2004). Creating learning objects from pre-authored course materials: Semantic structure of learning objects - Design and technology. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(3). Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4). Prud’hommeaux, E., & Seaborne, A. (2005). SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Working Draft. Retrieved November 24, 2005 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparqlquery-20050419/. Sajja, P. S. (2006). Parichay: An agent for adult literacy. Prajna, 14, 17–24. Sajja, P. S. (2007). Knowledge representation using fuzzy XML rules for knowledge-based adviser. International Journal of Computer . Mathematical Sciences and Applications, 1(2-4), 323–330. Sajja, P. S. (2008). Multi-agent system for knowledge-based access to distributed databases. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 3, 1–9. Shreiber, D. A., & Berge, Z. L. (1998). Distance training: How innovative organisations are using technology to maximise learning and business objectives., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Silveira, I. F., Mustaro, P. N., & Omar, N. (2004). Aprendizagem significativa baseada em uma arquitetura multicamadas de objetos de aprendizagem adaptativos. VII Congresso IberoAmericano de Informática Educativa, Monterrey, CA.

489


Simic, H., & Topolnik, M. (2003). Prospects of encoding Java source code in XML. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Telecommunications, Zagreb, Croatia. Simon, B., Massart, D., Assche, F., Ternier, S., Duval, E., Brantner, S., et al. (2005). A Simple Query Interface for Interoperable Learning Repositories. In the Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Interoperability of Web-based Educational Systems (pp.11-18). Chiba, Japan, May, 2005. Soto, A. D., Capdevila, C. A., & Fernández, E. C. (2003). Fuzzy Systems and Neural Networks XML Schemas for Soft Computing. Mathware & Soft Computing, 10(2-3), 43–56. Urdan, T. A., & Weggen, C. C. (2000). Corporate e-Learning: Exploring a new frontier, WR Hambrecht + Co. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.wrhambrecht.com/research/coverage/ elearning/ir/ir_explore.html Verdejo, M. F., Barros, B., Mayorga, J. I., & Read, T. (2003). Including collaborative learning designs in a Learning Object Repository. In H.U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo & J. Kay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp.509-511). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects [Electronic Version]. Retrieved January 21, 2004, from http:// reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc Wiley, D. A. (2008), Learning object design and sequencing theory. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Journal of Information and Control, 8, 338–353. doi:10.1016/ S0019-9958(65)90241-X Zahm, S. (2000). No question about it - e-Learning is here to stay: A quick history of the e-Learning evolution. e-Learning, 1(1), 44-47.

490

ADDITIONAL READINGS Akerkar, R. A., & Sajja, P. S. (2009). Knowledgebased systems, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA, USA. Christiansen, J. & Terry, A. (2004). Feasibility of course development based on learning objects: Research analysis of three case studies. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Education. Duval, E., Forte, E., Cardinaels, K., Verhoeven, B., Van Durm, R., & Hendrikx, K. (2001). The ARIADNE knowledge pool system: a distributed digital library for education. Communications of the ACM, 44(5), 73–78. doi:10.1145/374308.374346 E-Content Report. (2004). E-learning technologies and its application in higher education: A descriptive comparison of Germany, UK and USA. Glenn, M. (2002). Learning objects 101: A primer for neophytes. Sidebars, November 2002, a publication of the Learning Resources Unit of the British Columbia Institute of Technology. Gotschall, M. (2000). E-learning strategies for executive education and corporate training. Fortune, 141(10), S5–S59. Hall, B. (2000). How to embark on your e-Learning adventure: Making sense of the environment. eLearning, January-March, 2000. Hodgins, H. W. (2002). The future of learning objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (Chapter 5.3, pp.281-298). Bloomington, Indiana: Agency for Instructional Technology / Association for Educational Communications & Technology. Learning Technology Standards Committee. (2002). Draft standard for learning object metadata. IEEE Standard 1484.12.1, New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Retrieved April 23, 2008 from http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/ LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf


Mankad, K.B. & Sajja, P.S. (2008). Applying multi-agent approach for comparative studies of intelligence among students. ADIT Journal of Engineering, 5(1).

Sajja, P. S., & Mankad, K. B. (2008). Multi-agent knowledge-based system to enhance multiple intelligence. Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Computing, Mexico City, Mexico.

Petrinjak, A., & Graham, R. (2004). Creating learning objects from pre-authored course materials: Semantic structure of learning objects - Design and technology. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(3).

Sajja, P. S., & Sharda, M. B. (2007). Knowledge scouting process in semantic web environment. ADIT Journal of Engineering, 4(1), 23–26.

Rehak, D. R., & Mason, R. (2003). Engaging with the learning object economy. In Littlejohn, Allison (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to E-Learning (pp.22-30), London: Kogan. Sajja, P. S. (2005). Multi-layer knowledge-based system: A multi-agent approach. Proceedings of 2nd Indian International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.2899-2909), Pune, India. Sajja, P. S. (2006). Fuzzy artificial neural network decision support system for course selection. Journal of Engineering and Technology, 19, 99–102. Sajja, P. S. (2006). Parichay: An agent for adult literacy. Prajna, 14, 17–24. Sajja, P. S. (2007). Knowledge representation using fuzzy XML rules for knowledge-based adviser. International Journal of Computer . Mathematical Sciences and Applications, 1(2-4), 323–330. Sajja, P.S. (2008). Enhancing quality in e-learning by knowledge-based IT support. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and CommunicationTechnology, 4(1). Sajja, P. S. (2008). Multi-agent system for knowledge-based access to distributed databases. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 3, 1–9.

Sajja, P. S., & Sharda, M. B. (2007). Knowledge scouting: An out-of-box thinking and acting. Synergy, 9(1), 80–86. Sajja, P. S., & Sharda, M. B. (2008). Knowledge scouting in e-Learning systems using semantic agents. Prajna, 16, 70–76. Sajja, P. S., & Sharda, M. B. (2008). Ontologybased knowledge scouting in Semantic Grid. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Soft Computing (pp.331-340), Alwar, India. Sajja, P. S., & Yagnik, M. K. (2008). Improving classroom teaching and distance learning through information and communication technology: An e-Learning solution. Journal of Education & Psychology, 65(1-4), 38–45. Shaw, M. (2003). (Contextual and Mutated) Learning objects in the context of design, learning and (re)use. Teaching and Learning with Technology, Retrieved April 29, 2008 from http://www.shawmultimedia.com/edtech_oct_03.html Silveira, I. F., Mustaro, P. N., & Omar, N. (2004). Aprendizagem significativa baseada em uma arquitetura multicamadas de objetos de aprendizagem adaptativos. VII Congresso IberoAmericano de Informática Educativa, Monterrey. Verdejo, M. F., Barros, B., Mayorga, J. I., & Read, T. (2003). Including collaborative learning designs in a Learning Object Repository. In Hoppe, H.U., Verdejo F., & Kay, J. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp.509-511). Amsterdam, IOS Press.

491


Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects [Electronic Version]. Retrieved January 21, 2004, from http:// reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In Wiley, D.A. (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version, Retrieved April 29, 2008 from http:// reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc Wiley, D. A. (2008), Learning object design and sequencing theory. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Journal of Information and Control, 8, 338–353. doi:10.1016/ S0019-9958(65)90241-X Zahm, S. (2000). No question about it - e-Learning is here to stay: A quick history of the e-Learning evolution. e-Learning, 1(1), 44-47.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS E-Learning: Learning that depends on or is enhanced by electronic communication using the latest Information and Communication Technologies (like the Internet).

492

LO: Learning Object LO Schema: Typical framework to represent LO content LOR: A Learning Object Repository (LOR) is an organized collection of lower level reusable LOs enabling users to find and reuse learning objects. HTML: Hyper Text Markup Language XML: eXtensible Markup Language RDF: Resource Description Framework Knowledge-Based System: KnowledgeBased Systems (KBS) are productive tools of Artificial Intelligence (AI) working in a narrow domain to impart quality, effectiveness and knowledge-based approach in decision-making process. The major components of a KBS are knowledge base to document domain and control knowledge, inference engine to refer and generate new knowledge, self learning to learn from cases and outcomes, explanation and reasoning to justify the actions taken by the system, and friendly user interface Fuzzy Logic: Fuzzy logic is a multi-valued logic based on fuzzy sets. This type of logic is very nearer to the way how humans are identifying and categorizing things into the classes whose boundaries are not fixed.

493

Chapter 29

Finding Information:

Factors that Improve Online Experiences Ivan Angelov University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria Sathish Menon Analytic Dimension, USA Michael Douma Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement (IDEA), USA

ABSTRACT This chapter outlines central findings from surveys that considered factors that drive online experience as expressed by the three different groups of subjects – nonprofit organizations and cities, web designers and firms, and the general public. The survey’s significant findings are: • • • • • • • •

Designers underestimate the thresholds for an effective site. Easy access to complete information is the key to visitor enjoyment. Good visual design and up-to-date information are critical. Visitors want information fast. Visitors want a broad range of topics. Designers are overly optimistic about visitors’ ability to maintain orientation. Visitors still need handholding. Visitors cite the lack of breadth and depth of content as causing an “information gap.”

INTRODUCTION Building upon previous studies of interactivity and usability in web sites and consumer electronics (Douma & Dediu, 2005; Douma & Gamito, 2007; Douma, Kachukhashvili, & Dediu, 2007) and augmenting current research into new interaction DOI: 10.4018/978-1-65066-788-1.ch029

techniques (Douma, Ligierko, & Angelov, 2008) the authors carried out a study using three complementary surveys to determine how users find information online and how the experience of web site users can be improved. In order to understand the differences between the perceived and actual needs of visitors, the three surveys focused on three different groups of subjects – web designers, nonprofit organizations, and the general public (visitors).


Finding Information

The survey questions were written in such a way as to answer the following questions: • •

• •

What makes a web site effective? What elements contribute to visitors’ enjoyment of a web site? Do these factors vary by segments within each population? From a visitor’s perspective, what factors determine a quality web site? Are there differences between visitors’ needs as perceived by organizations and designers, and those stated by visitors themselves?

This study was conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement (http://www.idea.org), a nonprofit organization that takes innovative ideas about facilitating and broadening the learning process and transforms them into information systems that are then shared with others who share a zeal for interactive learning.

improved. For other Internet-related studies, see the excellent report series from the Pew Internet & American Life Project (pewinternet.org). The Pew studies are nonpartisan and provide “information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.” There are also specific studies, such as those about issues of trust on the Web (Golbeck, 2008), civic engagement by innercity adults (Dailey, 2008), and a variety of studies on e-government (Burroughs, 2008). The study builds upon previous research and commentary on usability (Nielsen & Loranger, 2006; Krug, 2005) and findability (Morville, 2005), and is an outgrowth of IDEA’s mission to identify unique challenges that prevent the Internet from reaching its educational potential, and developing creative, innovative approaches and technologies to solve those problems.

STUDY METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS Methodology

BACKGROUND For ever-growing numbers of people, the Internet is part of daily life. As of 2008, 65% of the population of developed countries are Internet users, and 21% of those in developing nations are online (ITU, 2008). In all, about a quarter of earth’s inhabitants use the Internet. Moreover, an increasing number of users have broadband access. It is estimated that between 17% and 27% of those online have high-speed access; in the U.S. about 20% have broadband (ITU, 2008). Although access to the Internet has transformed the way businesses, organizations, and governments communicate with the public, there are still many challenges in making information easy to find. This chapter outlines the results of a study conducted to determine attitudes among three survey groups about finding information online and how the experience of web site visitors can be

494

For the purposes of comparative analysis, all three surveys had identical or similar questions regarding online experiences. Table 1 outlines characteristics of the three subject pools. Invitations to complete the survey were sent to respondents worldwide, including non-native English speakers, via email. An unknown number of invitations were not received due to email filters. Organizations and web designers were given two incentives to encourage their participation in the survey. First, IDEA pledged to contribute US$1 to One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) for each survey completed. Second, those who responded were offered a summary of the study results if they provided IDEA with their email addresses. IDEA contributed US$813 to OLPC. A regression analysis was performed to identify key drivers in order to measure the index of effectiveness. After that, cluster analysis was

Finding Information

Table 1. Respondent pools Invited / clean responses

Group

Description

Invitation method

Nonprofit organizations & cities

Executives and communications directors from educational organizations, museums, and associations; usability experts; city webmasters.

Email invitations and discussion list posts

5200 / 563

Web designers & firms

Solo web designers and principals in design firms.

Email invitations

4058 / 250

General public

Visitors to WebExhibits museum exhibit on “Daylight Saving Time”

Unobtrusive text link on web site

performed to create groups of high/medium/low complexity and effectiveness. Further, several cross-tabulations were designed for a variety of survey questions in order to identify the impact of site type, number of pages, number of visitors, number of visits, and so forth. Logistic and multiple linear regression models were implemented to identify relationships between questions regarding the ability to find information and the absence or presence of an information gap. During data cleansing, all records that were grossly incomplete were discarded (e.g., abusive records with the value “1” for every field and responses with less than 25% of the questions completed). Further, certain incomplete records were automatically rejected during statistical analysis. The number of records eliminated varied depending upon the type of statistical analysis and variables involved. This study was designed and implemented by IDEA staff, led by Michael Douma. Sathish Menon performed primary data analysis and report writing.

Measuring Effectiveness Based on the responses from visitors, effectiveness was tabulated relative to visitor enjoyment, ease of finding information, and ability to maintain orientation on the site (ability to maintain orientation was defined on the survey as visitors’ ability to know “where they are, where they can go next, and which pages are related”). An ineffective site

Approx 1 million / 1675

is one where users are at best somewhat unsatisfied with respect to enjoyment, where it is not very easy (or worse) to find information, and where users occasionally (or worse) get “lost” on the site. An effective site is one where users are at least satisfied with respect to enjoyment, can find information at least somewhat easily, and never get lost on the site. Based on the responses from designers, the effectiveness of a site was calculated using their perception of ease with which visitors can find information on the site, maintain orientation, and enjoy the visiting the site. An ineffective site is one where users cannot find information very easily, user enjoyment is at best neutral, and users are rarely able to maintain orientation on the web site. This is aligned with the visitor expectations outlined in the paragraph above. With effective sites, according to designers, users can find information very easily or somewhat easily, user enjoyment is at least neutral, and users are able to maintain orientation almost always or most of the time. By at least one point on a five-point scale, users have higher expectations of effectiveness than designers. This suggests that designers should give greater thought to overall effectiveness, thereby lessening the chance of failure for a user to find the information they seek. Using responses from organizations, an effective web site was defined using criteria relating to visitor enjoyment, influence of personal navigational aids, and the perceived gap between the information provided by the web site and what

495

Finding Information

visitor wants. An effective site is one where organizations think that gaps do not really exist, users are at least “somewhat satisfied,” and organizations express skepticism about enhancing visitor experience if a “personal navigation aid” is present. An ineffective site is where organizations admit that some gaps exist, users are at best neutral with respect to enjoying the site, and organizations are somewhat certain that a personal navigation aid would improve user experience. It should be noted that the information gap surfaced as a critical factor for organizations but not for users. One possible explanation is that the general public views the entire World Wide Web as the information source rather than a particular web site. Hence, if the information sought is not available from a specific web site, visitors will move on to the next one. This is consistent with the Pew Internet survey finding that searchers usually end up satisfied and that people typically use two or three information sources in their quests.

Factors that Drive Visitors’ Enjoyment According to organizations, ease with which users can find information and orient themselves on the web site (i.e., know where they are, where they can go next, and which pages are related) is positively correlated to users’ enjoyment. In addition, non-profit organizations that believe a gap exists between the content of their site and visitors’ expectations think that their sites are hard to navigate, that it is not easy to find information, and that visitors dislike using the web site. Designers believe the ability to maintain orientation on a web site, good visual design, and the ease with which visitors can find information significantly influences whether or not users enjoy a particular web site. According to the general public, key contributing factors to enjoyment are the ease with which they can find information, the ability to maintain orientation, and, to a lesser extent, reducing the gap between what they expect and what sites provide.

496

Thus, all three survey groups believe that the ease with which visitors can find information and the ability to maintain orientation is crucial to enjoyment. Both organizations and visitors feel that reducing the gap between what web sites provide and what visitors seek is crucial to enjoyment. Although good visual design is not a key driver of enjoyment for visitors, more than 50% of visitors think that good visual design is a “very important” part of web design. (About 90% of visitors believe that good visual design is “somewhat important.”) One explanation is that the public expects good visual design from all web sites, so it is not a differentiating factor but, rather, an essential factor. Since these variables explain only 25% to 30% of the variance in user enjoyment, additional factors need to be considered during site design.

Summary of Findings Each of the three surveys incorporated several questions regarding crucial elements of web site design, ability to find information, the presence of an information gap, and ways to make sites more effective. A summary of findings is provided below.

Visitors’ Ability to Maintain Orientation The ability to maintain orientation on a web site was defined in the survey as visitors’ ability to know “where they are, where they can go next, and which pages are related.” About 70% of designers think that users are almost always able to maintain orientation. That drops to about 30% when organizations express their views. In contrast, only about 10% of the public reports being able to almost always maintain their orientation. Fewer than 5% report that they tend to get lost frequently.

Finding Information

Figure 1. Designers are too optimistic about visitors’ ability to maintain orientation

Engaging Writing Style Over 50% of designers and organizations believe that an engaging writing style is very important. However, only about 30% of the public believes that to be true. This might be because designers and organizations place a greater value on quality writing than does the public. However, users appear to have little tolerance for spelling and grammatical errors. Among the designers, those who spend most of their week on web design think

that an engaging writing style is important, perhaps because they are more attuned to the overall process of visitor satisfaction on an aesthetic and communication level, as opposed to placing more emphasis on technical functionality.

Speed of Information Delivery While designers focus on complex functionality and organizations focus on pleasing visual design, web site visitors appreciate simple, accurate,

Figure 2. The writing style used in web sites is not vital to visitors

497

Finding Information

Figure 3. Good visual design and up-to-date information are extremely important

fast, and easily navigable web sites, preferably with links to information they need. A significant number of comments addressed the need for speedy access, including but not limited to download speed, in order to find the information visitors seek. Only a handful of designers and organizations mentioned speed of access (including download speed) as a crucial element of site design. Since speed of access was not specifically addressed in the survey, the results were gathered from information typed in the comment field by the respondents. Even in this age of broadband, visitors value fast sites, both those that are quick to load and those that quickly deliver sought-after information.

Visual Design and Timely Information Over 80% of organizations and designers think that good visual design is important. A healthy 50% of the visitors concur. Users also commented that they prefer designs that are quick to download, easy to read, and free of clutter. There was no observable difference in opinion by site type. Visual design matters, but it is not as important to visitors as organizations and designers believe.

498

Organizations whose web sites had fewer pages believe that good visual design is more important. Similarly, designers who design fewer pages tend to believe visual design is more important, most likely because small/boutique sites focus more heavily on design. Organizations with fewer visitors think that good visual design is important, perhaps because they consider the site more personal, as opposed to large sites with separate communications staff who focus on content over presentation. Fully 80% of visitors and organizations think that up-to-date information is very important. Only 60% of the designers believe that to be true. Compared to other designers, designers of social networking sites are more likely to emphasize the importance of up-to-date information. This finding makes the case for emphasizing strong, clear design and simple methods that quickly deliver current information to users.

Range of Topics Relative to organizations and designers, visitors more strongly feel that a broad range of topics is important. Compared to visitors, designers in particular underplay this factor. Organizations with

Finding Information

Figure 4. A broad range of topics is important to visitors

Figure 5. The importance of local search engine (non profit) by the type of transaction on the web site (e.g. company brochure, product information, e-commerce, database based information, audio-video etc.)

large numbers of users believe in the importance of a broad range of topics, most likely in order to cater to the diverse tastes of and to provide more content for their visitors. Designers and content developers can address this issue can provide sidebars that link to other recommended pages, and extensively cross-linking to other pages based on keywords.

Local Search Engines Organizations believe the need for a local search engine increases with the increasing complexity of a web site. (Based on cluster analysis, a complex site was defined as one with more than 100 pages, more than 3 types of transactions, more than 1,000 visitors per day, and where designers feel challenged in organizing large volumes of data.)

499

Finding Information

Figure 6. The importance of local search engine (designers) by the type of transaction on the web site (e.g. company brochure, product information, e-commerce, database based information, audio-video etc.)

Figure 7. The importance of local search engine (visitors) by the type of transaction on the web site (e.g. company brochure, product information, e-commerce, database based information, audio-video etc.)

About 40% of both visitors and organizations think that a local search engine is important, while fewer than 30% of the designers (except for social networking designers, at 40%) think that a local search engine is important. This may be because designers think the navigation is clear, and that a search box can conflict with their aesthetic design. Although the need for local search engines and site maps do not statistically correlate to the enjoyment

500

of web site, the fact that the ability to maintain orientation and find information on the web site is critical to enjoyment leads one to surmise that these tools drive visitor enjoyment. Organizations that have a large number of web site visitors also believe that a local search engine is important. This is not unexpected, since a search engine is most helpful when traditional navigation

Finding Information

Figure 8. Sites with a large number of visitors favor local search engines

Figure 9. A “personal guide” is widely expected to improve the effectiveness of a web site

fails because there are so many pages that users cannot browse through a web site.

The Role of a “Personal Guide” About 70% of organizations and visitors think that a personal guide would increase a web site’s effectiveness. Only about 50% of designers believe the same. The disparity in opinion becomes even

sharper when the percentages that “definitely believe” in improvement (30% for organizations and 15% for designers) are considered. This may be because designers are more removed from the end users, and overestimate the clarity of their work. Designers also think that users are very satisfied with respect to enjoyment more often than do organizations and visitors. Designers of large sites do not believe in personal guides, perhaps

501

Finding Information

because of additional navigational aids like local search engines. There may also be a degree of skepticism about how much a human being could help navigation on a complex web site.

tion gap. This could be because they spend time visiting sites other than social networking sites. In addition, designers who spend the bulk of their time on site design are more aware of the information gap.

Access to Low-Literacy Readers The Impact of Visitor Sophistication About 30% of the respondents from all three surveys believe that access to visitors with disabilities is an important aspect of site design. However, most respondents do not believe access to low literacy visitors is important. Some of the general public expressed concern that the contents of a web site run the risk of being “dumbed down” if this aspect is considered during design.

Visitors Point to an “Information Gap” While over 90% of visitors report that they are able to find the information they are looking for, over 50% say that there is a gap between what they are looking for and what typical web sites provide, and 60% believe that a personal guide to help navigate web sites would help. The reported gap is negatively correlated to visitors’ ability to find information, and positively correlated to the need for a local search engine. This is an indicator that most web sites cannot provide the breadth of information that visitors want. Put another way, they are able to find information provided on the site, but are not able to gather all of the information they need. A personal navigational aid would help clarify whether or not the information they seek is present without having to conduct an extensive search. Organizations that have a large number of site visitors think that they are less capable of serving the diverse needs of visitors. As the number of pages on the site increases, both organizations and designers think that the information gap increases. Users who visit a large number of sites believe that the gap is marginally less compared to those who visit a fewer number of sites. Less frequent visitors to social networking sites more strongly believe in the existence of an informa-

502

Visitors who use social networking sites are more likely to value audio and video content on other web sites than visitors who do not. Multimedia usage and the value of a personal navigational aid are negatively correlated, implying that these users are comfortable navigating the Web on their own. Overall, there are three kinds of visitors to web sites who have distinct needs: visitors to social networking and multimedia sites, visitors who look for audio/video media, and the remainder of users.

Visitors Want Interesting Information Apart from the key elements for effectiveness discussed previously, visitors believe sites can be more effective by helping them find interesting information even if they are not looking for it. This might be accomplished by creating links to relevant sites that have complementary information.

Analysis of Outsourcing Trends Although the relationship between in-house versus outsourced content development was explored against the type of web site features and method of information organization, no statistically significant trends were observed. There was weak evidence that non-profits tend to seek outside help more often than any other organizations. When development is not done in-house, it is probably because they are complex sites that handle e-commerce, database information, or audio/video content.

Finding Information

Figure 10. Content development via consultants or outsourcing did not exhibit any pattern in the data set, although non-profits tended to seek outside help than other groups

Enjoyment of Survey About 75% of the developer respondents enjoyed completing the survey. On a relative scale, people who develop sites that handle e-commerce transactions enjoyed the survey, while the others did not. The greater the number of pages designed, the less he or she liked the survey. In addition, respondents who believe that information on design methods would help them with their work also liked completing the survey.

Influence of Broadband Connection According to a December 2007 Pew Internet report (Estabrook, Witt, & Rainie, 2007), more people turn to the Internet than any other source of support and information, including experts, family members, friends, agencies, or libraries. About 63% can find the information that they want on the Internet. The report also indicates that broadband users take a significantly different approach to the Internet than dial-up users. Those with broadband are more intense and engaged in their online experiences. They spend more time

on the Internet, do many more things online, and report notably more positive outcomes from their online experiences. Although no questions were asked regarding connectivity speed, responses from visitors to sites designed primarily for broadband users (like audio/video sites and social networking sites) indicate that they believe less in the effectiveness of a “personal navigation aid,” and perceive less of an “information gap.” Broadband connection clearly provides superior quantity, quality, and accessibility of information to users. This reinforces that, during site design, “speed of access” is important.

FUTURE TRENDS Generally speaking, the gap between the needs of end users, the organizations and companies that provide information, and the designers and web masters who produce it continues to be a problem. The gap stems from several causes, not the least of which are practical business constraints that limit the resources organizations can allocate in

503

Finding Information

making information easy to find for their users. Designers are more often hired for fanciful tasks of “making experience” or perfunctory tasks of “getting it done,” rather than utilitarian tasks of “making the information easy to access.” We believe the situation should continue to improve, as web authoring tools continue to make authoring easier, as successful metaphors and navigation patterns become more common, and as the objective of communicating via the Internet continues to grow as a priority for organizations. More specifically, for full web browsers, we see the following trends: a.

b.

c.

504

New visual navigation tools help users sort the big picture from the small. Several new visual browsers have recently emerged recently that parse information into morsels, and show the relationship between different pieces of information. For example, the authors developed an information-mapping tool, SpicyNodes (www.spicynodes.org), based on radial graphs. These tools can display a site map, a social graph, a concept map, or how one piece of information is related to other information (Douma, Gritsay & Ligierko, 2007; Douma, Ligierko, & Angelov, 2008). Search engines will continue to play a vital role in rapidly delivering information to people. Search engines are most effective when users know what they are looking for. Major players, like Google, are improving the ability to guess what their users are searching for based on search histories, geographic location, and other factors. In addition, search is becoming more visual, with improved algorithms for including images and video in search results. Intelligent agents, such as “wizards” and “assistants” help guide users when they don’t already know the information they need. Typically, these agents will ask a series of questions, and then guide users to an answer

or web page. Intelligent agents can have a range of interfaces. For example, the user may complete a short form, or complete a few short-answer or multiple-choice questions. Then, a pre-programmed algorithm processes the information and provides a recommendation. Natural language processing may also be used to increase the effectiveness of agents. The next big challenge will be conveying information on mobile devices. There are currently multiple competing mobile platforms, each with a different human interface guideline, and a different software development kit. An upcoming generation of mobile devices, exemplified by Apple’s iPhone, often has a single flat screen with few or no buttons. On the screen, a unique user interface is presented for each application, making the most of limited screen real estate. This is effective because the interface is pliable to the task at hand, but the tradeoff is less standardization, as each application looks slightly different. Regarding future versions of this study, the authors received a great deal of feedback from preliminary findings published online (http:// www.idea.org/find-information.html). Three primary themes emerged from the feedback, namely that future studies should include businesses and corporate sites in the survey; include an additional question about social media; and differentiate between real life and virtual personal guides.

CONCLUSION According to the general public, an effective site is one where users are satisfied with respect to enjoyment, can find information somewhat easily, and never get lost on the site. According to designers, an effective site is one where visitors can find information very easily or somewhat easily, user enjoyment is at least neutral, and users are able to maintain orientation almost always or most of

Finding Information

the time. Organizations with effective sites believe that information gaps do not exist and that users (enjoyment) are at least “somewhat satisfied.” They do not think that visitor experience could be improved with the presence of a “personal navigation aid.” There is a wide gap between the extent to which users believe they can maintain orientation and find information on a web site and what designers and organizations perceive. The majority of users are not confident in their ability to find the information that they seek on a particular site; hence, designers and organizations should further emphasize ease of navigation in web site design. Good visual design and up-to-date information is critical in users’ minds. These site elements consistently ranked high in visitor responses, indicating that they are essential (but not differentiating) to improving the online experience. Throughout the survey, designers were more optimistic about visitor experience than organizations and the general public. For example, users have higher expectations, by at least one point on a five-point scale, compared to what designers think is an effectiveness standard. When asked if a personal navigational aid would help improve the effectiveness of the site, a majority of designers downplayed the effect while visitors overwhelmingly supported the concept. The gap between visitors’ needs and designer perceptions is a significant issue that should be addressed.

REFERENCES Burroughs, J. M. (2009). What users want: Assessing government information preferences to drive information services. Government Information Quarterly. Dailey, J. C. (2008). Internet Use and Environmental Justice: An Exploratory Study. Dissertation for Louisiana State University.

Douma, M., & Dediu, H. (2005). Interactivity techniques: Practical suggestions for interactive science web sites. In R. Subramaniam (Ed.), Elearning in Virtual Science Centers. Hershey, PA: IDEA Group. Douma, M., & Gamito, E. J. (2007). A culturally appropriate web-based technology for anonymous data collection for public health research in culturally diverse populations. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 9(3), 15–26. Douma, M., Gritsay, P., & Ligierko, G. (2007). Intuitive Browsing Experiences with SpicyNodes. Paper presented at CITSA Conference, Orlando, FL. Douma, M., Kachukhashvili, N., & Dediu, H. (2007). History and Usability of Consumer Electronics Since 1945. In J. Ciment (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Post War America. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Douma, M., Ligierko, G., & Angelov, I. (2008). Promoting Creative Engagement with SpicyNodes. In M. Todorov (Ed.), Application of Mathematics in Engineering and Economics. Sozopol, Bulgaria: American Institute of Physics. Douma, M., Ligierko, G., & Angelov, I. (2008). SpicyNodes Radial Map Engine. In M. Todorov (Ed.), Application of Mathematics in Engineering and Economics. Sozopol, Bulgaria: American Institute of Physics. Estabrook, L., Witt, E., & Rainie, L. (n.d.). Information searches that solve problems. Pew Internet & American Life. Retrieved December 30, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet. org/ pdfs/Pew_UI_LibrariesReport.pdf Golbeck, Jennifer (2008). Trust on the World Wide Web: A Survey. Foundations and Trends® in Web Science, 1(2), 131-197. Retrieved from http:/dx.doi.org/10.1561/1800000006 International Telecommunication Union, adapted from national reports, Market Information and Statistics (STAT), 2008.

505

Finding Information

Krug, S. (2005). Don’t Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press. Menon, S., & Douma, M. (2008). Finding Information: Factors that improve online experiences. Journal of Interaction Recipes, 3(1). Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.idea.org/findinformation.html Morville, P. (2005). Ambient Findability: What We Find Changes Who We Become. Sebastapol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Nielsen, J., & Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing Web Usability. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Various authors. They have an ongoing series of reports. See http://www.pewinternet.org

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Effectiveness: In the context of this chapter, a composite measure of visitor enjoyment, ease of finding information, and ability to know “where they are” on the site Findability: How easily site information can be located by an outsider or non-expert. Finding Information: Visitors’ overall goal of obtaining answers to their questions, or to

506

learn more about a topic. This can be any kind of information, from looking up train schedules to learning about butterflies Information Gap: The difference between what users are looking for and what typical web sites provide. Orientation: In the context of this chapter, a web user’s ability to know where they are, where they can go next, and which pages are related Personal Guide: In the context of this chapter, this is a live person who navigate the web site with the user, or be available over the phone SpicyNodes: An information visualization technology that uses tree structures to represent information using interconnected “nodes” in a virtual space. This allows users to quickly glance at large volumes of information and see how each piece relates to others around it, and then quickly drill down for more detail Usability: How easily visitors can use a web site. It involves a mixture of the logic behind the content, the user interface, and how well the information is presented from the user’s point of view. With high usability, typically users don’t notice they are using an interface Rather: it seems obvious to them User Interface: The non-content items on a web page, such as menus, buttons, widgets, and links, that allow the user to manipulate what they are viewing

507

Compilation of References

ADLNET. (2008). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http:// www.adlnet.org/

and Learning Online: Pedagogies for New Technologies (pp. 3-15). London: Kogan.

Ahn, J., Han, K., & Han, B. (2005). Web-based education: characteristics, problems, and some solutions. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 2(3), 274–282. doi:10.1504/IJIL.2005.006370

Al-Huwail, N., Al-Sharhan, S., & Al-Hunaiyyan, A. (2007). Learning Design for a Successful Blended E-learning Environment: Cultural Dimensions. INFOCOMP - Journal of Computer Science, 60-69. Retrieved January 25th, 2009 from http://www.dcc.ufla.br/infocomp/artigos/v6.4/art08.pdf

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Alanen, L. (2001). Explorations in generational analysis. In L. Alanen & B. Mayall. (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations, (pp. 11-22). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: Technology-mediated learning-a call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 1. doi:10.1287/isre.12.1.1.9720 Alben, L. (1997). At the heart of interaction design. Design Management Journal, 8(3). Retrieved September 21, 2008, from http://www.albendesign.com/downloads/heart_of_interaction.pdf Alch, M. L. (2000). The echo-boom generation: A growing force in American society. The Futurist, 34(5), 42–46. Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for learning and teaching? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32–44. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://connect. educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/Web20ANewWaveofInnovation/40615 Alexander, S., & Boud, D. (2001). Learners still learn from experience when online. In J. Stephenson (Ed.) Teaching

Allee, V. (2000). eLearning is not knowledge management. Line Zine, 2000(Fall), 2/9/06 from www.linezine.com/2.1/ features/vaenkm.htm Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Retrieved August 24, 2008 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/ online_nation.pdf Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/ staying_the_course.pdf. Allen, L., & Barnhart, M. (2008). PennTags at the University of Pennsylvania. In P. Godwin, & J. Parker (Eds.), Information literacy meets library 2.0 (pp. 111-115). London: Facet. Alliance Library System. (2008). Second life library. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://infoisland.org/ Alves, M. (2008). O Computador e a Internet como instrumentos pedagógicos: estudo exploratório com professores do 2º e 3º ciclo do ensino básico e do ensino secundário de escolas do concelho de Vila Verde. Unpublished master dissertation. Braga: Universidade do Minho. American Academy of Family Physicians. (n.d). Point of Care CME. Retrieved Jan., 2009, from http://www.aafp.org/ online/en/home/cme/cmea/cmeapplying/pointofcare.html

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (1992). American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

C. Gibson (Ed.) Distance Learners in Higher Education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes (p. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

American Library Association. (1989). Presidential committee on information literacy: Final report. Chicago: American Library Association.

Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Critical thinking in distance education: Developing critical communities in an audio teleconference context. Higher Education, 29, 183–199. doi:10.1007/BF01383838

American Library Association. (2007, November). What it means to be born digital. American Libraries, 30(10), 28. American Medical Association. (2004). CPPD report: Newsletter for the continuing medical education community. Chicago: The Division of Continuing Physician Professional Development. An, H., Kim, S., & Kim, B. (2008). Teacher perspectives on online collaborative learning. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 8(1), 65–83. Anderson, C. (2000-2001). Survey: The young: Youth inc. The Economist, 357(8202), S9–S10. Anderson, C. (2004). The long tail. Wired, 12.10. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion. Anderson, L. W. (2006). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www. jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory And Practice Of Online Learning (2nd ed) (pp.45-74). AU: Athabasca University. Anderson, T. D. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved February 18, 2009 from: http://www.irrodl. org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/708 Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a Networked World: New roles and responsibilities. In C.

508

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Andrews, J. E., Pearce, K. A., Ireson, C., & Love, M. M. (2005). Information-seeking behaviors of practitioners in a primary care practice-based research network (PBRN). Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(2), 206–212. Annand, D., & Haughey, M. (1997). Instructors’ orientations towards computer-mediated learning environments. Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), 127–152. Antonacci, D. M., & Modaress, N. (2005). Second life: The educational possibilities of a massively multiplayer Virtual Worlds (mmvw). Retrieved on October 20, 2008, from http://www2.kumc.edu/tlt/SLEDUCAUSESW2005/ SLPresentationOutline.htm Appel, N. B. (2003). Generations: Dealing with boomers, gen-x, and beyond. American Institute of Architects (AIA) Practice Management Digest Website. Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.aia.org/pm_a_20030801_genx Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Is there an optimal design for online mba courses? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 135–149. Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind— creating shared understanding through collaborative design. [TOCHI]. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 84–113. doi:10.1145/344949.345015 Armentano, T. (2007, March 28). Universities 2.0: Online courses enhance universities. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://terenceonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/online-coursesenhance-universities.html


Arms, W. Y., Hillmann, D., Lagoze, C., Krafft, D., Saylor, J., Terrizzi, C., & Sompel, H. (2002). A spectrum of interoperability: The site for science prototype for the NSDL. D-Lib Magazine, 8(1). doi:10.1045/january2002-arms

Aubert, B. and Kelsey, B. (2003). Further Understanding of Trust and Performance in Virtual Teams. Small Group Research, 34(5). Retrieved May 30, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.

Arnett, J. (1995). Adolescents’ uses of media for self-socialisation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 519–534. doi:10.1007/BF01537054

Augar, N., Raitman, R., & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and Leaning online with wikis. Paper presented at the International Conference on Web-based Learning, ICWL, 2004, Beijing.

Arp, L., Woodard, B. S., Lindstrom, J., & Shonrock, D. D. (2006). Faculty-librarian collaboration to achieve integration of information literacy. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 46(1), 18–23. Assis, A., Danchak, M., & Polhemus, L. (2006). Optimizing instruction using adaptive hypermedia. In Kinshuk, et al, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies IEEE Computer Society (pp. 779-783). Association for Learning Technology. (2006). Response to the JISC Consultation on a ‘Study of Environments to Support e-Learning’. Association for Learning Technology (ALT). Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www. jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/buildmlehefe/ consultationfinalalt.pdf Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/ acrlstandards/standards.pdf Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges and new opportunities. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from http://learn.creativecommons.org/ wp-content/uploads/2008/03/areviewoftheopeneducationalresourcesoermovement_bloglink.pdf

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Avison, D., Cole, M., & Guy, F. (2006). Reflections on teaching information systems analysis and design: From then to now! Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(3), 253. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2006). Exploring the influence of we-based portfolio development on learning to teach elementary science. AACE Journal, 14(2), 178–205. Ayala, J. I. (2006). Electronic portfolios for whom? EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(1), 12–13. Baer, W. S. (1998). Will the Internet transform higher education? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 434551). Baird, D. E., & Fisher, M. (2005). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support “always on” learning styles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5–32. doi:10.2190/6WMW47L0-M81Q-12G1 Bajaj, A., Batra, D., Hevner, A., Parsons, J., & Keng, S. (2005). Information technology and systems - i. Systems analysis and design: Should we be researching what we teach? Communications of AIS, 2005(15), 478.

Atlee, T., & Zubizarreta, R. (2003). The Tao of democracy: Using co-intelligence to create a world that works for all. Cranston, RI: The Writer’s Collective.

Balmer, J., & Wilson, A. (1998). Corporate identity: There is more to it than meets the eye. International Studies of Management & Organization, 28(3), 12–31.

Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from http://www.m-learning.org/ archive/docs/The%20m-learning%20project%20-%20technology%20update%20and%20project%20summary.pdf

Balog-Crisan. Roxin, I. & Smeureanu, I. (2008). e-Learning platforms for Semantic Web. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008 (pp. 1695-1699), Vienna, Austria.

Atwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers, 2(1). Retrieved April 20th, 2008 from www.elearningpapers.eu

509


Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2003). L’auto-efficacité. Le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle. Paris: De Boeck. Bangert, A. W. (2006). The development of an instrument for assessing online teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 227–244. doi:10.2190/ B3XP-5K61-7Q07-U443 Banister, S., Ross, C., & Vannatta, R. (2008). The Impact of Web 2.0 Tools in the Reading Classroom. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3617-3621). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication, elearning, and interactivity: A review of the research. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 161–179. Barab, S. A., & Barnett, M. (2002). Developing an Empirical Account of a Community of Practice: Characterizing the Essential Tensions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489–542. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1104_3 Barab, S. A., J. G. MaKinster, et al. (2003). Designing System Dualities: Characterizing a Web-Supported Professional Development Community. The Information Society, 19(3), 237. doi:10.1080/01972240309466 Barabási, A. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub. Barah, S., & Schatz, S. (2004). Using Activity Theory to Conceptualize Online Community and Using Online Community to Conceptualize Activity Theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25–47. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1101_3 Barak, M. (2007). Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Computers & Education, 48(1), 30–43. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2004.11.004 Barna, C., & Lenghel, E. (2008). E-Learning: the core of lifelong European Education. In L. Gómez Chova et al (Eds.). INTED 2008, Proceedings of International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia: IATED (International Association for Technology, Education and Development).

510

Barnett, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0 and culture change. Retrieved 11/11/2006, 2006, from http://tinyurl.com/63o78w Barnett, M., Keating, T., Harwook, W., & Saam, J. (2004). Using emerging technologies to help bridge the gap between university theory and classroom practice: Challenges and successes. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 299–314. Barrett, H. C. (2001). Electronic portfolio. In Educational Technology: An Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/ encyclopediaentry.htm Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359. doi:10.1207/ S15327809JLS1203_1 Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D., & CTGV. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_2 Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine & beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3–12. doi:10.1002/tl.37219966804 Barsky, E., & Giustini, D. (2007). Introducing Web 2.0: Wikis for health librarians. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/jchla/jchla28/c07-036.pdf Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivaniéc (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). New York: Routledge. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivaniéc, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. New York: Routledge. Baruque, C. B., & Rivera, L. A. (2006). Using the clustering technique in the development of learning objects digital libraries. Computers and Advanced Technology in Education - 2006. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://www.actapress.com/Content_Of_Proceeding. aspx?ProceedingID=409


Batson, T. (2008). Is Web 2.0 ‘designed for education’? Campus Technology. Retrieved September 4, 2008 http:// campustechnology.com/articles/59341_2

Bence, J. Q. (November 24, 2006) Is Anyone Listening? Does Anyone Care? Message posted to http://txbluebonnetwp.blogspot.com/.

Battelle, J. (2005). The search: How Google and its rivals rewrote the rules of business and transformed our culture. New York: Penguin.

Bennett, J., & Peachey, A. (2007). Mashing the MUVE: A mashup model for collaborative learning in multi-user virtual environments. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http:// hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/72/62/PDF/125_Final_Paper.pdf

Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00075-1 Beard, L. A., Harper, C., & Riley, G. (2004). Online versus on-campus instruction: Student attitudes & perceptions. TechTrends, 48(6), 29–31. doi:10.1007/BF02763579 Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the “invisible” online student. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 147–155. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00086-6 Beck, P., Kung, M., Park, Y., & Yang, S. (2004). E-learning architecture: challenges and mapping of individuals in an internet-based pedagogical interface. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 1(3), 279–292. doi:10.1504/ IJIL.2004.004884 Bednar, A. K. & Charles, M. T. (1999). A constructivist approach for introducing pre-service teachers to educational technology: Online and classroom education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432306). Bekele, A. (2008). Impact of technology-supported learning environments in higher education: Issues in and for research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo, Norway. Belanger, Y. (2002). Laptop computers in the K-12 classroom. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 27, 80–83. Bell, S. J., & Shank, J. (2004) The blended librarian: A blueprint for redefining the teaching and learning role of academic librarians. C&RL News, 65. Bell, S. J., & Shank, J. D. (2007). Academic librarianship by design A librarian’s guide to the tools and techniques. Chicago: American Library Association. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bennett, N. L., Casebeer, L. L., Zheng, S., & Kristofco, R. (2006). Information-seeking behaviors and reflective practice. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(2), 120–127. doi:10.1002/chp.60 Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2007). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x Bentley, M. L. (2003). Teaching science on-line: A reflection on a year’s experience. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 474947). Berge, Z. (1995). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30. Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30. Berge, Z. L. (1997). Characteristics of online teaching in post-secondary, formal education. Educational Technology, 37(3), 35–47. Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective elearning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 181–190. Berkenstadt, H., Yusim, Y., Katznelson, R., Ziv, A., Livingstone, D., & Perel, A. (2006). A novel point-of-care information system reduces anaesthesiologists’ errors while managing case scenarios. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 23(3), 239–250. doi:10.1017/S0265021505002255 Berners-Lee, T. (2001). The Semantic Web. Scientific American, (May): 17. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic Web [Electronic Version]. Scientific Amer. Retrieved May from http://www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21

511


Bills, C. G. (1997). Effects of structure and interactivity on Internet-based instruction. Paper presented at the Interservice/Industry Training Simulation and Education Conference, Orlando, FL (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416317). Birdsall, W. F. (2007). Web 2.0 as a social movement. Webology, 4(2), Article 40. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/a40.html Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., Costa, E., & Mizoguchi, R. (2008). Research directions on semantic web and education. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://www.ei.sanken. osaka-u.ac.jp/pub/isotani/semanticweb.pdf Blignaut, S., & Trollip, S. (2003). Developing a taxonomy of faculty participation in asynchronous learning environments- an exploratory investigation. Computers & Education, 41, 149–172. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00033-2 Bloom, B. (1956). The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Classification of Educational Goals Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay Press. Bloom, H. K. (1995). The Lucifer principle: A scientific expedition into the forces of history. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369–398. doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep2603&4_8 Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernández, M. F., Florescu, D., Robie, J., & Siméon, J. (2005). (Eds.) XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language, W3C Working Draft. Retrieved November 24, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/ WD-xquery-20050404/. Boak, G. (1998). A complete guide to learning contracts. Hampshire, England, Gower Publishing Ltd. Boehlje, B. (1995). Share the Decision-Making. Education Digest, 60(7). Retrieved May 30, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How Web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

512

Bonk, C. J., & King, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), 249–264. doi:10.1080/01587910600789670 Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2008). Empowering online learning: 100+ activities for reading, reflecting, displaying, and doing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., & Jacobson, I. (2005). Unified modeling language user guide (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bottentuit Junior, J. B., & Coutinho, C. P. (2007). A Educação a Distância para a Formação ao Longo da Vida na Sociedade do Conhecimento. In Barca, A., Peralbo, M., Porto, A., Silva, B.D. & Almeida L. (eds.), Actas do IX Congresso Internacional Galego Português de Psicopedagogia. Setembro, Universidade da Coruña. A Coruña, (pp. 613-623). Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. MBC Medical Education, 6(41). Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41 Boulos, N. K., & Wheelert, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23. doi:10.1111/j.14711842.2007.00701.x Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Business Review, January-February. Bower, M. (2005). Online assessment feedback: Competitive, individualistic, or…preferred form! Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2), 121–147. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.


Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R., Donovan, M., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1999). How people learn. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog. php?record_id=6160 Braun, S., & Schmidt, A. (2006). Socially aware informal learning support: Potentials and challenges of the social Dimension. Karlsruhe, Germany: FZI Research Center for Information Technologies. Breen, R., Lindsay, R., Jenkins, A., & Smith, P. (2001). The role of information and communications technologies in a university learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), S95–S114. doi:10.1080/03075070120043206 Breneman, D. W., Pusser, B., & Turner, S. E. (2006). The contemporary provision of for-profit higher education: Mapping the competitive market. In D. W. Breneman, B. Pusser, & S. E. Turner (Eds.), Earnings from learning: The rise of for-profit universities (pp. 3-22). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Brescia, W., & Miller, M. (2006). What` s it worth? The Perceived Benefits of Instructional Blogging. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 44-52. Retrieved April 20th, 2008, from http://ejite.isu.edu/ Volume5/Brescia.pdf

Brown, A., Johnston, S., & Kelly, K. (2002). A Rational software white paper: Using service-oriented architecture and component-based development to build service application [Electronic Version]. developerWorks, 15. Retrieved Nov. from http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/ library/content/03July/2000/2169/2169.pdf Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change, 32(2), 10–20. Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 16–32. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Brown, M. (2005). Learning Spaces, In D. G. Oblinger, & J. L. Oblinger, (Eds.). Educating the Net Generation, (pp. 12.1~12.22) Educause. Retrieved September 10, 2008 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7101.pdf Brown, N., Smyth, K., & Mainka, C. (2006). Looking for evidence of deep learning in constructively aligned online discussions. Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http:// www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2006/ abstracts/pdfs/P05%20Brown.pdf

Bresnathan, M. (n.d.). Generation Xers: Who are these people? The Bresnathan Group, Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.bresnahangroup.com/articles/ generation_x.htm

Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18–35.

Bridges, B. R., Baily, M. C., Hiatt, M., Timmerman, D., & Gibson, S. (2002). A blended technologies learning community – From theory to practice. In P. L. Rogers (Ed.), Designing instruction for technology-enhanced learning (pp. 209-227). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Browne, T., & Jenkins, M. (2003). VLE surveys: a longitudinal persepective between March 2001 and March 2003 in HE in the UK. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA). Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/groups/tlig/~/media/ groups/tlig/vle_surveys/vle_survey_2005.ashx

Brock, V. (2007). An introduction to online social networks: What are they and why do they matter to business? Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.highland businessresearch.com/downloads/introtoonlinesocialnetworks.pdf Brode, A. (2005). Ways in which technology enhances teaching and learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 490591). Brown, A. L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In J.V.Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273-305). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buchannan, N., & Chi, R. (2008). Closing the Gap: Bringing Immigrants and Natives Together in Teacher Education Programs. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 1949-1952). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Buck Institute for Education. (2003). Project based learning handbook. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.

513


Buckingham, D. (2002). The electronic generation? Children and new media. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs, (pp. 77-89). London: Sage. Buckingham, D. (2006). Is there a digital generation? In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital generations: children, young people, and new media, (pp. 1-18). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bugeja, M. J. (2007, September). Second thoughts about second life. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/article/SecondThoughts-About-Secon/46636/. Bull, K. S., Kimball, S. L. & Stansberry S. (1998). Instructional design in computer mediated learning. Oklahoma State University. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417885). Bullen, M. (1999). What’s the difference: A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 102–114. Burroughs, J. M. (2009). What users want: Assessing government information preferences to drive information services. Government Information Quarterly. Butler, T. J., & Pinto-Zipp, G. (2006). Students’ learning styles and their preferences for online instructional methods. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(2), 199–221. doi:10.2190/8UD2-BHFU-4PXV-7ALW Buzzetto-More, N. A., & Alde, A. J. (2006). Best practices in e-assessment. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 252–269. Calhoun, T. (2005, June 23). Bravo for the Duke iPod experiment. Campus Technology, Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://campustechnology.com/news_issue. asp?id=153&IssueDate=6/23/2005 Calvani, A., Bonaiuti, G., & Fini, A. (2008). Lifelong learning: What role for e-learning 2.0? Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.je-lks.it/en/08_01/06Metcalv_ en1.pdf Campbell, D. M., Cignetti, P. B., Melenyzer, B. J., Nettles, D. H., & Wyman, R. M. (2007). How to develop a professional portfolio: A manual for teachers (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

514

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1995). The Power of Innovative Scheduling. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 4–10. Careo (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008 from careo.netera. ca/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Repository/ Carlile, L. W. (2002). The value of collaboration. Performance Improvement, 41(4), 37-43.Cross, J. (2006). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Carlson, S. (2006). The Net Generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(7), A34. Available on-line at: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i07/07a03401.htm Carlson, S., & Gadio, C. T. (2002). Teacher professional development in the use of technology. In J. Sikula (Ed), Handbook on Teacher Education (pp. 978-1029). New York: Macmillan. Carmean, C. (2008). E-Learning 2.0: Emergence, connected networks, and the creation of shared knowledge. Dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. Carmean, C. McGee, P. (2008). A singular affordance model for emerging technologies (unpublished manuscript). Retrieved April 25, 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/SAModel Carnevale, D. (2006, October 5). Email is for old people: As students ignore their campus accounts, colleges try new ways of communicating. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(7), A27, Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http:// chronicle.com/free/v53/i07/07a02701.htm Carvalho, R. B. (2000). Aplicações de Softwares de Gestão do Conhecimento: Tipologia e Usos. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Information Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Casebeer, L., Allison, J., & Spettell, C. M. (2002). Designing tailored Web-based instruction to improve practicing physicians’ chlamydial screening rates. Academic Medicine, 77(9), 929. doi:10.1097/00001888-200209000-00032 Casebeer, L., Andolsek, K., Abdolrasulnia, M., Green, J., Weissman, N., & Pryor, E. (2006). Evaluation of an online bioterrorism continuing medical education course. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(2), 137–144. doi:10.1002/chp.62 Casebeer, L., Bennett, N., Kristofco, R., Carillo, A., & Centor, R. (2002). Physician Internet medical information


seeking and on-line continuing education use patterns. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 22(1), 33–42. doi:10.1002/chp.1340220105

Chatti, M. (2007). Technology enhanced learning: From knowledge worker to knowledge networker. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://tinyurl.com/5mqewo

Cawelti, G. (1994). High School Restructuring: A National study. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Chavis, D. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). Sense of community: Advances in measurement and application. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 635–642. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1520-6629(199911)27:63.0.CO;2F

Cayzer, S. (2004). Semantic blogging and decentralized knowledge management. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/subjects/ims2603/ resources/Assignment2Papers/p47-cayzer.pdf Cayzer, S. (2006). What next for semantic blogging? Retrieved November 13, 2008, from http://www.hpl.hp.com/ techreports/2006/HPL-2006-149.pdf Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. Paris: OECD Publications. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/ browseit/9607041E.PDF Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of Adult Learners with Implications for Online Learning Design. AACE Journal, 16(2), 137–159. CERI. (1998). Staying ahead: in-service training and teacher Professional development. Center for Educational Research and Innovation. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE). Chaffee, J. (1998). Critical thinking: The cornerstone of remedial education. Paper presented at Conference on Replacing Remediation in Higher Education, January, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. Channabasavaiah, K., Holley, K., & Tuggle, E. M., Jr. (2003). Migrating to a service-oriented architecture, part 1 [Electronic Version]. developerWorks. Retrieved Dec. from ftp://www6.software.ibm.com/software/developer/library/ ws-migratesoa.pdf Chapman, C., & Ramondt, L. (2005). Strong community, deep learning: exploring the link. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 217–230. doi:10.1080/01587910500167910 Chapman, J., & White, M. (2001). Building bridges with faculty: The evolution and outcomes of library workshops for faculty at Valdosta State University. Technical Services Quarterly, 19(1), 25–36. doi:10.1300/J124v19n01_02

Chee, T. S., & Hedberg, J. G. (2005). A framework for fostering a community of practice: scaffolding learners through an evolving continuum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 159–176. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2005.00450.x Chen, P. (2003). Creating Memorable Online Learning Experiences. Paper presented at the meeting of the Technology in Education International Conference and Exposition (TechED), Ontario, CA. Chen, P. (2006). Learning by building knowledge with peers. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 20(2), 12–16. Chen, P., & Chen, H. (2007). Knowledge building and technological dynamics in an online project-based learning community. Special Issue of International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1/2), 1–16. Chen, P., & McGrath, D. (2003). Knowledge construction and knowledge representation in high school students’ design of hypermedia documents. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(1), 33–61. Chen, P., & McGrath, D. (2003). Moments of Joy: Student Engagement and Conceptual Learning in the Design of Hypermedia Documents. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 402–422. Chen, P., & McGrath, D. (2004). Visualize, visualize, visualize: Designing projects for higher-order thinking. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(4), 2–5. Chizhik, A. W. (1998). Collaborative learning through highlevel verbal interaction: From theory to practice. Clearing House (Menasha, Wis.), 72, 58–61. Cho, A. (2007). An introduction to mashups for health librarians. Retrieved Jan 25th from http://pubs.nrc-cnrc. gc.ca/jchla/jchla28/c07-007.pdf

515


Cho, J. S. (2006, July 17). U-learning in palm of hand. The Korea Times. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://times. hankooki.com/lpage/biz/200607/kt2006071718464311910. htm Chordas, L. (2001). A new generation in the cross hairs. Best’s Review,101(10), 49–54. Chou, C. C. (2001). Formative evaluation of synchronous CMC systems for a learner-centered online course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(2/3), 169–188. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Christiansen, J. & Terry, A. (2004). Feasibility of course development based on learning objects: Research analysis of three case studies. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Education. Christie, B. (2000). Topic teamwork: A collaborative integrative model for increasing student-centered learning in grades K-12. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(8), 28–33. Chronicle of Higher Education. (2006, September 22). Freshman arrive bearing gadgets and great expectations. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(5), A30. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/ v53/i05/05a03001.htm Chuah, C. K. P. (2007). Experience redesign: A conceptual framework for moving teaching and learning into a flexible e-learning environment. In P. Tsang, R. Kwan, & R. Fox (Eds.), Enhancing learning through technology (pp. 37-50). Hong Kong: World Scientific Publishing. Chuang, H. (2008). Perspectives and issues of the creation for Weblog-based electronic portfolios in teacher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 170–174. Churchill, D. (2007). Web 2.0 and possibilities for educational applications. Educational Technology, 47(2), 24–29. Ciardulli, L. (1998). Increasing student interaction in the distance learning classroom (or any other classroom). Technology Connection, 4(8), 8–10. Clark, C., & Mayer, R. (2003). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

516

Clayton, M. Christensen, & Armstrong, E. G. (1998). Disruptive technologies: A credible threat to leading programs in continuing medical education? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 18(2), 69–80. doi:10.1002/chp.1340180202 Clow, K. E. (1999). Interactive Distance Learning: Impact on student course evaluations. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 97–105. doi:10.1177/0273475399212003 Cobb, J. T. (2008). Learning 2.0 for associations. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://blog.missiontolearn.com/files/ Learning_20_for_Associations_eBook-v1.pdf Cocker, G. (2007). Jim Purbrick: Second Life and Usergenerated Content. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.gamespot.com/news/6175694.html de Moor, E. (1990). Geometry instruction in the Netherlands (ages 4-14): the realistic approach. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Realistic mathematics education in primary school (pp.119-138), Culemborg, The Netherlands: Technipress. Coghlan, E., Crawford, J., Little, J., Lomas, C., Lombardi, M., Oblinger, D., et al. (2007). ELI discovery tool: Guide to blogging. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://www. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI8006.pdf Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30–35. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Coleman, J. (2007). My virtual professor. Maclean’s,120(45). [Online] http://www.macleans.ca/education/universities/ article Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6-11, 38-46. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from http:// www.21learn.org/arch/articles/brown_seely.html Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and


instructions: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World: Experiences and Expectations. London: Koogan Page. Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer selfefficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. doi:10.2307/249688 Conceicao, S. (2002). The sociocultural implications of learning and teaching in cyberspace. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 96, 37–45. doi:10.1002/ ace.77 Conford, I. (2002). Learning to Learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning. Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(4), 357–368. doi:10.1080/02601370210141020 Consortia, N. M. (2007). Spring 2007 survey - educators in second life. Retrieved on August 15, 2008, from http:// www.nmc.org/pdf/2007-sl-survey-summary.pdf Cook, T. D., Murphy, R. F., & Hunt, H. D. (2000). Comer’s School Development Program in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 535–597. Cooper, P. A. & Hirtle, J. S. (1999). A constructivist approach to technology literacy for preservice teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432239). Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169–189. Costantino, P. M., & De Lorenzo, M. N. (2006). Developing a professional teaching portfolio: A guide for success (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Council Regulation 1260 (1999). Laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds. Official Journal of the European Communities. Coutinho, C. P. (2005). Percursos da Investigação em Tecnologia Educativa em Portugal: uma abordagem temática

e metodológica a publicações científicas (1985-2000). Série “Monografias em Educação.” Braga: CIED, Universidade do Minho. Coutinho, C. P. (2006). Utilização de blogs na formação inicial de professores: um estudo exploratório. In Panizo, et al (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computers in Education, (Vol. 2, pp. 157-164). Coutinho, C. P. (2006). Utilização de blogues na formação inicial de professores: um estudo exploratório. In Panizo et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computers in Education, (Vol 2, pp. 157-164). Coutinho, C. P. (2007). Infusing technology in pre service teacher education programs in Portugal: a study with weblogs. In R. Craslen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007, (pp. 20272034). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Coutinho, C. P. (2007). Cooperative Learning in Higher Education using Weblogs: a study with undergraduate students of Education in Portugal. In A. Tremante et al. (eds.) Proceedings of International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applicattions, EISTA, 2007, (Vol I, pp. 60-64). Orlando, EUA. Coutinho, C. P. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in pre-service teacher education Programs: an example from Portugal. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on e-Learning-ECEL 2008, (pp. 239-245). Reading, UK: Academic Publishing Limited. Coutinho, C. P. (in press). Tecnologias Web 2.0 na formação inicial de professores: um estudo com alunos da Licenciatura em Estudos Portugueses. Revista Educação . Formação e Tecnologia. Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Junior, J. (2008). Comunicação educacional: do modelo unidireccional para a comunicação multi-direccional na sociedade do conhecimento. In M. Lemos Martins & M. Pinto (Orgs.). Comunicação e Cidadania - Actas do 5º Congresso da Associação Portuguesa de Ciências da Comunicação. 6 - 8 Setembro 2007, Braga: Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade (Universidade do Minho), (pp. 1858-1879). Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Junior, J. (2008). The use of GooglePages and GoogleDocs to develop e-portfolios in a Teacher Education Program: an example from Portugal.

517


In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds.) Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 3135-3139). Vienna - Austria. Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2007). Collaborative Learning Using Wiki: A Pilot Study with Master Students In Educational Technology In Portugal. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimédia, Hypermedia e Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2007), (pp. 1786 – 1791). Vancouver, Canadá. Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2007). Blog e Wiki: os futuros professores e as ferramentas da Web 2.0. In M. J. Marcelino & M. J. Silva (org.), Actas do IX Simpósio Internacional de Informática Educativa (SIIE 2007), (pp. 199-204). Porto, Portugal: ESE-IPP. Coutinho, C., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2007). Blog e Wiki: os futuros professores e as ferramentas da Web 2.0. In M. J. Marcelino & M. J. Silva (org.), Actas do IX Simpósio Internacional de Informática Educativa (SIIE 2007), (pp. 199-204). Porto, Brazil: ESE-IPP. Coutinho, C., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2007). Collaborative Learning Using Wiki: A Pilot Study With Master Students In Educational Technology In Portugal. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.). Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimédia, Hypermedia e Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2007), (pp. 1786 – 1791), Vancouver, Canadá. Coutinho, C., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2008). Using Social Bookmarking to enhance Cooperation/collaboration in a Teacher Education Program. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds). Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, Vienna - Austria. (pp. 2551-2556). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Coutinho, C., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2008). Portuguese Postgraduate Teachers´ Opinions About Using Social Bookmarking: a descriptive study In a Master Course in Educational Technology. In McFerrin, K, Weber, R., Carslen, R. & Willis, A. (eds),Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education SITE 2008 (pp.3307-3312). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science, 31(6), 527–540. doi:10.1177/0165551505057016 Craig, S. D., Driscoll, D. M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163–183. Cravit, C. R. (2008). Zoomers create a new vision of aging. Retrieved December 27, 2008, from http:// www.50plus.com/Lifestyle/BrowseAllArticles/index. cfm?documentID=21250 Creative Commons (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://creativecommons.org/. Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46. Cruz, E. (2003). Bloom’s revised taxonomy. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/ bloomrev/start.htm Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey and Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuel, R., Louis, V., Delteil, A., Jack, K., Leger, A., Rizzi, C., et al. (2008). D1.4.1v4 technology roadmap. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb. org/semanticportal/deliverables/D1.4.1v4.pdf Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matira, G. N. (2003). Cause-related marketing: How generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6/7), 310–321. doi:10.1108/09590550310476012 Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 22–34. Cutler, R. H. (1995). Distributed presence and community in cyberspace, Interpersonal Computing and Technology:

518


A Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 3(2), 12-32. Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/ optek/1995/n2/cutler.txt

Davis, A. (2006). Personal Post. Last retrieved on Sept 4, 2009 from http://anne.teachesme.com/2006/05/31/blogsand-pedagogy/

Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Davis, D., O’Brien, M. A., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (1999). Impact of formal continuing medical education: Do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(9), 867–874. doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.867

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial information processing and organization design. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour 6 (pp. 191-233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press. Dailey, J. C. (2008). Internet Use and Environmental Justice: An Exploratory Study. Dissertation for Louisiana State University. Daniel, E.L. (2000). A Review of Time Shortened Courses Across Disciplines. College Student Journal, June. Danielson, C., & Abrutyn, L. (1997) An Introduction to Using Portfolios in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darbhamulla, R., & Lawhead, P. (2004). Paving the way towards an efficient Learning Management System. In S-M. Yoo & L. H. Etzkorn, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Southeast regional conference (pp.428-433). Huntsville, AL: ACM Press. Darko, K. L. (1999). A home of their own. American Demographics, 21(9), 35–38. Darling, L. (n.d.). Learning: Generation does matter! Training Advice, Element K. Retrieved August 1, 2005, from http:// www.elementk.com/training_advice/htm/05-02[INSERT FIGURE 001]-learninggen.asp Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performances and Results from Knowledge Workers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Conhecimento Empresarial: Como as Organizações Gerenciam o Seu Capital Intelectual. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Campus. Davis, A. (2004). Ways to use weblogs in education. eSchool News. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/eti/archives/2004/10/000190.ph

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–339. doi:10.2307/249008 Davis, M. (2007-2008). Semantic wave2008report: Industry roadmap to Web 3.0 & multibillion dollar market opportunities. Retrieved December 14, 2007, from http://www. project10x.com/misc/SW2008.pdf De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J., & Jenkins, L. (2007). Sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing.pdf De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Hawk, J., & Wilson, A. (2006). College students’ perceptions of libraries and information resources. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/studentperceptions.pdf De Verneil, M., & Berge, Z. L. (2000). Going Online: Guidelines for faculty in higher education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 227–242. Dean, K. (2004). Duke gives iPods to freshman. Wired News, Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.wired.com/ news/digiwood/0,1412,64282,00.html Dearstyne (2007) Blogs, mashups, and wikis: Oh my! Information Management Journal, 41(4), 24-33. Decker, S., & Frank, M. R. (n.d.). The networked semantic desktop. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-105. DeckerFrank.pdf Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4–36.

519


Dede, C. (2004). Enabling distributed learning communities via emerging technologies. THE Journal, Part One in 32(2), September, 12–22 . Part Two in, 32(3), 16–26. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from: http:// www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=6069&bhcp=1 Dell. (2008). The software-as-a-service (saas) solution, Campus Technology. Retrieved on August 15, 2008, from http://www.everdream.com/resources/campustech/ DellCTWP_SaaS_for_Education-0725.pdf Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. doi:10.1080/01587910500081376 Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., & Roth, R. M. (2006). Systems analysis and design (3 Ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., & Tegarden, D. (2005). Systems analysis and design with uml version 2.0: An object-oriented approach. New York: Wiley. DeVita, G. (2001). Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the multicultural classroom: a business and management perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 165–174. doi:10.1080/14703290110035437

Dietinger, T. (2003). Aspects of e-learning environments. Ph.D Thesis, Graz University of Technology. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed). Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The Evolution of research on Collaborative Learning. In E. Spada, & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-221). Oxford: Elsevier. DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Working Paper Series 15, Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton, NJ. Dimolaidou, G. (2008, January 16). To innovation, to new technologies and to knowledge invests the political headquarters of the Ministry of education. MAKEDONIA, (p. 5). e-ducate action (2008). New Digital Activity for pupils and students. Observatory for Information Society, e-ducate. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.observatory. gr/page/default.asp?id=4 Dixon, S., & Black, L. (1996). Vocal Point: A collaborative, student run online newspaper. In E. J. Valauskas & M. Ertel (Ed.), The Internet for teachers and school library media specialists: Today’s applications tomorrow’s prospects (pp. 147-158). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Dewey, B. I. (2004). The embedded librarian: Strategic campus collaborations. In W. Miller, & R. M. Pellen (Eds.), Librarians within their institutions: Creative collaborations (pp. 5-17). Abingdon, UK: Haworth Information Press.

Dobrzański, J. (2007). Social semantic information sources for elearning. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http:// dobrzanski.net/up-content/uploads/2008/06/masterthesis. pdf

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed, The School Journal, Volume LIV . Number, 3(1), 77–80.

Dobrzański, J., Nagle, T., Curry, E., Gzella, A., & Kruk, S. R. (2007). IKHarvester – Informal elearning with semantic web harvesting. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://dobrzanski.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/ikharvester_iswc2007.pdf

Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Schrier, K. (2007). “Neomillennial” learning styles propagated by wireless handheld devices. In M. Lytras & A. Naeve (Eds.), Ubiquitous and pervasive knowledge and learning management: Semantics, social networking and new media to their full potential, (pp. 35-66). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. Retrieved on September 28, 2008, from http://www.fas.org/programs/ ltp/emerging_technologies/humanities/_Media/dieterle_ schrier_chapter_02.pdf

520

Dodds, P. (2001). Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORMTM) Version 1.2: The SCORM Overview. Advanced Distributed Learning. Retrieved November 24, 2005, from http://www.adlnet.org.


Doherty, L. (2005). Where worlds collide and pupils leave teachers behind. Sydney Morning Herald, October 1, 2005. Dolezak, H. (2003). Collaborating in cyberspace. Training (New York, N.Y.), 40(4), 32–37. Donnison, S. (2007, October). Digital generation pre-service teachers as change agents: a paradox. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(4), 1–11. Doran, D. M., Mylopoulos, J., Kushniruk, A., Nagle, L., Laurie-Shaw, B., & Sidani, S. (2007). Evidence in the palm of your hand: Development of an outcomes-focused knowledge translation intervention. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 4(2), 69–77. doi:10.1111/j.17416787.2007.00084.x DotNetNuke Web Portal System, (n.d.). Retrieved Sept. 25, 2008, from http://www.dotnetnuke.com/ Douma, M., & Dediu, H. (2005). Interactivity techniques: Practical suggestions for interactive science web sites. In R. Subramaniam (Ed.), E-learning in Virtual Science Centers. Hershey, PA: IDEA Group. Douma, M., & Gamito, E. J. (2007). A culturally appropriate web-based technology for anonymous data collection for public health research in culturally diverse populations. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 9(3), 15–26. Douma, M., Gritsay, P., & Ligierko, G. (2007). Intuitive Browsing Experiences with SpicyNodes. Paper presented at CITSA Conference, Orlando, FL. Douma, M., Kachukhashvili, N., & Dediu, H. (2007). History and Usability of Consumer Electronics Since 1945. In J. Ciment (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Post War America. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Douma, M., Ligierko, G., & Angelov, I. (2008). Promoting Creative Engagement with SpicyNodes. In M. Todorov (Ed.), Application of Mathematics in Engineering and Economics. Sozopol, Bulgaria: American Institute of Physics. Douma, M., Ligierko, G., & Angelov, I. (2008). SpicyNodes Radial Map Engine. In M. Todorov (Ed.), Application of Mathematics in Engineering and Economics. Sozopol, Bulgaria: American Institute of Physics. Estabrook, L., Witt, E., & Rainie, L. (n.d.). Information searches that solve problems. Pew Internet & American Life. Retrieved De-

cember 30, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/ pdfs/ Pew_UI_LibrariesReport.pdf Downes, S. (2004). Educational blogging. EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 14–26. Downes, S. (2004). E-learning 2.0. Retrieved August 24, 2008 from http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=arti cles&article=29-1 Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. eLearn, 2005(10), 1. Downes, S. (2006). E-Learning 2.0 at the E-Learning Forum. In E-Learning Forum. Canadá: Institute for Information Teachnology. Retrieved April 24th 2008, from http://www. teacher.be/files/page0_blog_entry38_1.pdf Downes, S. (2007). Learning networks in practice. Retrieved August 30, 2008 from http://www.twine. com/item/11wkm1713-tt/learning-networks-in-practicestephen-downes Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., et al. (2001). Making Better Connections: Models of Teacher development for the integration of information and communication technology into classroom practice. Report of the Australia Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/3A88BB299798-49A1-90DB-0E46590E96BF/1593/MBC.pdf Driscoll, M. M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Drucker, P. F. (1994). The age of social transformation. Atlantic Monthly, 274(5), 53–80. Du, J. X., Durrington, V. A., & Mathews, J. G. (2007). Collaborative discussion: Myth or valuable learning tool. [JOLT]. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 94–104. Du, J. X., Durrington, V. A., & Olinzock, A. A. (2006). Dynamic online learning environment: Task-oriented interaction for deep learning. Open Education Research, 12(4), 75–79. Du, J., & Sun, L. (2007). Vygotsky’s theory of social interaction: Learning tasks, peer interaction, and cognition process. Journal of Open Education Research, 10(4), 17–23.

521


Du, J., Zhang, K., Olinzock, A., & Adams, J. (2008). Graduate Students’ Perspectives on the Meaningful Nature of Online Discussions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 21–36. Dublin Core Metadata Initiativa (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008 from http://dublincore.org/ Duderstadt, J. J., Atkins, D. D., & Van Houweling, D. E. (2002). Higher education in the digital age: technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Duff, M. (1999). Gen Y comes of age: The 20s. Discount Store News, 38(20), 39, 58. Duffy, P. (2008). Engaging the YouTube Google-eyed generation: Strategies for using Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. Electronic Journal e-learning, 6(2), 119-130. Duffy, P. D., & Bruns, A. (2006). The use of blogs, wikis and RSS in education: A conversation of possibilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the Online Learning and Teaching Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Duguid, P. (2005). The Art of Knowing: Social and Tacit Dimensions of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice. The Information Society, 21(2), 109–118. doi:10.1080/01972240590925311 Durden, W. (2001, October 19). Liberal Arts for All, Not Just the Rich. Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com Duval, E., Forte, E., Cardinaels, K., Verhoeven, B., Van Durm, R., & Hendrikx, K. (2001). The ARIADNE knowledge pool system: a distributed digital library for education. Communications of the ACM, 44(5), 73–78. doi:10.1145/374308.374346 Dziuban, C. D., Moskal, P. D., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning, and the generations: Knowledge is power: No more. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Dziuban, C., Hartmann, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs (pp. 195-208). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

522

Ebell, M. H. (2003). Point-of-care information that changes practice: It’s closer than we think. Family Medicine, 35(4), 261–263. Ebner, M. (2007). E-Learning 2.0 = e-Learning 1.0 + Web 2.0? Paper presented at the The Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES). E-Content Report. (2004). E-learning technologies and its application in higher education: A descriptive comparison of Germany, UK and USA. Edelson, P. J. (1998). The organization of courses via the Internet, academic aspects, interaction, evaluation, and accreditation (pp. 2-15). Educational Resources Information Center, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED422 879). Edmonson, B. (1995). The next baby boom. American Demographics, September. Edmunds, J., & Turner, B. (2002). Generations, culture and society. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Educational Testing Service. (2007). 2006 ICT literacy assessment preliminary findings. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.ets.org/ Media/Products/ICT_Literacy/pdf/2006_Preliminary_ Findings.pdf Educause Learning Initiative. (2005). 7 things you should know about podcasting. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7003.pdf Edusplash (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008, from www. edusplash.net/default.asp?page=Home Eide, F., & Eide, B. (2005). Brain of the blogger. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/brain-of-blogger.html Eldon, E. (2007). Facebook to take over Stanford classroom. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://venturebeat. com/2007/09/10/facebook-to-take-over-stanford-classroom/ Engelbart, D., & Ruilifson, J. (1999). Bootstrapping our collective intelligence. [CSUR]. ACM Computing Surveys, 31(4es), 38. doi:10.1145/345966.346040


Entertainment Software Association (ESA). (2008). Essential facts about games and violence. Retrieved from http:// www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_Violence_2008.pdf ERI SEE. (2005). Education Reform Initiative of South Eastern Europe REPORT. On the ERI SEE expert seminar “ICT in Education: The Role of Teachers and Teacher Training in ICT”, 2-3 December 2005, Zagreb, Croatia. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from http://www.see-educoop. net/graz_2003/downloads/REPORT_ICT%20in%20Educat_1205.pdf Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/BF02504683 Espana, J. (2004). Teaching a Research-Oriented, Graduate Global marketing Course to Adult Learners in a OneMonth Format. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1-2), 418. European Commision-Information Society and Media Directorate General. (n.d.). Lisbon Strategy and Policies for the Information Society Lisbon Strategy and i2010. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/studies/final_report_3.pdf Evers, J. (2006). The security risk in Web 2.0. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://news.cnet.com/The-securityrisk-in-Web-2.0/2100-1002_3-6099228.html Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong, R., & Sutherland, R. (2003). Screenplay: children and computing in the home. London: Routledge. Fahy, P. J., & Ally, M. (2005). Student learning style and asynchronous computer-mediated conferencing (CMC) interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 5–22. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.leaonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/ s15389286ajde1901_2?cookieSet=1 Fallon, C., & Brown, S. (2003). E-learning standards: A guide to purchasing, developing, and deploying standardsconformant e-learning. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press. Farmer, B., Yue, A., & Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university teaching: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 24(2), 123-136. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/farmer.html Ferdig, R. (2007). Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 5–10. Fernback, J. (1997). The individual within the collective: Virtual ideology and the realization of collective principles. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture (pp. 36-54). London: Sage. Ferreira, L. (2007). O que aprendemos com a Web 2.0: novos rumos para a aprendizagem. In A. B. Alves (org.) Actas do Encontro Internacional “Discurso, Metodologia e Tecnologia,” (pp. 237-247). Miranda do Douro, Portugal: CEAMM. Ferretti, S., Mirri, S., Muratori, L. A., Roccetti, M., & Salomoni, P. (2008). E-learning 2.0: you are We-LCoME! Paper presented at the International cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), Beijing, China. Fetscherin, M., & Lattemann, C. (2007). User acceptance of Virtual Worlds – an explorative study about second life. Retrieved on August 10, 2008 from http://www.secondliferesearch.blogspot.com Fiedler, S. (2003). Personal Webpublishing as a reflective conversational tool for self-organized learning. In T. Burg (Ed.), BlogTalks (pp. 190-216). Vienna, Austria. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://seblogging.cognitivearchitects.com/stories/storyReader$963 Finger, G., McGlasson, M., & Finger, P. (2007). Information and communication technologies: Towards a mediated learning context. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Technology and diversity in higher education (pp. 81-102). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Firestone, J. M., & McElroy, M. W. (2001). Key issues in the New Knowledge Management. Boston: KMCI/ButterworthHeinemann. Fisch, K., & McLeod, S. (2007). Did you know? Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://shifthappens.wikispaces. com/Sources Fischer, G. (2001). Lifelong learning and its support with new media. International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 13, 8836-8840.

523


Fisher, M., & Colman, B. (2001-2002). Collaborative online learning in virtual discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 3–17. doi:10.2190/CRDK-VNR843DX-V4DB Fister, B. (2008, July 18). Chasing our long tails. ACRLog. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://acrlog.org/2008/07/18/ chasing-our-long-tails/ Flake, J. (2001). Teacher education and the World Wide Web. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 43–61. Flatley, M. (2005). Blogging for Enhanced Teaching and learning. Business Communication Quarterly, 68. Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). VARK a guide to learning styles. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www. vark-learn.com/English/index.asp Flood, J. (2002). Read all about it: online learning faces 80% attrition rates, TOJDE, 3(2). Floyd, D. L. (2003). Distance learning in community colleges: Leadership challenges for change and development. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 337–347. doi:10.1080/713838144 Floyd, S. S. (2006, July 2). Blogging Pedagogy. Message posted to http://txbluebonnetwp.blogspot.com/ Floyd, S. S. (July 5, 2006). Writeboard. Message posted to http://txbluebonnetwp.blogspot.com/. Floyd, S. S. (November 23, 2006). Is Anyone Listening? Does Anyone Care? Message posted to http://txbluebonnetwp.blogspot.com/ Ford, N., & Chen, S. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and learning: an empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 281–312. Forsyth, L., & Schaverien, L. (2005). Emergent collectivity: Teachers as interdependent e-designers of professional development in K-6 Science and Technology. Journal of In-service Education, 31(4), 635–656. doi:10.1080/13674580500200389 Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Foster, A. (2007, March 9). Information navigation 101. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 38.

524

Fox, R. (2000). Up drafts: Case studies in teacher renewal. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Frand, J. L. (2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, (September-October): 15–24. Franklin, T., & VanHamarlem, M. (2008). Web 2.0 for content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. JISC Publications, May 28th. Retrieved June 17th 2008, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/Web2andpolicyreport.aspx Freeman, G. T. (2005). The library as place: Changes in learning patterns, collections, technology. In Library as place: rethinking roles, rethinking space (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.clir.org/pubs/ abstract/pub129abst.html Fresen, J. W. (2005). Quality assurance practice in online (web-supported) learning in higher education: An exploratory study. Retrieved on May, 16, 2005, from http:// upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-02172005-134301/ unrestricted/04chapter4.pdf Frey, B., & Alman, S. (2003). Applying adult learning theory to the online classroom. New Horizons in Adult Education, 17(1), 4–12. Friedman, T. (2005). The World Is Flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Fromme, J., Kommer, S., Mansel, J., & Treumann, K. (Eds.). (1999). Selbstozialisation, kinderkultur, und mediennutzung [Self-socialization, children’s culture and mediause.] Opladen, GR: Leske & Budrich. Fryer, W. (2005). Teaching & Learning with the Read/Write Web. Retrieved March 30th, 2008, from http://www.wtvi. com/TEKS/04_05_articles/read-write-Web.html. Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8–21. Gallien, T., & Ommen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 463–476.


Ganley, B. (2004). Blogging as a dynamic, transformative medium in an American liberal arts classroom. Paper presented at the BlogTalk 2.0 conference, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http://bgblogging. com/2004/09/13/blogtalk-paper-an-excerpt-and-in-fullblogging-as-a-dynamic-transformative-medium-in-anamerican-liberal-arts-classroom/ Gardener, S., & Eng, S. (2005). What students want: Generation Y and the changing function of the academic library. Libraries and the Academy, 5(3), 405–421. doi:10.1353/ pla.2005.0034 Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gardner, H. (2002). Intelligence in seven steps. In D. Dickinson (Ed.), CREATING THE FUTURE: Perspectives on educational change (pp. 6). Seattle, WA: New Horizons. Garrett, J. J. (2005). AJAX: A new approach to Web 2.0 applications. Adaptive Path, LLC. Retrieved from http://www. adaptivepath.com/ideas/essays/archives/000385.php Garrido, J. (2008). Evolução para E-Learning 2.0: implicações para o design de aprendizagens num ensino a distância com recurso à Internet. Comunicação apresentada no III Congresso de Educação a Distância dos Países de Lingua Portuguesa 2008. Retrieved the 24th May 2008 from http//:www.n-learning.blogspot.com/ Garrison, D. R. (1997). Computer conferencing: The postindustrial age of distance education. Open Learning, 12(2), 3–11. doi:10.1080/0268051970120202

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. Gaubatz, N. (2003). Course Scheduling Formats and their Impact on Student Learning. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 12(1). Gaurav, A. (2008). On fuzzy XML and fuzzy relational databases. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://pages. cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~gaurav/presentations/Paper771.pdf Gee, J. P. (2000). The New Literacy Studies: From “socially situated” to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R. Ivaniéc (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180-196). New York: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan. Georgiev, T., Georgieva, E., & Smrikarov, A. (2004). Mlearning-A new stage of e-learning. International Conference on Computer Systems & Technologies – CompSysTech’2004. Retrieved November 21, 2008 from http://ecet.ecs.ru.acad. bg/cst04/Docs/sIV/428.pdf Ghani, J. A., & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human computer interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 381–391. Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J., & Richards, R. (2002). The nature and origin of instructional objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp.25-58). Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology and Association for Educational Communications & Technology.

Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education, (pp. 161-168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibbons, S. (2007). Redefining the roles of information professionals in higher education to engage the Net generation. Keynote paper presented at Educause Australasia 2007. Retrieved from http://www.caudit.edu.au/educauseaustralasia07/authors_papers/Gibbons2.pdf

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2

Gil, F. (2001). Estratégias de utilização das TIC em contexto educativo: um estudo com professores do Ensino Secundário. In Actas do 3º Simpósio Internacional de Informática Educativa, Viseu, Portugal, (pp. 441-446).

525


Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into Web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29–35.

Gold, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.

Gilbert, M. (1994). Getting Wired. Boston Sunday Globe, Sept. 18, 1994.

Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198–208. doi:10.1177/0165551506062337

Gilbert, S. W., & Green, K. C. (1986). The new computer in higher education. In D. DeZure (Ed.), Landmark in teaching and learning in higher education from change magazine, 1969-1999 (pp. 405-406). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Gilmor, D. (2004). We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. Gilroy, K. (2001). Collaborative E-Learning: The Right Approach. Retrieved May 24th, 2008, from http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=45991 Glass, R., & Spiegelman, M. (2007). Incorporating blogs into the syllabus: Making their space a learning space. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(2), 145–155. doi:10.2190/ET.36.2.c Glatthorn, A. (1995). Teacher Development. In L. Anderson (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education (2nd Ed). London: Pergamon Press. Glazer, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Promoting Technology Integration Through Collaborative Apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 57–67. doi:10.1007/BF02504685 Glenn, M. (2002). Learning objects 101: A primer for neophytes. Sidebars, November 2002, a publication of the Learning Resources Unit of the British Columbia Institute of Technology. Global Competitiveness Report. (2008). World Economic Forum. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from http://www.gcr. weforum.org/ Goffe, W. L., & Sonsin, K. (2005). Teaching with technology: may you live in interesting times. The Journal of Economic Education, 36(3), 278–291. doi:10.3200/ JECE.36.3.278-291 Golbeck, Jennifer (2008). Trust on the World Wide Web: A Survey. Foundations and Trends® in Web Science, 1(2), 131197. Retrieved from http:/dx.doi.org/10.1561/1800000006

526

Goldman, S. R., Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., Williams, S. M., & Tzou, C. (2003). Science inquiry in a digital world: Possibilities for making thinking visible. In H. van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a Digital World (pp. 253-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goldrei, S., Kay, J., & Kummerfeld, B. (2005). Exploiting user models to automate the harvesting of metadata for Learning Objects. In Proceedings of 2005 Conference on Adaptive and intelligent Web-based educational systems, Málaga, España. Goldring, E. B., & Hausman, C. S. (2001). Sustaining Teacher Commitment: The Role of Professional Communities. PJE . Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 30–51. doi:10.1207/ S15327930pje7602_3 Gomes, M. J. (2005). E-Learning: reflexões em torno do conceito. In P. Dias & C. V. Freitas, (org.), Challenges’05: Actas do Congresso Internacional sobre Tecnologias da Informação e Comunicação na Educação, (pp. 229-236). Braga, 2005. Centro de Competência da Universidade do Minho. Gomes, M. J. (2005). Blogs: um recurso e uma estratégia educativa. In Actas do VII Simpósio Internacional de Informática Educativa, SIIE, (pp. 305-311). Leiria: Portugal. Gotschall, M. (2000). E-learning strategies for executive education and corporate training. Fortune, 141(10), S5–S59. Gottlieb, S., & Dunwoodie, B. (2007). What is Web 2.0 Content Management? (Part 2). Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/what-is-web20-cm-part-2-001223.php Grabinger, S., & Dunlap, J. (2002). Applying the REAL model to web-based instruction: An overview. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002 (pp. 447-452). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Granitzer, G., Stocker, A., Hoefler, P., & Tochtermann, K. (2008). Informal learning with semantic wikis in enterprises.


Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://hoefler.st/ wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/2008_informal.pdf Grant, J. (2002). Learning needs assessment: Assessing the need. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 324(7330), 156–159. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7330.156 Graven, M. (2004). Investigating mathematics teacher learning within an in-service community of practice: The centrality of confidence. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 177–211. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000049277.40453.4b Gregory, V. L. (2003). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of Web-based distance education. New Library World, 104(1193), 426–431. doi:10.1108/03074800310504366 Grementieri, V. (1998). Innovation technology and higher education. Higher Education in Europe, 23(2), 169–175. doi:10.1080/0379772980230203 Gronbach, K. (2000). Generation Y- not just “kids”. Direct Marketing, 63(4), 36–37. Gros, B. (2003). The impact of digital games in education. First Monday. Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.org/ issues/issue8_7/xyzgros/index.html Grow, G. (1991). Teaching Learners to be Self-Directed. Originally published in Adult Education Quarterly. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://www.longleaf.net/ ggrow Gruber, T. (2007). Collective knowledge systems: Where the social web meets the semantic web. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://tomgruber.org/writing/ CollectiveKnowledgeSystems.pdf Grudin, J. (2006). Enterprise knowledge management and emerging technologies. System Sciences, 3(4), 57.

Gunawardena, C. N., Ortegano-Layne, L., Carabajal, K., Frechette, C., Lindemann, K., & Jennings, B. (2006). New model, new strategies: Instructional design for building online wisdom communities. [Electronic version]. Distance Education, 27(2), 217–232. doi:10.1080/01587910600789613 Haase, P., Broekstra, J., Ehrig, M., Menken, M., Mika, P., Plechawski, M., et al. (2004). Bibster – A semantics-based bibliographic peer-to-peer system. Retrieved November 03, 2008, from http://bibster.semanticweb.org/publications/ haase_04_bibster.pdf Hacker, K. L., & Wignall, D. I. (1997). Issues in predicting user acceptance of computer-mediated communication in inter-university classroom discussion as an alternative to face-to-face interaction. Communication Reports, 10(1), 108–114. Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of systems design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39(3), 196–206. doi:10.1080/03634529009378802 Hafner, W., & Ellis, T. J. (2004). Project-Based, Asynchronous Collaborative Learning. In [January.]. Proceedings of HICSS, 2004, 15–23. Hall, B. (2000). How to embark on your e-Learning adventure: Making sense of the environment. e-Learning, January-March, 2000. Hamilton, K. C. (2002). Teaching Adult Learners: A Supplemental Manual for Faculty Teaching in the GBM Program at FDU. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University, Silberman College of Business.

Guerra, M. (2000). A Escola que Aprende. Porto, Portugal: Asa.

Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1996). Information infrastructure development: The tension between standardization and flexibility. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(4), 407–426. doi:10.1177/016224399602100402

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.

Harasim, L. M. (1998) The Internet and intranets for education and training: A framework for action. In C. de Moura Castro (Ed.), Education in the information age (pp. 181-201). New York: Inter-American Development Bank.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.

Harasim, L., Calvert, T., & Groeneboer, C. (1997). VirtualU: A web-based system to support collaborative learning, In. B.H. Kah (Ed.), Web-Based instruction (pp.149-158). Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

527


Hardaway, D. E., & Scamell, R. W. (2005). Use of a technology-mediated learning instructional approach for teaching an introduction to information technology course. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(2), 137.

Hayman, S. (2007). Folksonomies and Tagging: new developments in social bookmarking. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/webdav/ site/myjahiasite/shared/papers/arkhayman.pdf

Harel, I. (Ed.). (1990). Constructionist learning: A 5th anniversary collection of papers reflecting research reports, projects in progress, and essays by the Epistemology and Learning Group. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.

Haythornthwaite, C., Kazer, M. M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distance learners: temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6 (1). Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/ haythornthwaite.html

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 41-84). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Hargis, J. (2008). A Second Life for distance learning. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu. tr/tojde30/articles/article_1.htm Hargreaves, A. (1998). Os professores em tempo de mudança: O trabalho e a cultura dos professores na idade pós-moderna. Lisboa, Portugal: McGraw-Hill. Harris, A. L., Lang, M., Oates, B., & Keng, S. (2006). Systems analysis & design: An essential part of is education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(3), 241. Harrison-Broninski, K. (2005). Human Interactions: The Heart and Soul of Business Process Management. Tampa, FL: Meghan-Kiffer Press. Hart, J. (2008). An introduction to social learning: What is social learning? Retrieved December 2008, from http:// www.c4lpt.co.uk/handbook/sociallearning.html Hartman, J., Moskal, P., & Dziuban, C. (2003). Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (eds.), Educating the net generation. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from: http://www. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf Hasan, H., & Pfaff, C. (2006). Emergent conversational technologies that are democratising information systems in organisations: The case of the corporate wiki. Retrieved August 24, 2008, from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1297&content=commpapers Hauswirth, M., & Decker, S. (2007). Semantic reality – Connecting the real and the virtual world. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://research.microsoft.com/workshops/ SemGrail2007/Papers/ManfredH_Position.pdf

528

Hearn, M. R. (2005). Embedding a librarian in the classroom: An intensive information literacy model. RSR. Reference Services Review, 33(2), 219–227. doi:10.1108/00907320510597426 Heath, S. B. (2004). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. In D. Wray (Ed.), Literacy: Major themes in education (pp. 168-196). New York: Routledge. Heilbronn, M., & Libby, W. L. (1973). Comparative effects of technological and social immediacy upon performance and perceptions during a two-person game. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada. Henri, F., Charlier, B., & Limpens, F. (2008). Understanding PLE as an Essential Component of the Learning Process. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th World Conference on Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 3766-3770). Austria: University of Vienna. Hewitt, H. (2007). Blog – entenda a revolução que vai mudar seu mundo. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Thomas Nelson Brasil. Heylighen, F., & Campbell, D. T. (1995). Selection of organization at the social level: Obstacles and facilitators of metasystem transitions. World Futures: the Journal of General Evolution, 45, 181–212. Hiemstra, R., & Poley, J. (2007). Lessons pertinent for teaching with computers. Journal of Educational Strategies . Issues and Ideas, 80(3), 144–148. Hill, J. R., Raven, A., & Han, S. (2002). Connections in web-based learning environments: a research-based model for community building. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 383–393.


Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-Interface Interaction in Distance Education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42. Hiltz, S. R. (1990). Evaluating the Virtual Classroom. In L. Harasim, (ed.), Online Education (pp. 134 – 184). New York: Praeger. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1985). Structuring computermediated communication systems to avoid information overload. Communications of the ACM, 28(7), 680–689. doi:10.1145/3894.3895 Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective? Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 56–59. doi:10.1145/505248.505273 Hines, R. (2008, August). The screen in flat: Reinventing libraries for information literacy. Symposium conducted at the annual Multimedia Educational Resource and Learning Tools (MERLOT) conference in Minneapolis, MN. Open Source Initiative, (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://www.opensource.org/ Hird, A. (2000). Learning from cyber-savvy students: How Internet-age kids impact classroom teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hirtle, J. (1996). Coming to Terms: Social Constructivism. English Journal, 85(1), 92. doi:10.2307/821136 Hirtle, J., Bence, C., & Quintans, J. (2006). It Takes a Village to Build A Writing Project: A Case Study of a Virtual Learning Community. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp. 2560-2565). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned elearning interactions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141–160. Hodgins, H. W. (2002). The future of learning objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp.281-298). Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology / Association for Educational Communications & Technology. Hoffer, J. A., George, J. F., & Valacich, J. S. (2007). Modern systems analysis and design (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Holloway, S. L., & Valentine, G. (Eds.). (2000). Children’s geographies and the new social studies of childhood, In Children’s Geographies. London: Routledge. Holloway, S., & Valentine, G. (2003). Cyberkids: children in the information age. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning: Concepts and practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the Job: A Situated Account of Teacher Learning in High School Mathematics Departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207–236. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2302_2 Horn, L. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–12. Hottenstein, D., & Malatesta, C. (1993). Putting a school in gear with intensive scheduling. The High School Magazine, 2, 28–29. Houston, T. K., & Ford, D. E. (2008). A tailored Internetdelivered intervention for smoking cessation designed to encourage social support and treatment seeking: Usability testing and user tracing. Informatics for Health & Social Care, 33(1), 5–19. Houston, T. K., Funkhouser, E., Allison, J. J., Levine, D. A., Williams, O. D., & Kiefe, C. I. (2007). Multiple measures of provider participation in Internet delivered interventions. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 129(Pt 2), 1401–1405. Houston, T. K., Richman, J. S., Coley, H. L., Ray, M. N., Allison, J. J., & Gilbert, G. H. (2008). Does delayed measurement affect patient reports of provider performance? Implications for performance measurement of medical assistance with tobacco cessation: A Dental PBRN study. BMC Health Services Research, 8, 100. doi:10.1186/14726963-8-100 Howe, A. C., & Stubbs, H. S. (2003). From Science Teacher to Teacher Leader: Leadership Development as Meaning Making in a Community of Practice. Science Education, 87(2), 280. doi:10.1002/sce.10022

529


Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Howland, J., & Moore, J. (2002). Student Perceptions as Distance Learners in Internet-Based Courses. Distance Education, 23(2), 183–195. doi:10.1080/0158791022000009196 Hsiao, R. L., Kuo, F. Y., & Chu, T. H. (2006). The more we study, the less we learn: A primer on the analysis of tml effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 149–176. doi:10.1207/ s15327744joce1602_4 Huffaker, D. (2005). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. AACE Journal, 13(2), 91–98. Hung, J., & Zhang, K. (2008). Analyzing online learning behaviors and activity patterns and making predictions with data mining techniques in online teaching. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 426–437. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Huynh-Kim-Bang, B., Dané, E., & Grandbastien, M. (2008). Merging semantic and participative approaches for organising teachers’ documents. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds). Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 4959-4966). Austria: University of Vienna. Hwang, J., Park, H., Cha, J., & Shin, B. (2008). Effects of Object Building Activities in Second Life on Players’ Spatial Reasoning. Paper presented at the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, November 17-19, 2008, Banff, Canada. Ice, P., Curtis, R., Philips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 11–25. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee. (2008). Draft standard for learning object metadata. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://ieeeltsc.org/. Illinois Online Network. (2008). Learning styles and the online environment. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http:// www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/tutorials/id/learningStyles.asp

530

IMS Global Learning Consortium (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://www.imsglobal.org/ International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 5. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://www. irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/186/801 International Telecommunication Union, adapted from national reports, Market Information and Statistics (STAT), 2008. Internet2. (1996). The Internet2Project. Available on-line at: http://www.internet2.edu Ivanova, M. (2007). eLearning 1.0 ecosystem and eLearning 2.0 ecosystem. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http:// mivanova.blogspot.com/2007/11/elearning-10-ecosystemand-elearning-20.html Ivers, K. S. & Barron, A. E. (1994). Teaching telecommunications: A comparison between video and computerbased instruction. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378963). Iverson, K. (2005). E-learning games: interactive learning strategies for digital delivery. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. James, D. (2004). A need for humor in online classes. College Teaching, 52(3), 93–94. doi:10.3200/CTCH.52.3.93-120 Janicki, T., & Liegle, J. O. (2001). Development and evaluation of a framework for creating web-based learning modules: a pedagogical and systems approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 58–84. Jaokar, A. (2007). Mobile Web 2.0, microlearning, intertwingularity, and mobile widgets. Educational Technology, 47(6), 43–45. Jayson, S. (2006, October 3). Totally wireless on campus. USA Today. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www. usatoday.com/life/2006-10-02-gennext-tech_x.htm Jegede, O. (2002). Facilitating and sustaining interest through an on-line distance peer-tutoring system in a cooperative learning environment. Virtual University Gazette, 35-45. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. Jennings, N., & Collins, C. (2007). Virtual or virtually u: Educational institutions in Second Life. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://www.waset.org/ijss/v2/v2-3-28.pdf


Jennings, N., & Collins, C. (2007). Virtual or Virtually U: Educational Institutions in Second Life. International Journal of Social Science, 2(3), 180–186.

Johnson, S. (1997). Interface culture: How new technology transforms the way we create and communicate. New York: HarperEdge.

Jensen, E. P. (2000). Brain-based learning: The new science of teaching and training (Rev. ed.). San Diego: The Brain Store.

Johnson, S. D., & Arogan, S. R. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 31–43. doi:10.1002/ace.117

Jensen, M. (2007, June 15). The new metrics of scholarly authority. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(41), B6. Jereb, E., & Smitek, B. (2006). Applying multimedia instruction in e-learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 15–27. doi:10.1080/14703290500467335 Jewitt, C. (2004). Multimodality and new communication technologies. In P. LeVine & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 184195). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267. doi:10.3102/0091732X07310586 Johansson, B. (2004). Generationing in consumer contexts. Göteborg University, Center for Consumer Science. Retrieved from http://ckf.gu.se John, P., & Triggs, P. (2004). From transaction to transformation: information and communication technology, professional development and the formation of communities of practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 426–439. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00101.x Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active learning: cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, E. S. (2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model of accountability in Education. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 5(1), 1–10. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31–32.

Johnston, J. & Joscelyn, M. K. (1989). The computer revolution in teaching. Accent on improving college teaching and learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 474947). Johnston, P. (2001). After the big bang: Forces of change and e-learning. Ariadne, (27). Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue27/johnston/ Joint Information Systems Committee. (2005). Study of environments to support e-learning in UK further and higher education: A supporting study for the Joint Information Systems Committee. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www. jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/buildmlehefe/ elearning_survey_2005.pdf Jolly, D., & Clark, F. (2002). Intergenerational Learning: A Model for Teacher Preparation. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 1349-1350). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Joly. K. (2007). A Second Life for higher education? Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://www.universitybusiness. com/viewarticlepf.aspx?articleid=797 Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mind tools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for schools: Engaging in critical thinking, (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Student-Centred Learning Environments. In D.H. Jonassen & S.M. Lands, (Ed), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 89-121). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Computadores, Ferramentas Cognitivas - Desenvolver o pensamento crítico nas escolas. Porto, Portugal: Porto Editora. 531


Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster. Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26. Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 1–24. doi:10.1007/BF02818172 Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1998). Creating technology-supported learning communities (On-line). Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://carbon.cudenver. edu/_bwilson/learncomm.html Juric, M. B., Mathew, B., & Sarang, P. (2004). Business Process Execution Language for Web services: BPEL and BPEL4WS. Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40. doi:10.1177/1555412005281767 Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419–469. Kakaris, N., & Fotiou, O. (2007). Use of New Technology from Local Authorities and in Municipalities. Study of Observatory for Information Society for the Digital Community, Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.observatory. gr/Files/press_releases/071125_PR_OTA.pdf Kamel Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23. doi:10.1111/ j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x Kanter, R. M. (2001). Evolve! Succeeding in the digital culture of tomorrow. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Karen, L. J. (2007). The Advantages of eLearning. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://ezinearticles.com/?TheAdvantages-of-eLearning&id=603386

532

Karrer, T. (2006). E-Learning Technology. Retrieved the 23th April, 2008, from http://elearningtech.blogspot. com/2006/03/elearning-20-defined-with-resources.html Karrer, T. (2007). Understanding E-Learning 2.0. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://www.astd.org/ LC/2007/0707_karrer.htm Kays, E., & Francis, J. (2004). Emergence and E-learning design: From artificial to natural selection. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Washington, DC, (pp.1286-1289). Kays, E., & Sims, R. (2006). Reinventing and reinvigorating instructional design: A theory for emergent learning. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Who’s Learning? Whose Technology? Sydney, Australia, (pp. 409-412). Kearsley, G. (1995, May). The nature and value of interaction in distance learning. Paper presented at the Third Distance Education Research Symposium, The American Center for the Study of Distance Education. University Park, PA. Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In NASSP’s Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp.1-17). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Kelly, H. (2003). Education for tomorrow needs innovation today. Carnegie Rep, (Spring), 44-45. Kelton, A. J. (2007). Second life: Reaching into the Virtual Worlds for real-world learning, EDUCAUSE, 2007 (17). Kelton, A. J. (2007). Second Life: Reaching into the virtual world for real-world learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 17, 1–11. Kendall, K. E., & Kendall, J. E. (2007). Systems analysis and design (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kiesel, M., & Sauermann, L. (2005). Towards desktop wikis. UPGRADE, 6(6), 30-34. Retrieved August 01, 2008, from http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/issues/2005/6/ up6-Kiesel.pdf Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 318–334.


King, K. (2002). Educational Technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, 39, 283–297. doi:10.1016/S03601315(02)00073-8 King, W. J., Le Saux, N., Sampson, M., Gaboury, I., Norris, M., & Moher, D. (2007). Effect of point-of-care information on inpatient management of bronchiolitis. BMC Pediatrics, 7, 4. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-7-4 Kinzie, M., Whitaker, S., & Hoffer, M. (2005). Instructional Uses of Instant Messaging During Classroom lectures. Educational Technology and Society, 8(2), 150–160. Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W. M. G., & Kreijns, K. (2005). Is technology-based collaborative learning antisocial? or, What are we doing to make it so! Educational Technology, 45(5), 8–12. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Knowles, M. (1977). The Modern Practice of Adult Education, Andragogy versus Pedagogy, 8/e. New York: Association Press. Knowles, M. (1980). Malcolm Knowles on “how do you get people to be self-directed learners?” . Training and Development Journal, 34(5), 96–99. Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey and Bass. Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: a neglected species, (4/e). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Knowles, M. S. (1950). Informal Adult Education: A guide for administrators, lenders, and teachers. New York: Association Press. Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Pub. Co.

Kish, S. (2007). Second Life: Virtual worlds and the enterprise. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://skish.typepad. com/susan_kish/secondlife/Skish_VW-SL_sept07.pdf

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Kitchin, R. (1998a). Cyberspace: the world in the wires. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (1998). The Adult Learner, 5th Edition. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing.

Kitchin, R. (1998b). Towards geographies of cyberspace. Progress in Human Geography, 22, 385–406. doi:10.1191/030913298668331585

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.

Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Fiedler, S., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E. T., et al. (2006). Social software for professional learning: Examples and research issues. Proceedings of the ICALT-2006 Conference, The Netherlands, (pp. 912-914).

Koenig, M. E. D. (2002). The third stage of KM emerges. KMWorld, 11(3), 20–21.

Kleiner, A. (2003). Karen Stephenson’s quantum theory of trust. Strategy Business, 29, 2–14. Knapper, C. (2001). Lifelong Learning in the Workplace. In A. M. Roche & J. McDonald (Eds.), Systems, settings, people: Workforce development challenges for the alcohol and other drugs field (pp. 129-138). Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA).

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Kolitsis, A., Baziakos, G., Agorogiannis, A., Goudos, S., Chilas, K., & Tsimpoukis, Th. (2001). The Role of New Technologies to Distance Learning in Communication Environment. In Hellenic Open University (Ed), Proceedings of the 1st Panhellenic Conference for the Open and

533


Distance Education 2001 (pp. 837-852). Patra, Greece: Hellenic Open University.

1-18). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Kozma, R. B., & Johnston, J. (1991). The technology revolution comes to the classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 423195).

Kolodner, J. L., & Gray, J. (2003). Understanding the affordances of ritualized activity structures for project-based classrooms. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/pdfs/ activitystructures.pdf Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2002). Learning by designTM: Promoting deep science learning through a design approach. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved May 27, 2005, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/pdfs/ deepscience.pdf Koohang, A., & Harman, K. (2005). Open source: A metaphor for e-learning. Informing Science Journal, 5. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol8/ v8p075-086Kooh.pdf Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher. Teaching Education, 20, 77–97. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2003.10.002 Kousetti, C., Millard, D. E., & Howard, Y. (2008). A study of ontology convergence in a semantic wiki. Retrieved December 02, 2008, from http://www.wikisys.org/ws2008/ proceedings/research%20papers/18500135.pdf Kovacic, A., Bubas, G., & Zlatovic, M. (2008). E-tivities with a wiki: Innovative teaching of English as a foreign language. Retrieved August 01, 2008, from http://eunis. dk/papers/p87.pdf Kovacic, Z. J. (2004). Learning styles, sociodemographics and level of participation in a discussion forum. Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw04/papers/ refereed/kovacic/paper.html Kozma, R. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. [Electronic version]. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5–15. doi:10.1007/BF02313481 Kozma, R. B. (2003). ICT and educational change: A global phenomenon. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp.

534

Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483–497. doi:10.1086/461779 Kramlinger, T., & Huberty, T. (1990). Behaviorism versus Humanism. Training and Development Journal, 44(12), 41–45. Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. Krug, S. (2005). Don’t Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press. Kruse, K. (2004, March). Buckle up: Generation Y is here. Chief Learning Officer. Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_col_elearning.asp?articleid=410&zoneid=46 Kurzel, F. (2004). Introducing Instruction into a Personalised Learning Environment. Informing Science InSITE 2004, Rockhampton, Australia, June, (pp. 25-28). Landsberger, J. (2004). E-learning by design: An interview with Dr. Betty Collis. TechTrends, 48(5), 7–12. doi:10.1007/ BF02763523 Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Blogging as participation: The active sociality of a new literacy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.geocities.com/c. lankshear/bloggingparticipation.pdf Lansiquot, R., & Rosalia, C. (2008). Second Languages, Virtual Worlds: Living Second Lives. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds), Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 2660-2664). Austria: University of Vienna.


Lassila, O., & Hendler, J. (2007). Embracing “Web 3.0”. Retrieved the 29th June 2008 from www.mindswap.org/ papers/2007/90-93.pdf Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Law 1566 (1985). Structure and operation of Primary and Secondary Education. Law 2552 (1997). Hellenic Open University. Law 2860 (2000). Management, Observation and Control of Council Support Framework and other Arragements.

tous computing. Educational Media International, 42(3), 237–250. doi:10.1080/09523980500161296 Lehrer, R., Erickson, J., & Connell, T. (1994). Learning by designing hypermedia documents. Computers in the Schools, 10(1-2), 227–254. Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2005). Teens content creators and consumers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Report. Retrieved on November 19, 2006, from http:// www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Content_Creation. pdf Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Report. Retrieved on November 3rd, 2006 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A. R., & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf

Law 3059 (2002). Constitution of Legal Person under the name Hellenic Observation for the Digital Community.

Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A., & Smith, A. (2007). Pew Internet: Teens and Social Media. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/230/ report_display.asp

Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117–131. doi:10.1023/A:1002919531780

Léon, A. P. (2001). Higher Education’s Challenge: New Teacher Education Models for a new Century. Carnegie Corporation of New York Report. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from www.carnegie.org.

Lee, J., Dineen, F., McKendree, J., & Mayes, T. (1999, April). Vicarious learning: Cognitive and linguistic effects of observing peer discussion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: quick collaboration on the web. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison Wesley.

Lee, T. B., & Fischetti, M. (1999). Weaving the Web. San Francisco: Harper. Leene, A. (2006). Microcontent is Everywhere. In Micromedia & e-Learning 2.0: Gaining the Big Picture – Proceedings of Micromedia Conference 2006. Retrieved the 24th May 2008, from http//:www.microlearning.org/MicroCon_2006/ Micromedis-06-final.pdf Leh, A. S., Kouba, B., & Davis, D. (2005). Twenty-first century learning: Communities, interaction and ubiqui-

Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The WIKI Way: Quick Collaboration on the Web. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Levin, D. J. (2006). This is your brain on music: The science of a human obsession. New York: Plume/Penguin. Levine, A. (2007). 50 Web 2.0 ways to tell a story. Retrieved August 24, 2008, from http://cogdogroo.wikispaces.com/ StoryTools Levy, P. (1994). L’intelligence collective: Pour une anthropologie du cyberspace. Paris, France: Editions La Decouverte.

535


Li, T., & Suo, Z. (2007). Engineering education in the age of Web 2.0. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www. imechanica.org/files/Engineering%20Education%20in%20 the%20age%20of%20Web%202.0%20%20Li%20and%20 Suo%20(2007).pdf

Littlejohn, A. (2005). Key issues in the design and delivery of technology-enhanced learning. In P. Levy& S. Roberts (Eds.), Developing the new learning environment: The changing role of the academic librarian (pp. 70-90). London: Facet Publishing.

Liaw, S. S. (2002). Understanding user perceptions of World-wide web environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 137–148. doi:10.1046/j.02664909.2001.00221.x

Liu, Y. (2009). (in press). Providing formative feedback to maximize student satisfaction and learning in online courses. The International Journal of the Humanities, 7.

Liaw, S., & Huang, H. (2000). Enhancing interactivity in Web-based instruction: A review of the literature. Educational Technology, 40(3), 41–45. Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. (2002). Untangling the Threads: networks, community and teacher learning in the National Writing Project. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3/4), 295–302. doi:10.1080/135406002100000440

Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2005). UK children go online: Listening to young people’s experiences. London: London School Economics and Political Science. Livingstone, S., & Bovill, M. (1999). Young people, new media. London: LSE/ICT. Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for the development of learning communities within online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 395–408.

Liestøl, G. (2006). Dynamics of convergence and divergence in digital media and learning. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 2902-2909). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Lombardi, C. (2006). Belatedly, Britannica lambastes Wikipedia findings. CNET News. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from http://news.com.com/Belatedly,+Britannica+lambast es+Wikipedia+findings/2100-1025_3-6053754.html

Lim, K. (2005). Now Hear This- Exploring Podcasting as a tool in Geography Education. Nanyang Technological University.

Looi, C.-K., & Ang, D. (2000). A multimedia-enhanced collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 2–13. doi:10.1046/j.13652729.2000.00111.x

Lin, K. J. (2007). Building Web 2.0. IEEE Computer, 40(5), 101–102. Linden Lab. (2007). Terms of service. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.secondlife.com/corporate/ tos.php Linn, M. C. (1991). The computer as learning partner: Can computer tools teach science? In K. Sheingold, L.G, Roberts, & S.M. Malcolm (Eds.), Technology for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Lippincott, J. K. (2007). Student content creators: Convergence of literacies. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(6), 16–17. Lippincott, J. K. (2007). Student content creators: Convergence of literacies. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(6), 16–17. Little, J. (2003). Inside Teacher Community: Representations of Classroom Practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00273

536

Lorenzo, G., Oblinger, D., & Dziuban, C. (2007). How choice, co-creation, and culture are changing what it means to be net savvy. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(1), 6–12. Louange, J. E. G. (2007). An examination of the relationships between teaching and learning styles, and the number sense and problem solving ability of Year 7 students. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/ data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3d/43/ db.pdf Lowell, N. O., & Persichitte, K. A. (2000). A virtual ropes course: creating online community. Asynchronous Learning Networks Magazine, 4(1). Retrieved July 23, 2004, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/magazine/v4n1/ lowell.asp Lowry, C. (1989). Supporting and facilitating self-directed learning, ( . ERIC, ED312, 457.


Lowyck, J. (2002). Pedagogical Design. In H.H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, J.M. Pawlowski (eds.), Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training, (pp.199-217). New York: Springer. Lum, L. (2006). The Power of Podcasting. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(2), 32.

Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 25(18), B26. Maloney, E. (2007, January 5). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), B26.

Mac Morrow, N. (2001). Knowledge Management: An Introduction. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 35, 381–422.

Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with scratch. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 367–371. doi:10.1145/1352322.1352260

Mackey, T. P. (2007). The social informatics of blog and wiki communities: Authoring communities of practice (CoPs). Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.cais-acsi. ca/proceedings/2007/mackey_2007.pdf

Malvestiti, M. L. (2005). Tutoria em Cursos Pela Internet. In XII Congresso da Associação Brasileira de Educação a Distância. Retrieved May 24th, 2008, from www.abed.org. br/congresso2005/por/pdf/032tcd5.pdf

Madden, M., & Fox, S. (2006). Riding the waves of “Web 2.0”: More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined. Pew Internet Project, 1-6, (Unpublished).

Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In Essays in the sociology of knowledge, (pp. 270-322). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Madden, M., & Fox, S. (2006). Riding the waves of “Web 2.0”More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/ PIP_Web_2.0.pdf

Maor, D. (2003). The teacher’s role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Educational Media International, 40, 127–137. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092170

Madden, M., & Fox, S. (2006). Riding the waves of web 2.0. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project. Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/189/ report_display.asp Mahapatra, R., Nerur, S. P., & Slinkman, C. W. (2005). Special theme of research in information systems analysis and design - iii teaching systems analysis and design -- a case for the object oriented approach. Communications of AIS, 2005(16), 848.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (89): 25. doi:10.1002/ace.5 Martin, D., Burstein, M., & Denker, G. Hobbs, Kagal, L., Lassila, O., et al. (2004). OWL-S 1.0 release. Semantic Web services, from http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/ Martindale, T., & Wiley, D. A. (2005). Using Weblogs in scholarship and teaching. TechTrends, 49(2), 55–61. doi:10.1007/BF02773972

Malone, T. W. (1981). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. Pipeline, 6(2), 49–51.

Martinez, M. (2003). High Attrition Rates in eLearning: Challenges, Predictions and Solutions. Retrieved the June 16th, 2008 from http://www.elearningguild.com/ pdf/2/071403MGT-L.pdf

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R.E. Snow & M.J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Martinez, M. (2004). Adaptive Learning: Research Foundations and Practical Applications. In S. Stein & S. S. Farmer (eds.), Connotative Learning. Washington, DC: IACET.

Malone, T., Pentland, A., Prelec, D., Szolovits, P., Tenenbaum, J., & Tenenbaum, M. (2006). Harnessing the World’s Collective Intelligence to Cure My Cancer. Center for Collective Intelligence. Retrieved July, 22, 2008, from http:// cci.mit.edu/research/healthcare.html#_edn1

Martinez, M. (2007). Personalized Learning Model. In P. Shank (Ed.), The Online Learning Idea Book: Proven ways to Enhance Technology-Based and Blended Learning. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved the 17th June, 2008, from http://www.learningpeaks.com/

537


Martyn, M., & Bash, L. (2002). Creating New Meanings in Leading Education. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second National Conference on Alternative and External Degree Programs for Adults, Oct 9-12, 2002, Pittsburgh PA.

Mbilinyi, L. (2006, August). Degrees of opportunity: Adults’ views on the value and feasibility of returning to school. Minneapolis, MN: Capella University. Retrieved October 4, 2006, from http://www.degreesofopportunity.org/

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McAfee, A. P. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: the Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 21–28.

Masia, C. C., & Chase, P. N. (1997). Vicarious learning revisited: A contemporary behavior analytic interpretation. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 28, 41–51. doi:10.1016/S0005-7916(96)00042-0 Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121–133. doi:10.1080/01580370600751039

McCaffrey, E., Parscal, T. J., & Riedel, T. (2006). The faculty-library connection: An online workshop. Journal of Library Administration, 45(1/2), 279–300. doi:10.1300/ J111v45n01_16 McCain, T., & Jukes, I. (2000). Windows of the future: Education in the age of technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. McClure, K. (1997). Can generation Xers be trained? Training & Development, March.

Massart, D., & Dung, L. T. (2004). Federated search of learning object repositories: The CeLeBraTe approach. In Proceedings of International Conference RIFV’04, Hanoi, Vietnam.

McClusky, H. (1963). Course of the adult life span. In W. C. Hallenbeck (Ed.), Psychology of adults. Chicago, IL: Adult Education Association of U.S.A.

Matthew, V., & Schroeder, A. (2006). The embedded librarian program. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(4), 61–65.

McCombs, B. L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for E-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00534.x

Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14 Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. Stage 2 of the e-learning models desk study. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Retrieved July, 14, 2008, from http://www.jisc. ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20 Models%20(Version%201).pdf

McCombs, S., Liu, Y., Crowe, C., Houk, K., & Higginbotham, D. (2007). Podcasting Best Practice Based on Research Data. In R. Craslen et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007, (1604-1609). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. McConnell, D. (2005). Examining the dynamics of networked e-learning groups and communities. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 25–42. doi:10.1080/0307507052000307777

Mayo, N., Kajs, L., & Tanguma, J. (2005). Longitudinal Study of Technology Training to Prepare Future Teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 3–15.

McFarlane, A. E., Bonnett, M., & Williams, J. (2000). Assessment and multimedia authoring - a technology for externalising understanding. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 201–212. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00133.x

Mazmanian, P. E. (1980). A decision-making approach to needs assessment and objective setting in continuing medical education. Adult Education Quarterly, 31(1), 3–17. doi:10.1177/074171368003100101

McGee, P., & Diaz, V. (2007). Wikis and podcasts and blogs! Oh, my! What is a faculty member supposed to do? EDUCAUSE Review, 42(5), 28–40.

Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49, 193–213. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.011

538

McGrath, D. (2003, March). Designing to learn: A focus on design in project-based learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(6), 50–53.


McHale, N. (2008). Eradicating the rogue assignment. College & Research Libraries News, 69(5), 254–257. McInnerney, J., & Robert, T. (2004). Collaborative or cooperative learning? In T.S. Roberts (ed.) Online collaborative learning: theory and practice (pp. 203-214). Hershey PA: IGI Publishing. McIsaac, M. S. (2002). Online learning from an international perspective. Educational Media International, 39(1), 18–21. doi:10.1080/09523980210131196 McKay, J. (2004). For the ‘zippies,’ life is good: High-tech workers forge lifestyles very different from their parents. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Series: Outsourcing the Future? (March 21, 2004 Sunday). McLaughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? Retrieved November 11, 2006, from Teaching and Learning Forum 2000 http:// www.lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html. McLellan, H. (1999). Online education as interactive experience. Educational Technology, 39(5), 36–42. McLellan, H. (2000). Experience design. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 3(1), 59–69. doi:10.1089/109493100316238 McLellan, H. (2002). Staging experiences: A proposed framework for designing learning experiences. Educational Technology, 42(6), 30–37. McLuhan, M. (1984). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:13.0.CO;2-I McStravick, P. (2007). Training industry in 2007: A look ahead (Vol. 1, No. 205243). Framingham, MA: International Data Group (IDC).

Menon, S., & Douma, M. (2008). Finding Information: Factors that improve online experiences. Journal of Interaction Recipes, 3(1). Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www. idea.org/find-information.html Mentzelou, P. (1998). Computer Assisted Learning Reading (CALR) for the Greek deaf children. Bristol, UK: Bristol University. Merlot (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://www. merlot.org/Home.po Merriam, S. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3–13. doi:10.1002/ace.3 Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2004). Retrieved on July 22, 2004, from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm Metz, C. (2007). Web 3.0. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2102852,00.asp Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12. doi:10.1002/ ace.7401 Microsoft. (2008). What is Microsoft Office SharePoint server? Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://tinyurl. com/63bnob Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2002). Characteristics of excellence in higher education: Eligibility requirements and standards for accreditation. Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.msche.org/publications/Characteristicsbook050215112128.pdf

Medina, J. (2008). Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2003). Developing research & communication skills: Guidelines for information literacy in the curriculum Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231–252. doi:10.1080/01587910802395771

Mietz, E. (n.d.). Wikis as an education based collaborative and learning tool. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://web. syr.edu/~ejmietz/Documents/654%20final%20paper.pdf

539


Millard, D. E., Bailey, C. P., Boulain, P., Chennupati, S., Davis, H. C., Howard, Y., et al. (n.d.). Semantics on demand: Can a semantic wiki replace a knowledge base? Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15981/1/ frema-sem-wiki_NRH.pdf Miller, K. J., Koury, K., Fitzgerald, G., Hollingsead, C., Mitchem, K., & Tsai, H. (2007, December). Concept mapping as a research tool to evaluate conceptual change and learning gains. Paper presented at the meeting of the ACRES USA National Conference, Louisville, KY. Milligan, C. (2006). What is a PLE? The future or just another buzz word? Retrieved August 30, 2008 from http:// www.elearning.ac.uk/news_folder/ple%20event Milman, N. (1999, March). Web-based electronic teaching portfolios for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX. Misanchuk, M., & Anderson, T. (2000). Building community in an online learning environment: Communication, cooperation and collaboration (On-line). Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/19.html MLC. (2008). Leveraging social networking sites in marketing communications. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://www.ittoolbox.com/advertising/pdf/LeveragingSocial-Media-Networking-Sites-in-Marketing-Communications.pdf Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 85–103. doi:10.1007/BF02504545 Moallem, M. (2007). Accomodating individual differences in the design of online learning environments: a comparative study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 217–245. Moe, M. T., & Blodget, H. (2000). The knowledge web. New York: Merrill Lynch & Co. Möller, K. (2006). Demo: Publishing desktop data with semiBlog. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://www.eswc2006. org/demo-papers/FD46-Moeller.pdf Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 115–122. doi:10.1007/ BF02299678

540

Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(4), 66. Montgomery, K., & Wiley, D. (2004). Creating e-portfolios using PowerPoint: A guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Moon, J. (2005). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory & Practice. Londond, UK: Routledge Falmer. Moon, P. (2007) Qual é o futuro da Web, segundo Tim Berners-Lee. ComputerWorld. Retrieved the June 29th, 2008, from www.geocities.com/adagenor/Webs/QualfuturodaWeb.pdf Moore, D. E., & Cordes, D. L. (1992). Needs assessment. In A. B. Rosof & W. C. Felch (Eds.), Continuing Medical Education: A Primer (Second ed., pp. 42-51). New York: Praeger Publishers. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 1–6. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2). Retrieved February 15, 2009 from: http://www.ajde.com/Contents/vol3_2.htm Morris, J., & Buckland, H. (2000, March). Electronic portfolios for learning and assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA. Morse, K. (2003). Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning in a multicultural environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 37–55. Morville, P. (2005). Ambient Findability. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Mosley, P. A. (1998). Creating a library assignment workshop for university faculty. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24(1), 33–41. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(98)90137-9 Moura, A. (2007). A Web 2.0 na aula de língua materna: relato de uma experiência. In A. B. Alves (org.) Actas do Encontro Internacional “Discurso, Metodologia e Tecnologia (pp. 9-24). Miranda do Douro, Portugal: CEAMM. MPEG. (2008). Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://www. chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-7/mpeg-7.htm


Mungania, P. (2003). The Seven E-learning Barriers Facing Employees:a research report Funded by the Masie Center. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.aerckenya.org/ docs/ElearningReport.pdf Murphy, J., & Lebans, R. (2007, October). Using Web 2.0 tools in the secondary school classroom: Unexpected student learning, evolving teacher identity, and emerging pedagogical issues. Advanced Broadband Enabled Learning (ABEL). Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://portal.abelearn.ca/cms/ One.aspx?portalId=248124&pageId=248154 Murugesan, S. (2007). Get ready to embrace Web 3.0. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://www.cutter.com/ bia/fulltext/reports/2007/08/index.html Musser, J., O’Reilly, T., & O’Reilly Radar Team. (2007). Web 2.0 – Principles and Best Practice, Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Nass, G., & Levitt, M. (2006). Getting results by empowering the information worker: what web 2.0 offers beyond blogs and wikis. IDC. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http:// myworklight.com/pdf/IDC%20Whitepaper.pdf Nass, G., & Levitt, M. (2007). Consumerizing the Enterprise: Worklight Inc. Offers Web 2.0 Benefits to the Enterprise. IDC. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://myworklight. com/pdf/Consumerizing%20the%20Enteprise%20Serendipity%20Technology.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates. NCES Report National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide: A report on the telecommunications and information technology gap in America (1999). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.ntia. doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/FTTN.pdf

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. New Media Consortium. (2005). A global imperative: the report of the 21st Century Literacy Summit. New Media Consortium. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://archive. nmc.org/pdf/Global_Imperative.pdf Newcomer, E., & Lomow, G. (2005). Understanding SOA with Web services. Upper Saddle River, NJ: AddisonWesley. Newell, R. J. (2003). Passion for learning: How projectbased learning meets the needs of 21st-century students. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Ni, S., & Aust, R. (2008). Examining teacher verbal immediacy and sense of classroom community in online classes. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 477–498. Nicoletti, B. A., & Merriman, W. (2007, Apr/May). Teaching millennial generation students. Momentum, 38(3), 29–31. Nielsen, J., & Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing Web Usability. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press. Nikolov, R. (2007, June). Towards Web 2.0 schools: Rethinking the teachers’ professional development. Paper presented at the meeting of the Joint IFIP Conference, Boston, MA. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://hal.archives-ouvertes. fr/docs/00/19/00/77/PDF/Nikolov-Roumen-2007.pdf Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of ‘Ba’: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). Criação de Conhecimento na Empresa. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Campus. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001). Why Lurkers Lurk. In Proceedings of the AMCIS Conference, Boston.

Neal, L. (2008). Predictions for 2008. Retrieved from Internet September 1, 2008 http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage. cfm?section=articles&article=58-1

Norman, D. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books.

Norman, D. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Nelson, T. H. (1992). Opening hypertext: a memoir. In M. C. Tulman, (Ed.). Literacy online, (pp. 43-57). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Norman, G. R., Shannon, S. I., & Marrin, M. L. (2004). The need for needs assessment in continuing medical education. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 328(7446), 999–1001. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7446.999

541


Norris, D., Mason, J., & Lefrere, P. (2004). Experiencing knowledge. Innovate, 1(1). Retrieved November 17, 2005, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index. php?view=article&id=5

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials. Understanding the new students. EDUCAUSE Review, (July-August): 37–47.

North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). (2007). Online learning facts. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.nacol.org/media/

Oblinger, D. (2003, July/August). Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the “new students.” EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 37-47. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf

Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.

Oblinger, D. (2004). The next genearation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (8): 1–18.

Nussbaum, E. (2007, February). Say Everything: Kids, the Internet and the End of Privacy. New York Magazine, February 12, 2007.

Oblinger, D. (2006). Listening to what we’re seeing. Keynote paper presented at ALT–C 2006. Retrieved from http://www. alt.ac.uk/docs/Diana_Oblinger_20060905_25MB_88Mins. mp3

Nworie, J., & Dwyer, F. (2004). Knowledge management and instructional design: Optimizing organizational knowledge. Performance Improvement, 43, 27–32. doi:10.1002/ pfi.4140430709 Nykänen, O. (2006). Inducing fuzzy models for student classification. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 223–234. O`Hear, S. (2006). E-Learning 2.0 – How Web Technologies are Shaping Education. Retrieved the April 20th, 2008 from http//:www.readwriteWeb.com/archives/e-learning_20. php. O’Hear, S. (2006, August 8). E-learning 2.0: How web technologies are shaping education. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/elearning_20.php O’Neil. (1995). Finding Time to Learn. [November.]. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 11–15. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://www.oreillynet.com/ pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html O’Reilly, T. (2006). Web 2.0 compact definition: Trying again. O’Reilly Radar, December 10, 2006. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/12/web-20compact-definition-tryi.html O’Reilly, T., & Musser, J. (2006). Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices: O’Reilly radar. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/11/web-20-principlesand-best-pra.html

542

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net Generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation. Educause 2005, http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/ Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net Generation. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (eds.), Educating the net generation. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www. educause.edu/IsItAgeorIT%3AFirstStepsTowardUndersta ndingtheNetGeneration/6058 OECD (2007). Participative Web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis, and social networking. OECD 2007 Report. Office of the Greek Prime Minster. (1999). GR: Greece in the Information Society - Strategy and Actions. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.epractice.eu/document/2885 OhmyNews. (2006). Why OhmyNews? Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/ company/01_introduction.aspx Oldenburg, R. (1997). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York: Marlowe & Company.


Oliver, R. (2005). Ten more years of educational technologies: How far have we travelled. Australian Educational Computing, 20(1), 1–8. Open Courseware Consortium. (2007). Homepage. Retrieved from Internet August 30, 2008 http://www.ocwconsortium.org Oradini, F., & Saunders, G. (2008. The use of social networking by students and staff in higher education. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://www.eife-l.org/publications/ Özkan, B. C., & Campbell, A. (2007). Adopting Elgg for electronic learning portfolios. In [Chesapeake, VA: AACE.]. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2007, 158–163. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Palmer, P. J. (1980). To Know As We Are Known: Education as a Spiritual Journey. San Francisco, CA: Harper One. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach [electronic resource]: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pantazis, C. (2002). Maximizing E-learning to train the 21st century workforce. International Public Management Association for Human Resources, 2002(1), February 20, 2006 Papadiodorou, B. (2003, June 2). Six out of 10 Greeks are digital illiterate. Eleftherotipia-Ent, 3. Papakonstantinou, G. (2001). The Business Program “Digital Community” and its meaning to Greek business. New Internet Economy and e-Commerce. Greece: Kerkira. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books. Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Park, C. (2003). In Other (People’s) Words: plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 471–488. doi:10.1080/02602930301677 Park, H., Jung, J., & Collins, C. M. (2008). Effect of activities in second life as a tool for understanding gender roles. Paper presented at the Conference of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Las Vegas, NV. Parker, A. (1999). Interactivity in Distance Education: The critical conversation. The Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 8, 15–30. Pasley, J. (2005). How BPEL and SOA are changing Web services development. IEEE Internet Computing, 9(3), 60–67. doi:10.1109/MIC.2005.56 Passerini, K. & Granger, M. J. (2000). The learning effectiveness of instructional technologies: Results from pilot studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 473385). Pastore, R., & Pastore, R. (2007). Technology for the Classroom: Creating and Using Podcasts. In R. Craslen, et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007. (2080-2082). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pea, R. D. (2004). The importance of community tools for learning technologies research, development, and educational practices. In N. Sabelli & R. Pea, (Eds.), Center for Innovative Learning Technologies (CILT): Six years of knowledge networking in learning sciences and technologies (pp. 14-23). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://ctl.sri.com/publications/displayPublication.jsp?ID=372 Pedagogical Institute. (2008). Teacher Training-Total Assess Report. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www. pi-schools.gr/programs/ktp/

543


Peery, A. B. (2004). Deep change: Professional development from the inside out. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Pekala, N. (2001). Conquering the generational divide. Journal of Property Management, November/December, 30-38. Pena, C.-I., Marzo, J.-L., & Rosa, J.-L. l. (2002). Intelligent agents in a teaching and learning environment on the Web. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT2002. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://lttf.ieee.org/icalt2002/proceedings/t104_icalt094_End.pdf Pence, H. E. (2007). Preparing for the real web generation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 347–356. doi:10.2190/7116-G776-7P42-V110 Perez Cereijo, M. (2006). Attitude as predictor of success in online training. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), 623–639. Perkins, D. (1996). Mind in the hood. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. v-viii). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Perkins, D. N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A conversation (pp. 45-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Perryman, J. (2006). Reading Habits Change in New Online Revolution. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http:// houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1997/07/28/ editorial4.html Peter, S. E., Dastbaz, M., & Bacon, E. (2008). Personalised e-learning, Semantic Web and Learning Ontologies. In J. Luca & E. R. Weippl (Eds), Proceedings of the 20th World Conference On Educational Multimédia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, EDMEDIA 2008, (pp. 1818-1825). Austria: University of Vienna. Petrinjak, A., & Graham, R. (2004). Creating learning objects from pre-authored course materials: Semantic structure of learning objects - Design and technology. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(3). Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2002). Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org

544

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2005). Trends2005. Internet: Mainstreaming of online life. Washington, D.C. Available online at: http:www.pewinternet.org Pew Internet & American Life Project. Various authors. They have an ongoing series of reports. See http://www. pewinternet.org Phillips, M. R., & Peters, M. J. (1999). Targeting Rural Students with Distance Learning Courses: A comparative study of determinant attributes and satisfaction levels. Journal of Education for Business, 74(6), 351–356. Piano, A. R. (2007). Vinte anos de investigação sobre Tecnologias Educativas em Portugal: uma sistematização da investigação desenvolvida entre 1985 e 2005. Master Dissertation (unpublished), Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Picciano, A. (2001). Distance learning: Making connections across virtual time and space. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40. Pickett, L. (2004). Potential for play in a primary literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25(3), 267–274. doi:10.1080/1090102050250310 Pierson, M. E., & Kumari, S. (2000, March). Web-based student portfolios in a graduate instructional technology program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA. Pine, B. J., III, & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and ever business is a stage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of Myers-Briggs type indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63, 467–488. Plato. (1952). Dialogues of Plato (1 ed. Vol. 7). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, Incorporated. Pohl, M. (2004). Guidelines for E-Learning - Advantages and Disadvantages. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004, (pp. 4827-4830). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.


Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for projectbased learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431–466. doi:10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_3

the Horizon, 9(6). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky. com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20 Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4).

Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging Online Life of the Digital Natives. Retrieved the July 24th, 2008, from http://www. marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-he_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf

Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussionoriented online course: a case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 162–177. Powers, M. J. (2005). Effective online learning: recognizing e-learnability. PAACE Journal of Lifetime Learning, 14, 49–64. Powers, S. M., & Mitchell, J. (1997). Student perceptions and performance in a virtual classroom environment. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409005). Pratt, S. P. (2006). A framework for the ontological representation of organizational memory. Ph.D Thesis, Walden University. Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, support sociability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, LTC. Preece, J. (2003). Tacit knowledge and social capital: Supporting sociability in online communities of practice. In Proceedings of I-KNOW’03, 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Management, Graz, Austria, July 2-4. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/ Papers/Graz_KM_I_KNIW%2003.pdf Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Horizon, 9(5). Prensky, M. (2001b, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from http://www. marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20 Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Prensky, M. (2001c, December). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On

Prensky, M. (2005, September/October). Engage me or enrage me: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Review, 60–64. Prensky, M. (2006). “Don’t bother me Mom—I’m learning!” How computer and video games are preparing your kids for Twenty-first Century success—how you can help!” St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Press, M., & Cooper, R. (2003). The design experience: The role of design and designers in the twenty-first century. Ashgate: England. proceedings/ilf08/contributions/improving-quality-oflearning-with-tech-Oradini_Saunders.pdf Provata, A. (2006). The European decisions and the advancement of European integration through citizen and University mobility (1992-2006). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.elemedu.upatras.gr/eriande/synedria/ synedrio4/praktika1/provata.htm Prud’hommeaux, E., & Seaborne, A. (2005). SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Working Draft. Retrieved November 24, 2005 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/ WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050419/. Punie, Y. C & Cabrera, M. (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the Knowledge Society. Report on a Joint DG JRC-DG EAC Workshop, Seville, October 2006. Institute For Prospective Technological Studies. EU: Joint Research Center. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Qi, J., & Vandersall, K. (2007). Facilitating Reflective Practice for Pre-Service Teachers Through Electronic Portfolio Development. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2609-2616). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

545


Qian, Y. (2007). Meaninful Learning with Wikis: making a connection. In R. Craslen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007, (pp. 20932997), Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Qian, Y. (2007). Meaninful Learning with Wikis: making a connection. In R. Craslen et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2007. (2093-2997). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Quitter, J. (1994). The Merry Pranksters go to Washington. Wired magazine, June, 79-81. Race, P. (2000). 500 Tips for Open and Flexible Learning. London: Kogan Page Limited. Ragsdale, J. (2007). Knowledge Management 2.0: SSPA Member’s Choice Topic. SSPA News. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http://www.thesspa.com/sspanews/_07May/ article3.asp Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. S., & Cox, K. E. (2006). The influence of teachers’ technology use on instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 409–424. Rakes, G. C., Flowers, B. F., Casey, H. B., & Santana, R. (1999). An analysis of instructional technology use and constructivist behaviors in k-12 teachers. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 1–18. Ramamoorthy, C. V. (2000). A study of the service industry - functions, features, and control. ICICE Transactions Communications . E (Norwalk, Conn.), 83-B(5), 885–903. Rangaswami, J. P. (2008). Confused of Calcutta: A blog about information. Retrieved November 24, 2008 from http://confusedofcalcutta.com/about-me/ Rasmussen, K. L. (1998). Hypermedia and learning styles: can performance be influenced? Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 291–308. Reed, P., Smith, B., & Sherratt, C. (2008). Approaching a New Age of Constructivism. ELearning, 5, (3). Retrieved July, 14, 2008, from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/elea/content/pdfs/5/issue5_3.asp#7 Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic Activities and Online Learning. In Proceedings of HERDSA 2002.

546

Reid, L. (1995). Perceived Effects of Block Scheduling on the Teaching of English, (ERIC #: ED 382 950). Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2002). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Rennie, F., & Mason, R. (2004). The connecticon: Learning for the connected generation. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub. Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for lifelong kindergarten. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 43–55. doi:10.1007/BF02299672 Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (E.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Reuters (2006, October 18). Study shows Internet addicts cover up habit. eWeek.com. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2033323,00. asp Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. New York: Addison Wesley. Rhodus, T., van Buchem, V., & Witney, B. (2007). Web 2.0: Building online communities using social networking technologies. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http:// webgarden.osu.edu/buckeye2007.pdf Rice-Lively, M. L., & Racine, J. D. (1997). The role of academic librarians in the era of information technology. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(1), 31–41. doi:10.1016/ S0099-1333(97)90069-0 Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcast and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles -- an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3-4), 193–215. doi:10.1080/0144341910110301 Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style and learning from multimedia materials in 11-year old children.


British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 43–54. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00089

distance courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 77–97. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1702_2

Riel, M., & Fulton, K. (2001). The role of technology in supporting learning communities. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 518.

Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2004). Exploring the interaction equation: Validating a rubric to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 24–37.

Riley, R. W., & Roberts, L. G. (2000, December). Putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children: The national educational technology plan. eLearning. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education. Roberts, G. R. (2005). Technology and learning expectations of the Net Generation. In D.G. Oblinger & Oblinger, J.L. (Eds.) Educating the new generation: EduCause eBook. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://www.educause.edu/ content.asp?page_id=6056&bhcp=1 Roberts, G. R. (2005). Technology and learning expectations of the net generation. In D. Oblinger, & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), (p. 3.2). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://bibpurl.oclc.org/web/9463 Roberts, R. M. (2002). The role of computers in school restructuring: A meta-analysis. Unpublished Masters thesis, California State University, Fresno. Roberts, R. M. (2007, April). The effective instructional use of computers: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 16-20, 2007. Roberts, R. M., & Strudler, N. (2009, April). The differential use of Web 2.0 technologies by Digital Generation preservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 14, 2009.

Rodley, C. (2005). Meeting the demands of the Net Gen. UniNews, The University of Sydney, October 28, 2005. Available online at: http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84. html?newsstoryid=744 Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, fourth edition. New York: The Free Press. Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., Gisela, D., & Tochtermann, K. (2007). The Web 2.0 way of learning with technologies . International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87–107. doi:10.1504/IJLT.2007.012368 Romanoff, J. S. (2003). A case study: linking students across geographical and cultural distances. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 94. Rosen, A. (2006). Technology Trends: e-learning 2.0. The e-learning Guild’s Learning Solutions E-Magazine. Retrieved May 24th 2008, from http://www.readygo.com/elearning-2.0.pdf Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rossetto, L. (1993). Why Wired? Wired (San Francisco, Calif.), 1(1), 2. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Roberts, R., & Strudler, N. (2008, March). Some Attributes of 21st Century Learners in the Online Environment: The Digital Generation and Web 2.0. Paper presented at SITE 2008—Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference to be held in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, March 3-7, 2008.

Routman, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Toronto, Canada: Irwin Publishing.

Roblyer, M. D. (1999). Student motives for taking Internetbased courses at the high school and community college levels. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 157–171.

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1–16.

Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive qualities in

Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33–48. doi:10.1007/BF02504946

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00102-1

547


Rowntree, D. (1977). Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them? London: Harper and Row. Ruckhaus, E. (1999). A Monitoring Program for Evaluation of Educational Software on the World Wide Web. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 1999 (pp. 1402-1403). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2002). Handbook of online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2002). The coming of age of adult online education. In K. Erik Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training. (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Ruhl, K., Hughes, C., & Schloss, P. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14–18. Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207–212. doi:10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002 Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., & Booch, G. (2004). The unified modeling language reference manual (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series. Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2001). Sharing knowledge through intranets: A study of organizational culture and intranet implementation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44, 37–52. doi:10.1109/47.911131 Rushkoff, D. (1996). Playing the future how kids’ culture can teach us to thrive in an age of chaos. New York: HarperCollins. Russell, J., Elton, L., Swinglehurst, D., & Greenhalgh, T. (2006). Using the online environment in assessment for learning: A case-study of a web-based course in primary care. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 465–478. doi:10.1080/02602930600679209 Russell, P. (1983). The global brain: Speculations on the evolutionary leap to planetary consciousness. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher. Sackville, A. (2002). Designing for Interaction. In proceedings of the Third International Conference – Networked Learning, Sheffield, UK (pp.534-541). Retrieved July, 14,

548

2008, from http://www.networkedlearningconference. org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/individual_papers/sackville_schofield.htm Sadasivam, R. S. (2008). Architecture framework for process-personalized composite services: Service-oriented architecture, Web services, business-process engineering, and human interaction management (Paperback ed.). Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller e.K. Sadasivam, R. S., & Tanik, M. M. (2008). Composite process-personalization with service-oriented architecture In B. Unhelkar (Ed.), Handbook of Research In Mobile Business: Technical, Methodological And Social Perspectives. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Sadasivam, R. S., Tanik, M. M., & Kristofco, R. (2006, June 25-30). A service-oriented approach for intelligent information integration and retrieval. Paper presented at the Int. Design and Process Technology, San Diego, CA. Sajja, P. S. (2006). Parichay: An agent for adult literacy. Prajna, 14, 17–24. Sajja, P. S. (2007). Knowledge representation using fuzzy XML rules for knowledge-based adviser. International Journal of Computer . Mathematical Sciences and Applications, 1(2-4), 323–330. Sajja, P. S. (2008). Multi-agent system for knowledge-based access to distributed databases. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 3, 1–9. Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://net.educause.edu/ ir/library/pdf/ERS0808/RS/ERS0808w.pdf Salmon, G. (2000). eModerating: The Key to Teaching & Learning Online. London: Taylor and Francis Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Routledge Falmer. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2nd ed.) London: Taylor & Francis. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.


Sankaran, S. R., Sankaran, D., & Bui, T. X. (2000). Effect of student attitude to course format on learning performance: An empirical study in web vs. lecture instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 66–73. Santamaria, F. G., & Abraira, C. F. (2006). Wikis: posibilidades para el aprendizaje colaborativo em Educacion Superior. In L. Panizo et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computers in Education, (Vol 2), pp. 371-378. Santamaria, F. G., & Abrairia, C. F. (2006). Wikis: possibilidades para el aprendizaje colaborativo em Educacion Superior. In L. Panizo et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computers in Education, (Vol. 2, pp. 371-378). Léon, Spain: University of Léon. Santo, S. (2006). Relationships between learning styles and online learning: Myth or reality? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(3), 73–88. Santoro, G. (1995). What is computer-mediated communication? In Z. L. Berg & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computermediated communication and the online classroom, (Vol. 1, pp. 11-27). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Satzinger, J. W., Jackson, R. B., & Burd, S. D. (2006). Systems analysis & design in a changing world (4th ed.). Boston: Course Technology. Saunders, L. (2007). Regional accreditation organizations’ treatment of information literacy: Definitions, collaboration, and assessment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(3), 317–326. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.01.009 Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.) Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://ikit.org/ fulltext/inpressCollectiveCog.pdf Schaffert, S., Bischof, D., Bürger, T., Gruber, A., Hilzensauer, W., & Schaffert, S. (2006). Learning with semantic wikis. Retrieved August 01, 2008, from http://www.schaffert.eu/ download/paper/Schaffert06_SemWikiLearning.pdf Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world class e-learning: How IBM, GE, Harvard business school, and Columbia university are succeeding at e-learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schiff, S. (2006, July 31). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? New Yorker, 82. Retrieved

December 1, 2008, from http://www.newyorker.com/ archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing the internet to school: Lessons from an urban district. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schrier, K. (2006). Using augmented reality games to teach 21st century skills. International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniqies, ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Educators Program. Boston, MA. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from: http://delivery.acm. org/10.1145/1180000/1179311/p15-schrier.pdf?key1=11793 11&key2=5193514611&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=151 51515&CFTOKEN=6184618 Schulz, B. (2003). Collaborative learning in an online environment: will it work for teacher training? In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 503-504). Charlottesville VA: AACE. Schwab, R. (2000). Technology and the changing roles and responsibilities of teacher educators. Log On or Lose Out Technology in 21st Century [Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Publication.]. Teaching Education, 151–155. Schwartz, L., Clark, S., Cossarin, M., & Rudolph, J. (2004). Educational Wikis: features and selection criteria. The International Journal of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(1). Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www. irrodl.org/index/irrodl/article/view/163/244 Schwartzman, R. (2007). Refining the question: How can online instruction maximize opportunities for all students? Communication Education, 56(1), 113–117. doi:10.1080/03634520601009728 Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, C. E. (1999). Communication technology use and multiple workplace identifications among organizational teleworkers with varied degrees of virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, (42): 240–260. doi:10.1109/47.807961 Scott, P. & Conrad, C. (1991). A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research, (ERIC#: ED 337 087). Scott, P. A., & Conrad, C. F. (1992). A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon Press.

549


Seidensticker, B. (2006). Future hype: The myths of technology change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Seligman, K. (2006, May 14). Young and wired. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http:// www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/ CMGGKIACOL75.DTL Senese, D. J. (1983). Our future growth is tied to educational technology. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298881). Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Century Business.

2008, from http://www-kasm.nil.ac.jp/papers/takeda/07/ shakya07iswcp.pdf Shank, J. D., & Dewald, N. H. (2003). Establishing our presence in courseware: Adding library services to the virtual classroom. Information Technology and Libraries, 22(1), 38–43. Sharma, R. K. (2003). Understanding organizational learning through knowledge management. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 2(4), 343–352. doi:10.1142/ S021964920300053X Shelly, B. G., Cashman, J. T., & Rosenblatt, J. H. (1998). Systems Analysis and Design. USA: Course Technology.

Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shelly, G. B., Cashman, T. J., & Rosenblatt, H. J. (2007). Systems analysis and design (7th ed.). Boston: Course Technology.

Seo, S., Cui, X., & Shin, B. (2008). Effects of Collaborative Activities on Group Identity in Second Life. Paper presented at the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, November 17-19, 2008, Banff, Canada.

Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–343. doi:10.1086/209170

Serdyukov, P., Subbotin, I., & Serdyukova, N. (2003). ShortTerm Intensive College Instruction: What Are The Benefits For Adult Learners? Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2, 1550–1552.

Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners’ satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative and a qualitative measure. American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 4–28.

Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? Why is it important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: The Penguin Press.

SEV. (2004). Positons for the National Action Plan of Association of Greek Industrialists (SEV) of Work 2004, September 2004. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from http:// www.sev.org.gr/online/viewPos.aspx?id=39&mid=&lang =gr&Code=Opinions

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley and Sons.

Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Shakya, A., Takeda, H., Ohmukai, I., & Wuwongse, V. (2006). A publication aggregation system using semantic blogging. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://www-kasm. nii.ac.jp/papers/takeda/06/shakya06swc-ws.pdf Shakya, A., Takeda, H., Wuwongse, V., & Ohmukai, I. (2007). SocioBiblog: A decentralized platform for sharing bibliographic information. Retrieved December 03,

550

Shotsberger, P. G. (2000). The human touch: Synchronous communication in Web-based learning. Educational Technology, 40(1), 53–56. Shreiber, D. A., & Berge, Z. L. (1998). Distance training: How innovative organisations are using technology to maximise learning and business objectives., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sideman, J. (2006, August 27). Wired for safety, late-night snacks. USA Today. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2006-08-27campus-tech_x.htm


Siemens, G. (2002). Instructional design in elearning. elearnspace. Retrieved on April 8, 2005 from http://www. elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm

Simic, H., & Topolnik, M. (2003). Prospects of encoding Java source code in XML. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Telecommunications, Zagreb, Croatia.

Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. elearnspace. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Simões, L., & Gouveia, L. (2008). Web 2.0 and higher education: Pedagogical implications. Higher Education: New Challenges and Emerging Roles for Human and Social Development. 4th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education Technical University of Catalonia (UPC).

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 8. Siemens, G. (2007, March 29). University 2.0. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/archives/002858.html Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/ Siemens.pdf Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Retrieved September 1, 2008 from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm Sierra, C., & Folger, T. (2003). Building a Dynamic Online Learning Community among Adult Learners. Educational Media International, 40(1/2), 49. Silva, A. (2004). Professores utilizadores das TIC em contexto educativo: estudo de caso numa escola secundária. Unpublished master dissertation. Lisboa: FPCE-UL. Silva, C., Oliveira, L., Carvalho, M., & Martins, S. (2008). 3c@higher Education - Contribution, Collaboration, Community at Higher Education. In L. Gómez Chova et al (Eds.). INTED 2008, Proceedings of International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain: IATED. Silveira, I. F., Mustaro, P. N., & Omar, N. (2004). Aprendizagem significativa baseada em uma arquitetura multicamadas de objetos de aprendizagem adaptativos. VII Congresso IberoAmericano de Informática Educativa, Monterrey, CA. Simão, J. (2006). Relação entre os Blogs e Webjornalismo. Revista Prisma, 3(Outubro), 148–164.

Simon, B., Massart, D., Assche, F., Ternier, S., Duval, E., Brantner, S., et al. (2005). A Simple Query Interface for Interoperable Learning Repositories. In the Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Interoperability of Web-based Educational Systems (pp.11-18). Chiba, Japan, May, 2005. Simon, M. (2008, August). Online student-teacher friendships can be tricky. CNN.com. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/12/studentsteachers.online/ Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1–8. Siozos, P. D., & Palaigeorgiou, G. E. (2008). Educational technologies and the emergence of e-learning 2.0. Retrieved May 07, 2008, from http://www.igi-global.com/downloads/ excerpts/IGR6089_A56f1MJP8R.df Sloffer, S. J., Dueber, B., & Duffy, T. M. (1999). Using asynchronous conferencing to promote critical thinking: two implementations in higher education. Proceedings of HICSS-32, Maui Hawaii. Smith, B., Reed, P., & Jones, C. (2008). Mode Neutral Pedagogy. European Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning. Retrieved July, 22, 2008, from http://www.eurodl.org/ materials/contrib/2008/Smith_Reed_Jones.htm Smith, K. (1995). Cooperative Learning: effective teamwork for engineering classrooms. Engineering, University of Pittsburgh. Smith, M. K. (2000). The theory and rhetoric of the learning society. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved May 24th, 2008 from www.infed.org/lifelonglearning/blrnsoc.htm Smith, M. K. (2002, 2008) Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved August 12, 2008 from http://www.infed.org/ thinkers/gar 551


Smith, R., & Curtin, P. (1998). Children, computers and life online: education in a cyber-world. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to Screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era, (pp. 185-210). New York: Routledge. Smith, S. (1999). Qwhiz: An Interactive Tool For Math And Science Learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Mathematics / Science [Chesapeake, VA: AACE.]. Educational Technology, 1999, 166–170. Smith, S. S., & Sutton, L. (2008). Embedded librarians. College & Research Libraries News, 69(2), 71–85. Snider, M. (2006, June 8). iPods knock over beer mugs. USA Today, 9D. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-06-07-ipodtops-beer_x.htm Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 241–256. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.06.008 Snyder, I. (Ed.). (1998). Page to screen: Taking literary into the electronic era. New York: Routledge.

Spitzer, D. R. (2001). Don’t forget the high-touch with the high-tech in distance learning. Educational Technology, 61(2), 51–55. St. Pierre, A. A., Carruthers, S., Coady, Y., Dunn-Krahn, R., Dunn-Krahn, S., Gibbs, C., et al. (2007). Young minds storming through challenging computer science concepts. In Proceedings of Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE). Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledgebuilding. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2000), Ann Arbor, MI (pp. 70-77). Retrieved September 23, 2006, from http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/ publications/conferences/2000/icls/ Stepich, D. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2003). Building community as a critical element of online course design. Educational Technology, 43(5), 33–43. Stilborne, L., & Williams, L. (1996). Meeting the needs of adult Learners in Developing Courses for the Internet. In . Proceedings of INET, 1996, c4.

Sosnoski, J. J., Harkin, P., & Carter, B. (2006). Configuring history. Teaching the Harlem renaissance through virtual reality cityscapes. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Stock, W. G. (2007) Press Folksonomies and science communication: a mash-up of professional science databases and Web 2.0 services. Information Services & Use, 97–103, 97 IOS. Retrieved Jan 25th, 2009 from http://wwwalt.philfak.uni-duesseldorf.de/infowiss/admin/public_dateien/ files/1/1194272247inf_servic.pdf

Soto, A. D., Capdevila, C. A., & Fernández, E. C. (2003). Fuzzy Systems and Neural Networks XML Schemas for Soft Computing. Mathware & Soft Computing, 10(2-3), 43–56.

Story, H. (2007). Developing Web 3.0. JavaOneSM Conference. Retrieved the 29th June, 2008, http://bblfish.net/work/ presentations/2007/BOF-6747.pdf

Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1997). The fourth turning: An American prophecy. New York: Broadway Books.

Spadavecchia, E. (2008). E-learning 2.0 for supplementary teaching. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www. je-lks.it/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ap_spadavecchia.pdf

Street, B. (1998). New literacies in theory and practice: What are the implications for language in education? Linguistics and Education, 10(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/S08985898(99)80103-X

Spiceland, J. D., & Hawkins, C. P. (2002). The impact on learning of an asynchronous active learning course format. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 68–75.

Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies: Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2)

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: ISTE Publications.

Spitzer, D. R. (1996). Motivation: The neglected factor in instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(3), 45–49.

552

Sturm, M., Kennel, T., McBride, M., & Kelly, M. (2008). The pedagogical implications of Web 2.0. In M. Thomas (Ed.) Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 367-384). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.


Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics course. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250. doi:10.1007/ s10755-005-1938-x Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. EUA: Anchor. Sutton, L. A. (2000, April). Vicarious interaction: A learning theory for computer-mediated communications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242. Swam, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact, and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331. doi:10.1080/0158791010220208 Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication, and Information, 2, 23-49. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from http://www.kent.edu/rcet/Publications/upload/ SocPres%20ECI.pdf Swan, K., Schenker, J., Arnold, S., & Kuo, C.-L. (2007). Shaping online discussion: assessment matters. E-mentor, 1(18). Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.ementor.edu.pl/_xml/wydania/18/390.pdf Swanson, T. (2004). A radical step: Implementing a critical information literacy model. Portal (Baltimore, Md.), 4, 259–273. Sweeney, R. (2006). Millennial behaviors & demographics. Unpublished paper. New Jersey Institute of Technology. Retrieved June 2, 2008 from http://library1.njit.edu/stafffolders/sweeney/Millennials/Article-Millennial-Behaviors. doc Tabron, J. (2008, March 28). How to find what clicks in the classroom. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(29), A1.

Takeuchi, H. (1998). Beyond Knowledge Management: Lessons from Japan. Retrieved August 02, 2007, from http:// www.sveiby.com/ Portals/0/articles/LessonsJapan.htm Tandefelt, M. (2008). Web 2.0 and network society - PR and communication: The challenge of online social network. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://www.diva-portal. org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_uu_diva-9187-2_fulltext.pdf Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: the rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Net Generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio/Penguin. Tastle, W., White, B., & Shackleton, P. (2005). E-learning in higher education: The challenge, effort, and return on investment. International Journal on E-Learning, 4(2), 241–251. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 TechnologyRadar2006web30.pdf Technorati. About us. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from http:// technorati.com/about/ Teten, D. (2007). Web 3.0: Where are Headed? Retrieved the 29th June, 2008, from www.teten.com/assets/docs/ Teten-Web-3.0.pdf The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). IT by the numbers. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from The Chronicle of Higher Education Website: http://chronicle.com/weekly/ v50/i21/21b02901.htm Thiessen, J. (2001). Faculty attitudes in delivering undergraduate distance education. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from http://hdl.handle.net/2194/564 Thomas, D. A., & Li, Q. (2008). From Web 2.0 to Teacher 2.0. Computers in the Schools, 25(3/4), 199–210. doi:10.1080/07380560802371037 Timmis, S., O’Leary, T., Weedon, E., & Martin, K. (2004a). Communication. SOLE: Thematic report series. Bristol, UK: Institute for Learning and Research Technology.

553


Retrieved June, 13, 2008, from http://sole.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ communications.pdf Tinker, C. B. (1955). The library. In J. D. Marshall, W. Shirley & L. Shores (Eds.), Books, libraries, librarians: Contributions to library literature (p. 167). Hamden, CT: The Shoe String Press. Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A metaanalysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), 28–45. Tosh, D., & Werdmuller, B. (2004). Creation of a learning landscape: Weblogging and social networking in the context of e-portfolios. Retrieved September 21, 2006 from http:// www.eradc.org/papers/Learning_landscape.pdf Toub, D., & Kostic, M. (2008). Collaborative CME using Web 2.0 technologies. Alliance for CME Almanac, 30(8), 1–3. Trechera, l. M., Mellado, A. G., Patino, S. F. & Rodriguez Huertas (2008). Web 2.0 tools in Education. In L. Gómez Chova, et al (Eds.), INTED 2008, Proceedings of International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain: IATED. Trentin, G. (2000). The quality-interactivity relationship in distance education. Educational Technology, 40(1), 17–27. Triandis, H. C. (1979). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 195-259). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Triantafillou, E., & Georgiadou, E., & Economides. (2008). The design and evaluation of a computerized adaptive test on mobile devices. Computers & Education, 50, 1319–1330. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.005 Trollip, S. R., & Blignaut, A. S. (2005). Measuring faculty participation in ALN as a basis for faculty development. Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.unex.edu/disted/conference. Tsui, B. (2000). Generation next. Advertising Age, 72(3), 14–16. Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2002). eLearning communities. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 207–218.

554

Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. doi:10.1207/ S15389286AJDE1603_2 Turban, E., McLean, E., & Wetherbe, J. (2004). Tecnologia da informação para gestão, Porto Alegre, Brazil: Bookman. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Turner, F. (2006). From counterculture to cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the rise of digital Utopianism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Effects of collaboration mode and group composition in computer-mediated instruction. International Convention of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX. Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 101–124. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9050-9 Tyan, N. N. & Hong, F. M. (1998). When western technology meets oriental culture: Use of computer-mediated communication in a higher education classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416839). Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time e-learners. MERLOT Journal of online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 73-85. U. S. Census Bureau. (2005). Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The Condition of Education 2002, NCES 2002-025. Washington, DC: NPO. U.S. Department of Labor. (1999). Occupational Outlook Handbook. U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. (2008). Why Web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www2008.org/papers/pdf/p705-ullrichA.pdf Ulmer, C. J., & Timothy, M. (2002) How do teachers reflections affect teaching practices. Follow up study. In G. Sheil


& U. Ni Dhalaigh. (Eds) Other ways of seeing: Diversity in Language and Literacy, (Vol. 2, pp. 157-163). UNESCO. (2008). ICT competency standards for teachers. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from http://cst. unesco-ci.org/sites/projects/cst/The%20Standards/ICTCST Policy%20Framework.pdf Urdan, T. A., & Weggen, C. C. (2000). Corporate e-Learning: Exploring a new frontier, WR Hambrecht + Co. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.wrhambrecht.com/research/coverage/elearning/ir/ir_explore.html Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. L. (2002). Cyberkids? Exploring children’s identities and social networks in on-line and off-line worlds. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Association of American Geographers, 92, 302–319. doi:10.1111/1467-8306.00292 Vampola, K. A. (2001). Adult learner preferences for various corporate training activities. Dissertation, University of Nebraska at Lincoln. van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ Meanings Regarding Educational Practice. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 577–625. doi:10.3102/00346543072004577 Vanharmelen, M. (2007). Briefing paper on Web 2.0 technologies for content sharing: Web 2.0 – An introduction. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from www.franklin consulting.co.uk/LinkedDocuments/Introduction%20to%20 Web%202.doc. Vanharmelen, M. (2007). Briefing paper on Web 2.0 technologies for content sharing: Web 2.0 – An introduction. Retrieved the 17th June, 2008, from www.franklin consulting.co.uk/LinkedDocuments/Introduction%20to%20 Web%202.doc Verdejo, M. F., Barros, B., Mayorga, J. I., & Read, T. (2003). Including collaborative learning designs in a Learning Object Repository. In H.U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo & J. Kay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp.509-511). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Vircus, S. (2003)Information literacy in Europe: a literature review. Information Research, 8(4) paper no. 159. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://informationr.net/ ir/8-4/paper159.html

Vogel, D., & Klassen, J. (2001). Technology-supported learning: Status, issues and trends. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 104–114. doi:10.1046/j.13652729.2001.00163.x Voigt, E. (2007). Web 2.0, E-Learning 2.0, EaD 2.0: Para Onde Caminha a Educação a Distância. In Congresso da Associação Brasileira de Ensino a Distância. Retrieved May 24th, 2008, from http://www.abed.org.br/congresso2007/ tc/55200750254PM.pdf Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2001). Facilitando a criação do conhecimento: reinventando a empresa com o poder de inovação. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Campus. Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36. Vygotskii, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group collaboration. Communications of the AIS, 13, 265–289. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29. Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71, 19–26. doi:10.1002/tl.7103 Wahlster, W., & Dengel, A. (2006). Web 3.0: Convergence of Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Retrieved May 08, 2008, from http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~sauermann/papers/ Wahlstrom, C. Williams, B.K., & Shea, P. (2003). The successful distance learning student. Belmont, CA: Scratchgravel. Waits, T., Lewis, L., & Greene, B. (2003). Distance Education At Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved February 18, 2009 from: http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003017 Wall, T. C., Mian, M. A., Ray, M. N., Casebeer, L., Collins, B. C., & Kiefe, C. I. (2005). Improving physician performance through Internet-based interventions: Who will

555


participate? Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(4), e48. doi:10.2196/jmir.7.4.e48 Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computermediated communications: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186–203. doi:10.1287/ orsc.6.2.186 Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342–369. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00400.x Wang, H. A., Thompson, P., & Shuler, C. F. (1998). Essential components of problem-based learning for the K-12 inquiry science instruction. Los Angeles: USC California Science Project and Center For Craniofacial Molecular Biology. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://www.usc.edu/hsc/ dental/ccmb/usc-csp/publications.html Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored Learning to Teach According to Standards-Based Reform: A Critical Review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 481–546. doi:10.3102/00346543072003481 Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 231–250. Wang, M., Poole, M., Harris, B., & Wangemann, P. (2001). Educational technology, promoting online collaborative Learning experiences for teenagers . Educational Media International, 203–215. doi:10.1080/09523980110105079

Watkins, S. (1996). World Wide Web authoring in the portfolio-assessed, (inter)networked composition course. Computers and Composition, 13(12), 219–230. doi:10.1016/ S8755-4615(96)90011-0 Web 2.0. (2008). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:15, August 30, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia. org/w/index.php?title=Web_2.0&oldid=269135746 Web 2.0. (2008). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 Webb, P. L. (2007). YouTube and libraries. College & Research Libraries News, 68(6), 354–355. Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., & Ryan, L. (1993). The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 411–426. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(93)90032-N Wedemeyer, C. A. (1981). Learning at the back door: Reflections on non-traditional learning in the lifespan. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Weinberger, D. (1999). The longing, Chapter 2. In C. Locke, D. Searls, & D. Weinberger, (Eds.), The cluetrain manifesto: the end of business as usual, (pp. 39-46). New York: Basic Books. Weiss, M. J. (2000). The demographic investor. American Demographics, 22(12), 48–55. Weitzenkamp, D. J., & Heckathorn, B. H. (2001). Opening gates of learning environments through technology: Introducing new technologies to the adult learner. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 458189). Weller, B. & Dalziel, (2007). Bridging the gap between Web 2.0 and higher education. Retrieved August 30, 2008 from http://lams2007sydney.lamsfoundation.org/pdfs/04g.pdf

Wang, M., Sierra, C., & Folger, T. (2003). Building a dynamic online learning community among adult learners. Educational Media International, 40, 49–61. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092116

Weller, B. (2008, June 16). SocialLearn: Bridging the gap between Web 2.0 and university. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://mfeldstein.com/sociallearn-bridging-the-gapbetween-web-20-and-higher-education

Wang, T. (2008). Web-based quiz-game-like formative assessment: Development and evaluation. Computers & Education, 51, 1247–1263. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.011

Wells, R. (1992). A review of computer-mediated communication for distance education: Teaching and design. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386162).

Wark, M. (1993, December). Planet of noise: So who are generation X and why are they saying these terrible things about us? Juice, 74-78.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved August 30, 2008 from http://www. ewenger.com/theory

556


Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (1993). Building school communities: an experienced-based model. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 324–328. Wheel, S. (2001). Information and communication technologies and the changing role of the teacher. Journal of Educational Media, 26(1), 7–17. doi:10.1080/135816500120069292 White, S. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning and institutional change--some organisational perspectives on campus-wide e-learning. British Journal of Educational Teaching, 38(5), 840–850. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00760.x Whyte, S. (2007). Team teaching with faculty: A rich and rewarding experience. In S. J. Bell, & J. D. Shank (Eds.), Academic librarianship by design A blended librarian’s guide to the tools and techniques (pp. 71-73). Chicago: American Library Association. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: ApEpleton-Century-Crofts. Wikipedia (2008). Open source software. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opensource_software Wikipedia. (2008). Wikipedia: About. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_literacy Wildeen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A Critical Analysis of the Research on Learning to Teach: Making the Case for an Ecological Perspective on Inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130–178. Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects [Electronic Version]. Retrieved January 21, 2004, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc Wiley, D. A. (2008), Learning object design and sequencing theory. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from http://www. opencontent.org/openpub/.

Willig, J. H., Sadasivam, R. S., & Tanik, M. M. (2008). A conceptual framework for personalized mobile health care. Paper presented at the Int. Design and Process Technology, Taiwan. Wilson, E. J. (2000). Closing the Digital Divide: an initial review. Retrieved March 25, 2002 from http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/ErnestWilson0700.html Windham, C. (2005). Father Google and mother IM: Confessions of a net gen learner. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 42-59. Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.educause. edu/apps/er/erm05/erm0552.asp?bhcp=1 Wolsey, T. D. (2004). Literature discussion in cyberspace: Young adolescents using threaded discussion groups to talk about books. Reading Online, 7(4). Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art-index. asp?HREF=wolsey/index.html Wolsey, T. D. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311–329. Woodbridge, J. (2004). Technology Integration as a Transforming Teaching Strategy. TechLearning. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle. jhtml?articleID=17701367. Woods, R. H., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/ irrodl/article/view/186/801 World Wide Web Consortium. (2004). Web services consortium. Retrieved from http://www.w3c.org Worrall, L., & Bell, F. (2007). Metacognition and lifelong E-learning: a contextual and cyclical process. E-learning, 4, 161–171. doi:10.2304/elea.2007.4.2.161 Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557–585. Wriston, H. (1937). The nature of a liberal college (p. 64). Appleton, WI: Lawrence College Press. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved May 24th 2008, from http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/ oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-Web-20.html

557


Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition for distance education and intelligent computerbased instruction. Educational Technology, 40(4), 5–16. Yang, H. (2007). Enhancing social presence for online asynchronous learning. In R. Zheng, & S. Ferris (Eds.). Understanding Online Instructional Modeling: Theories and Practices (pp. 113-125). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Yang, H. (2008). Blogfolios for student-centered reflection and communication. In M. Iskander (Ed.). Innovative Techniques in Instruction Technology, E-Learning, E-Assessment and Education. Berlin: Springer. Yates, B., Newsome, J., & Creighton, T. (1999, March). Standards based technology competencies: Electronic portfolios in preservice education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX. Yeh, R. T.-Y., Pearlson, K., & Kozmetsky, G. (2000). Zero time: Providing instant customer value – Every time, all the time. New York: Wiley. Yoffee, E. (2007). Facebook for fiftysomethings. Posted Thursday March 8, 2007. Retrieved from Slate.com at http:// www.slate.com/id/2161456/ Young, J. F. (2008, September 25). When professors print their own diplomas, who needs universities? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://chronicle.com/free/2008/09/4744n.htm Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 20(2), 65–77. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde2002_2 Yu, C., Williams, A., Lin, C. F., & Yu, W. C. (2008). Planning effective multimedia instruction. In T. T. Kidd & H. Song (Eds.), Instructional systems and technology (Vol. 1, pp. 216-231). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Yu, F. (2001). Competition within computer-assisted cooperative learning environments: cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(2), 99–117. doi:10.2190/3U7R-DCD5-F6T1-QKRJ Yuen, S., & Yuen, P. (2008). Web 2.0 in education. In McFerrin, K., Weber, R., Carslen, R. & Willis, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the

558

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, SITE 2008-( pp.3227-3228). Chesapeake, VA: AACE Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Journal of Information and Control, 8, 338–353. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X Zahm, S. (2000). No question about it - e-Learning is here to stay: A quick history of the e-Learning evolution. eLearning, 1(1), 44-47. Zeiger, R. F. (2005). Toward continuous medical education. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(1), 91–94. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30049.x Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: What happened to e-learning and why? University of Pennsylvania, The Learning Alliance. Zhang, K. (2008). Ubiquitous technology for language learning: The U-Japan movement in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 81–91. doi:10.1007/s12528-008-9009-9 Zhang, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2008). Addressing diverse learner preferences and intelligences with emerging technologies: Matching models to online opportunities. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2), 309–332. Zhang, S., & Fulford, C. P. (1994). Are interaction time and psychological interactivity the same thing in the distance learning television classroom? Educational Technology, 34(6), 58–64. Ziehe, T. (2005 June). Post-detraditionalization: Reflections on a changed life attitude of today’s youth. Plenary presentation at Childhoods 2005 conference, University of Oslo. Zimitat, C. (2001). Designing effective on-line continuing medical education. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 117–122. doi:10.1080/01421590120036538 Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview and analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical perspectives (2/E, pp.1-37). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zirkin, B. G., & Sumler, D. E. (1995). Interactive or noninteractive? that is the question!!! An annotated bibliography. Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 95–112.

559

About the Contributors

Harrison Hao Yang (Ed.D., Florida International Univeristy, 1996) is a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Stae University of New York at Oswego, USA. His research specialties include assessment and e-folios, distance/flexible education, information literacy, information technology diffusion/integration, learning theories, issues and trends on vocational-technical education, and Web/learning communities. Dr. Yang is the recipient of SUNY Oswego President’s Award for Teaching Excellence in 2006. Steve Chi-Yin Yuen (Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University, 1984) is a professor in the Department of Technology Education at The University of Southern Mississippi (USM), USA. His research specialties include electronic performance support system, e-learning 2.0, handheld technology in teaching and learning, mobile learning, multimedia instruction, semantic Web, social networking in education, technology planning and implementation in the classrooms, Web 2.0, Web accessibility, and Web-based instruction. Dr. Yuen is the recipient of USM Excellence in Teaching Award in 2004 and 1997, Mississippi Technology Educator of the Year in 2002, and Fulbright Scholar Lecturing Award in 1992. *** Haya Ajjan is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s Belk College of Business. Her research focuses on better understanding the impact of technology use on individuals, groups, and organizations. In particular, she is interested in understanding the role of emerging technologies such as wikis, blogs, and social networks on teaching and learning in higher education. Her research on the topic has appeared in The Internet and Higher Education journal and in multiple regional and national conferences. Ivan Angelov is a Ph.D. candidate in eLearning and Content Management Environments at the University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria. With Master’s degrees in Computer Technology and Mathematics, Angelov studies the ways in which the human mind needs to assimilate increasing amounts of information and the ways in which technology can facilitate the assimilation of information. Youngkyun Baek is a professor of educational technology at Korea National University of Education. He has been teaching since 1991. Previously, he worked at Korea Educational Development Institute. His research interests are on educational games, simulation, and mobile devices in education. He has presented several papers at SITE, NECC, AERA, and OECD Expert Meeting on gaming and simula-



tions. Recently, he published two books on educational games and wrote several book chapters. Now he is doing a study on how to use games and simulations in formal education settings. Leah Massar Bloom is the head of Reference and Natural & Social Sciences Librarian at Purchase College, State University of New York. She oversees traditional reference desk service as well as virtual reference at Purchase College. As the liaison to the School of Natural and Social Sciences, Leah provides instruction sessions in a number of disciplines, and coordinates the library’s involvement in the Science in the Modern World Program, a general education science program for non-science majors. She has a Masters in Library and Information Science from Simmons College and an undergraduate economics degree from Tufts University. Prior to becoming a librarian, Leah worked for several years as a policy analyst in the environmental consulting and research field. Curtis J. Bonk is professor of Instructional Systems Technology in the School of Education at Indiana University and adjunct in the School of Informatics. He is author of the Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs (2006) as well as Empowering Online Learning: 100+ Activities for Reading, Reflecting, Displaying, and Doing (2008). He has received the CyberStar Award from the Indiana Information Technology Association, Most Outstanding Achievement Award from the U.S. Distance Learning Association, and Most Innovative Teaching in a Distance Education Program from the State of Indiana. Dr. Bonk is in high demand as a conference keynote speaker. He is President of CourseShare and SurveyShare (see http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/; email: [email protected]). Joao Batista Bottentuit Jr. is currently a Ph.D. student in Education at the Institute of Education and Psychology of Minho University – Braga – Portugal. He has already published 1 book and more than 30 works in proceedings of conferences and specialized journals. He is a professor at Faculty of Maranhão (FACAM) – Brazil. The areas of interest are Computer Science, Technology Education, Engineering in Education and Information Systems. He had Master in Multimedia in Education by University of Porto - Portugal (2007), Post-graduate in Administration of Information Systems by Federal University of Lavras – Brazil (2005) and Teaching in Higher Education by Catholic Pontifical University of Minas Gerais – Brazil (2003). Before then, he was graduated in Data Processing Technology by University Center UNA – Brazil (2002). Jeff Boyer is currently a visiting lecturer at the University of Florida where he teaches courses on technology integration for pre-service teachers and hosts the Digital Kids Tech Camp for rising 3rd - 6th graders. In his ten years of teaching experience, he has worked with all levels of students and has also served as a district technology coordinator. In addition, Jeff is a doctoral student in the educational technology program at the University of Florida’s College of Education. His research interest focuses on the development of conceptual understanding of content through the integration of learner-designed interactive multimedia. Robert L. Brown is a doctoral student majoring in instructional technology in the Department of Instructional Systems and Workforce Development at Mississippi State University. Prior to entering his doctoral program, he taught English as a Second Language at Mississippi State University and in Taiwan and Japan.

560


Luiz Fernando de Barros Campos holds a Master degree in Information Science from the School of Information Science of Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. He is a public officer in Brazil, dealing mostly with information and computer systems, and an electrical engineer who specialized in Strategic Information Management. His research interests include information seeking and use, information systems and Knowledge Management. Currently he is studying multimedia reality shows, such as the Big Brother Brazil, emphasizing the issue networks that are formed on the Web. He can be contacted at: [email protected]. Colleen Carmean serves as the digital knowledge architect for the College of Public Programs at Arizona State University. Her work lies in research and design of integrated knowledge systems, including environments for e-learning and social media. She teaches critical thinking and applied computing, and is currently doing research on affordance of emerging technologies. Dr. Carmean is a 2002 EDUCAUSE NLII Fellow, a 2004 Frye Fellow and a 2006-2008 Arizona Wakonse Teaching Fellow. Cathy Cavanaugh is associate professor of educational technology in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Her work focuses on identifying applications of information and communication technology that enhance teaching and learning. Dr. Cavanaugh has worked with virtual schools, school districts, and education agencies in several states and countries. She has taught educators and leaders at the University of North Florida, University of South Florida, Rollins College and Furman University. She served as co-director of the Northeast Florida Science, Technology and Mathematics Center, as Assistant Director of the Florida Center for Instructional Technology and as a classroom teacher in Florida and the Caribbean. She has a B.A. in education from the University of the Virgin Islands, a M.Ed. from the University of Central Florida and a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction from the University of South Florida specializing in distance education. Chaka Chaka is a senior lecturer in the Department of English at Walter Sisulu University (Eastern Cape, South Africa). Dr. Chaka’s research interests include: computer mediated communication (CMC); electronic learning (e-learning); computer assisted language learning (CALL); mobile learning (m-learning); mobile assisted language learning (MALL); Web 2.0 learning/Mobile Web 2.0 learning; Web 3.0/Mobile Web 3.0; Semantic Web/Mobile Semantic Web; knowledge management (KM); and learning organization (LO). Pearl Chen is an associate professor of instructional technology in the Division of Applied and Advanced Studies in Education at California State University, Los Angeles. Dr. Chen’s research interests include project-based leaning, e-learning, experience design, and interactive system design. C. Candace Chou is an associate professor in Learning Technologies at the School of Education at the University of St. Thomas. Dr. Chou administered the E-Learning Graduate Certificate Program and the Master of Arts in Learning Technology Program. She has extensive experience in the instructional design of E-Learning courses. As the co-director of the Minnesota Leaders and Educators Technology Initiatives (MELTI), she has worked to bridge the digital divide in the K-12 schools. Her research focuses on the integration of technology into curriculum, online interaction, emerging technologies in education, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), virtual-teaming building through virtual worlds, computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems, and the design of distance learning environments.

561


Clara Pereira Coutinho is associate professor at the Department of Curriculum and Educational Technology at the Institute of Education and Psychology, University of Minho, Portugal. She teaches Educational Technology and Research Methods in Education in Graduate and Post Graduate Teacher Education Programs. Dr. Coutinho has already published more than 70 papers in proceedings and specialized journals as well as a book. The areas of current research and interest are Educational Multimedia, Web 2.0 technologies in Teacher Education Programs and Research Methods in Educational Technology. Katie M. Crenshaw currently works as the assistant director in the Division of Continuing Medical Education in the School of Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). She holds a law degree from the University of Louisville and a graduate degree in education from Northwestern University in Evanston, IL. Since completing her education, Ms. Crenshaw has worked primarily in graduate and continuing education administration, with positions at DePaul University, Samford University, and UAB. Her research interests include measurement of educational needs and outcomes, programmatic recruitment strategies, and the innovative use of technology in continuing professional education. Raju V. Datla currently works as a technical project manager for the Massachusetts Medical Society. He graduated with a master’s degree in health informatics from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his interests include evaluating the impact of Web resources and technologies on health care providers at the point of patient care, Regional Health Information Networks, studying the adoption of electronic health records, and the overall impact of health information technologies on health care organizations. Prior to July 2007 he worked as a programmer/analyst for the Division of Continuing Medical Education at the University of Alabama School of Medicine in Birmingham. Kara Dawson is an associate professor of educational technology in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida (UF). She serves as Program Coordinator for the face-to-face and online programs there. Her research relates to investigating innovative ways in which technology supports teaching and learning processes. She has special interests in how teacher inquiry can be used to document the impact of technology on student achievement and in K-12/university partnerships. She serves on the Review Board for the Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D) Computing in Teacher Education (JCTE) and the Journal of Research on Technology in Education (JRTE). Michael Douma is the Executive Director of the Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement (IDEA), where he has overseen the development of a variety of information systems that use technology to facilitate and broaden the learning process. These include public service health and education projects like the ProstateCalculator, several national web-based atomic clocks, and the interactive, web-based museum, WebExhibits, as well as technological innovations like SpicyNodes and ColoRotate. Dimitrios Drogidis currently is a school consultant of Primary Education of the 2nd District of Imathia Prefecture. He received his Elementary Teachers (1986) and French Literature Degrees (1990) from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece and his PhD from Paris1 Pantheon Sorbonne in History (2004). During the years 2000-2001 he received for his PhD studies a UNESCO scholarship. His research

562


is based on history and education and he has written a number of books in these fields. Dr. Drogidis has served on scientific program committees of Conferences in Education in Greece and he has published papers in referred journals and conference proceedings. He is a fellow of the Copyright Association S.A, of the Greek – European studies Association and of the Pedagogical Society of Drama, Greece. Jianxia Du is an associate professor in the Department of Instructional Systems and Workforce Development at Mississippi State University. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. Her research interests include online collaborative learning and social/cultural dimensions of educational technology. Carrie Eastman has been the Information Services/Interlibrary Loan Librarian at Purchase College, State University of New York, since December 2006. At Purchase, she manages the interlibrary loan department and participates in reference, instruction, and collection development. She received her MLIS from Simmons College in May 2006 and also holds a Master of Arts in English from the University of Rhode Island. She is the Purchase Library representative and mentor for the IDS Project, a resource sharing project in New York State begun by SUNY Geneseo Library in 2004. Ms. Eastman is also a member of the ACRL/NY Symposium Committee and a member of the ACRL/NY Executive Board as the chair of the New Librarians Discussion group. Her professional and research interests are in resource sharing, social networking, library instruction methods, innovative reference practices, and student/patron needs, interests and expectations in the 21st century. Richard E. Ferdig is an associate professor of educational technology at the University of Florida’s College of Education. He earned his Ph.D. in educational psychology from Michigan State University. At the University of Florida, he supervises the production track, helping students combine cutting-edge technologies with current pedagogic theory to create innovative learning environments. His research interests include online education, gaming, and what he labels a deeper psychology of technology. In addition to publishing and presenting nationally and internationally, Dr. Ferdig has also been funded to study the impact of emerging technologies. Karin Hamilton is the administrative director for Graduate and Global Programs at the Silberman College of Business at Fairleigh Dickinson University. She has extensive experience in both business and academic administration in the areas of strategic and tactical planning, project management and training and development. She has written numerous guides and manuals that have been used by business professionals, educational administrators, faculty and students. Her research interests are primarily in learning, pedagogy and use of technology to improve learning outcomes. Karin was one of the two originators of the GBM program: an innovative pedagogical framework for teaching adult learners using a partial distance-learning format. She received her M.B.A. at Fairleigh Dickinson University and her B.A. at Valparaiso University. Richard Hartshorne is an assistant professor of instructional systems technology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He earned his Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Florida. At the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, his teaching focuses on the integration of technology into the educational landscape, as well as instructional design and development. His research interests primarily involve the production and effective integration of instructional technology into the

563


teaching and learning environment. The major areas of his research interest are rooted in online teaching and learning, technology and teacher education, and the integration of emerging technology into the k-post-secondary curriculum. Jeannine St. Pierre Hirtle is an associate professor of education at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. She currently teaches literacy methods, technology and curriculum and instruction courses in the Education Department. She also directs the Lehua Writing Project, the local site of the National Writing Project. Dr. Hirtle worked for seven years at The University of Texas at Arlington where she wrote and taught distance learning courses for teacher certification and for the Masters in Education with an Emphasis in Literacy Studies. Her recent past publications include “Helping Kids Cope: A Writing Project’s Response to the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina” in Bedford, A. W., & Kieff, J. E. (Eds.) (2009) Surviving the storm: Creating opportunities for learning in response to Hurricane Katrina and Creating Virtual Communities of Professional Practice in K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008. Jeffrey Hsu is an associate professor of Information Systems at the Silberman College of Business, Fairleigh Dickinson University. He is the author of numerous papers, chapters, and books, and has previous business experience in the software, telecommunications, and financial industries. His research interests include human-computer interaction, e-commerce, IS education, and mobile/ubiquitous computing. He is Managing Editor of International Journal of Data Analysis and Information Systems (IJDAIS), Associate Editor of the International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), and is on the editorial board of several other journals. Dr. Hsu received his Ph.D. in Information Systems from Rutgers University, a M.S. in Computer Science from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and an M.B.A. from the Rutgers Graduate School of Management. Hsiu-Ting Hung is an assistant professor of English at the National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology (NKFUST), a public university in Taiwan, R.O.C. She holds a Ph.D. in Language and Literacy Education from the University of Georgia. Her specialty is second language acquisition (SLA), and she is mainly interested in the field of computer assisted language learning (CALL). Presently, her research interests focus on technology-mediated professional development for language teachers and English learning in computer supported collaborative learning environments. Kathryn Kennedy is an alumni fellow, currently in her second year of doctoral studies at the University of Florida’s School of Teaching and Learning. She is concentrating in educational technology with research interests in teacher education as it pertains to both pre-service and in-service teachers’ professional development, with special interest in K-12 virtual schooling. She provides technology integration workshops to individuals, schools, and school districts. She teaches and mentors undergraduate- and graduate-level pre-service teachers regarding the meaningful integration of technology into K-12 curriculum. She holds a B.A. in English specializing in adolescent literature from the University of Florida and an M.S. in Library and Information Sciences from the Florida State University. Bo Kyeong Kim is an assistant professor of Jeonju University in Korea. She taught computer at middle school and high school for 4 years. She learned that Korean students’ computer literacy was very high and spent much time on computer games. She thinks that Korean students are potential e-learners

564


or digital game-based learners. She left her job for getting a PhD in educational technology and has conducted research on using technology in education, theory and practice of digital game-based learning and teaching simulations. She also has an interest in mobile learning. Recently, she wrote two book chapters on digital simulation for improving education. Madhuri Kumar is an instructional designer for the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston. In her professional role as a consultant for premier public research universities, she is an advocate for technology integration and best practice course design. She has over a decade of experience working closely with numerous faculty members and staff, to design and deliver quality learning experiences. She is currently pursuing a doctor degree in Education, while being actively engaged in research interests covering new media for education, distance education, faculty development, and human performance technology. Ms. Kumar can be reached at [email protected]. Chun Fu (Charlie) Lin received his doctoral degree from Mississippi State University emphasized on instructional technology, a Master of Art in Education and a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration from the Ohio State University. His research emphasis has been on the use of computerassisted instruction to students to whom English is their second language (ESL) or foreign language (EFL). He enjoys working in the area of multimedia instructions, using constructivist approach in discourse context and conducting educational research. His e-mail address: [email protected]. Youmei Liu earned her Ed. D at the College of Education of University of Houston. She currently works as an educational production specialist in the Office of Educational Technology and University Outreach at UH. She collaborates with faculty on the projects of innovative use of technologies; and conducts research studies to evaluate instructional technology use, such as Second Life, podcasting, and Classroom Performance System, etc. She has published broadly in the areas of instructional technology and e-learning. Her research interests cover faculty development, academic assessment, instructional technology evaluation, cross-cultural online learning, development of learning communities, and the integration of multimedia technologies in teaching and learning. She can be reached at [email protected]. Yuliang Liu is currently associate professor and graduate program director of Instructional Technology in the Department of Educational Leadership at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE) in the United States. At SIUE, Dr. Liu teaches a variety of courses, including distance education, instructional systems design, instructional development, computers in education, multimedia, research methods in education, as well as educational psychology. He has recently been very active and productive in research areas including technology integration, distance education, online instruction, multimedia, and research methodology. His recent publications, presentations, and externally funded grant activities have made international impact on his field. In May 2006, he was also invited to speak on elearning and online instruction at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, South China Normal University, and Northwest Normal University in P. R. China. His primary consulting areas are: quantitative research design, statistics, online course design and delivery, and technology integration across the curriculum. Yunyan Liu is a professor at Southwest University in China. She earned her Ph.D. at Southwest University, and her research interests include early childhood education and child psychology development.

565


Susanne Markgren is the systems/electronic resources librarian at Purchase College, State University of New York, where she manages the integrated library system and the electronic resources and also does reference, collection development, instruction, web development, and graphic design. She is also an adjunct faculty member at Manhattanville College, where she teaches a for-credit research class for undergraduates. She is on the executive board of the Greater New York Metropolitan chapter of ACRL. She co-writes the Career Q&A with the Library Career People blog, and she has published in a variety of journals and books. She holds a BA in History and English from the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire, and an MLIS from the University of Texas at Austin. Sathish Menon, MBA is an engineer who studies decision support systems and develops statistical and optimization models. He is also a recognized expert in in-depth quantitative analysis. Paraskevi Mentzelou is an application lab professor of computer science at the Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Mentzelou is a member of the IEEE, AACE, BCS and a co-found member of the Hellenic Branch of BCS. She received a PhD degree in 2000 in Computer Assisted Learning from Bristol University, a Postgraduate Diploma in Computer Science from West of England University and a Graduate Diploma in Computer Science from the University of SouthBank. She has served for six years as an EDP Manager and System Analyst in Industry and in private commercial companies. Her research interests are in computer assisted learning, environmental information systems and web applications and took part in several research projects relative to these fields. She has published papers in referred journals and conference proceedings. She is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology (JEPE) and of the Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research (JTAER). F.R. “Fritz” Nordengren is educational technology strategist for Des Moines University in the College of Health Sciences, Nordengren also teaches Overview of Health Care Delivery in the United States, as well as a series of graduate seminars: Creative Thinking/Critical Thought; Virtual Team Leadership; Change Leadership; and Storytelling in Health Care Leadership. He is working on his PhD in Education with a specialization in Educational Technology at Walden University. His research focuses on learning preferences and the qualities and needs of social and solitary learners, primarily in graduate school. Betül Özkan is an assistant professor of educational technology at the University of Arizona South (2008- ). Prior to that, she served as the faculty coordinator of instructional technology at Long Island University (2006-2008) and an assistant professor of instructional technology research at the University of West Georgia (2003-2006). She has presented and published numerous papers on distance education, technology integration strategies, and emerging technology applications. Dr. Özkan holds a Ph.D. (2001) and a M.A. (1997) in Curriculum and Instruction from Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey, and B.A. in Italian Philology (1993) from Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. She completed her postdoctoral study at Iowa State University (2001-2003) where she also served as a project manager for a Fulbright Grant. Peter Reed is project coordinator for a number of Edge Hill University’s funded e-learning projects, most notably the Pathfinder Project, funded by the Higher Education Academy (HEA), and the RePRODUCE Project, funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). He also acts as consultant to

566


Edge Hill’s Faculty of Health with regard to e-learning development and support. Alongside colleagues, his research has uncovered Mode Neutral pedagogy, and has particular interest in the role of the tutor in both classroom and online social constructivist facilitation. Jennifer Richardson is an associate professor in the Educational Technology Program within the College of Education at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Her research areas include professional development and online learning environments as they relate to social and cognitive aspects of learning. She is currently investigating effective approaches to measuring learning in online environments and the impacts of social presence and interactions on students’ perceptions and learning. Robin M. Roberts is a doctoral student, graduate assistant and part-time instructor in the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He served as a public school teacher and technology coordinator in California for over 20 years. His research interests include instructional technology, distance education and systems research applied to learning. Rajani S. Sadasivam currently works as an assistant professor in the Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, in the School of Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). His research interests are in meta-composite systems development using service-oriented approaches. Meta-composite systems are ‘system of systems,’ the goal of which is to provide integrated and collaborative support for user interactions. Dr. Sadasivam is a co-inventor on a patent of a service-oriented approach for developing systems with personalized support for user interactions (http://www.wipo.int/ pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2007008687). Dr. Sadasivam has several years of experience developing webbased, collaborative, and social networking systems for federally funded continuing medical education and health care grants. He has published several papers and articles in the areas of service-oriented and component-based meta-composite systems development, process-personalized systems, digital library applications, and mobile applications. Priti Srinivas Sajja joined the faculty of the Department of Computer Science, Sardar Patel University, India in 1994 and presently working as a Reader. She received her M.S. (1993) and Ph.D (2000) in computer science from the Sardar Patel University. Her research interests include knowledge-based systems, soft computing, multi-agent systems, semantic web and software engineering. She has 46 publications in books, journals and in the proceedings of national and international conferences. Two of her publications have won best research paper awards. She is co-author of book ‘Knowledge Based Systems’ which is accepted for publication by Jones & Bartlett Publishers, USA. She is member in editorial board of four international science journals and served as program committee member for many international conferences. Michael E. Schoen currently works as a program manager in the Division of Continuing Medical Education, in the School of Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). After completing his doctoral degree in school psychology, he worked as a psychologist in the public schools prior to returning to the University of South Carolina as a faculty member and administrator in the Division of Regional Campuses and Continuing Education. His research interests include the assessment of children’s temperament and school readiness, lifelong learning programs in correctional settings, and patient satisfaction and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug risk awareness. Dr. Schoen has served

567


on several state and regional continuing higher education committees, and he is a past president of the South Carolina Association for Higher Continuing Education. Carl Scott is research professor of Decision and Information Sciences in the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston. After serving as an officer in the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam conflict, he returned and used the GI Bill to earn his Ph.D. from Colorado State University. He is a veteran of the chemical process industries, working in various management positions. He joined the faculty of the Bauer College of Business in 2001. As a consultant in information system design and management, he has worked with a wide variety of organizations in both the public and private sectors. Working with these organizations, he developed and implemented hardware and software solutions for a wide range of business problems. Dr. Scott is also an advisor to many Houston organizations on the strategic management of their information technology assets. He served on the Board of directors for various organizations. Brian Smith is a senior lecturer and senior SOLSTICE fellow (champion in e-learning) at Edge Hill University. After completing his Master’s in e-learning and publishing his research findings on Mode Neutral pedagogy; he is now researching the links between communication and learning for his PhD. While Brian’s research activities have been centred on e-learning, he continues to strengthen the Faculty of Health’s provision by placing perioperative care, critical care, operating department practitioner education and more at the forefront of his work. Brian also acts as an external examiner, editorial reviewer for publications and e-learning consultant for other universities and professional bodies. Samuel (Pete) Smith is associate vice president for Academic Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington, where he oversees UTA’s Center for Distance Education, as well as Classroom Technology Support Services. Dr. Smith came to UTA in 1992 as Director of the Language Acquisition Center in the Department of Modern Languages, where he continues to serve as an active teacher of German and Russian language and culture and is a participating faculty member in the Center for Post-Soviet and East European Studies. Dr. Smith served five years as the Editor-in-Chief of The IALL Journal of Language Learning and Technology, a national journal devoted to the use of technology in language teaching and learning. He is also a telementor and advisor in the Drake University Language Acquisition Program, a program officer in the Network for Effective Language Learning (Council of Independent Colleges), and he advises the Teacher Quality Federal Grants Program in Texas. Dazhi Yang is a postdocral researcher in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. She obtained her master’s and Ph.D. degrees in Educational Technology at Purdue in 2004 and 2008 respectively. Her main research interests are online and distance learning, effective instructional design, technology-enchanted learning for sciences and engineering. Ann M. York is an associate professor in the Master of Health Care Administration Program in the College of Health Sciences at Des Moines University. Dr. York teaches Health Care Economics and Policy, Conflict Resolution, and The Role of Gender in Health Care Leadership Models using both and online and blended formats. She currently leads grant-funded research in evidenced based-practice and online teaching strategies. York received the Outstanding Dissertation Award for her doctoral work at Walden University 1996.

568


Chien Yu, graduated from the Ohio State University, is currently serving an associate professor in the Department of Instructional Systems and Workforce Development at Mississippi State University. She currently teaches Interactive Media, Trends and Issues in Instructional Systems, Instructional Design for Industry, and Technology Issues for School Administrators. Her research agenda include distance education, technology integration, educational leadership, instructional design and media development. Her e-mail address: [email protected]. Wei-Chieh (Wayne) Yu received his doctoral degree from Mississippi State University emphasized on instructional technology, a Master of Science in Teaching English to Students of Other Languages from University of Pennsylvania, and a BSBA from the Ohio State University in Finance. His research interests include instructional technology, education research, multicultural/global education, socialinguistics and computer assisted language learning. His e-mail address: [email protected]. Ke Zhang is an assistant professor in the highly regarded Instructional Technology Program at Wayne State University. Previously, she was an assistant professor at Texas Tech University in 2003-2006. She received her Ph.D. and Master’s of Science in Instructional Systems from the Pennsylvania State University with a minor in Business Administration. Dr. Zhang has consulted in areas such as e-learning, instructional technology, organizational change, training, and workforce development with clients like Siemens, Proctor & Gamble, Pepsi, Otis, medical schools, government, and public school systems. Her extensive research activities have resulted in dozens of refereed journal articles, book chapters, and national, international conference presentations on online learning, collaborative technology, problem solving, and e-learning technologies. Dr. Zhang’s book, Empowering online learning: 100+ activities for Online Reading, Reflecting, Displaying, and Doing was published by Jossey-Bass in 2008.

569

570

Index

Symbols 3D cyber space 165 3-D platform 425 3D virtual classroom 165, 171, 181 3D virtual places 171 3-D Virtual Worlds 424, 445

A Active Interaction Style 149 administrative 150, 153, 156, 160, 163 adult education 385 adult learning 326 anchored instruction 345, 350 andragogy 118, 134, 136, 137, 366 Angel 281 application-oriented 123, 130 application programming interface (API) 168 artificial intelligence (AI) 492 assessment-centered 441 Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) 263 asynchronous communications 105, 106, 120 asynchronous computer-mediated 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147 audio-conferencing 445, 454 authentic activities 122, 134, 137

B balanced-interaction style 138, 139, 140, 143, 145, 146, 149 behavioral intention 244, 249, 256 bi-directional communication, asynchronous 19, 20, 21, 36 Blackboard 120, 121, 128, 129, 269, 274, 277, 281

blended learning 141, 146, 149, 366 block scheduling 135, 137 blog 196, 256, 384 blogfolio 460, 463, 469 blogfolio approach 455, 456, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466 blogging 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 55, 56, 57, 59 blogging, semantic 42, 43, 44, 55, 57, 59 blogging tools 189 BlogHUD 431 blogs 11, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 52, 54, 55, 59, 105, 106, 166, 168, 169, 180, 367, 371, 372, 376, 377, 381, 382 blogs, semantic 38, 41, 54, 55 Blooms Taxonomy 366 Bluebonnet Writing Project (BWP) 185 Bricolage 221 browser-based way 167

C career-focused courses 130 Center for Innovative Learning Technologies (CILT) 414, 420 Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) 341 class interaction 154, 160 classroom environment 181 classroom sessions 120, 137 CLD model 427, 428, 429, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436 cognitive presence 151, 152, 162, 442, 447, 453 cognitive theory 122


Index

cognitive theory of multimedia learning 122 collaboration 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 123, 131, 134, 137 collaborative knowledge representations 411 collaborative reference software tools 167 collective intelligence (CI) 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 54, 55, 198, 201, 210 collective knowledge (CK) 38, 39, 41, 44, 4 5, 46, 48, 49, 54, 55 collective power of simulation (CPoS) 38, 39, 41, 52, 53, 54, 55 communication for learning (CL) 334, 340 communities of practice (CoP) 182, 281, 339, 340, 346 community building 183 community-centered 441 community, fostering a sense of 64 community of inquiry 354, 366 compact disks (CD) 471 complex theory 199 computer-based learning systems 483 computer interactions 405, 421 computer mediated communication (CMC) 2, 3, 456 computer-mediated discussions 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 computer-mediated fiscussions 149 computer-mediated learning 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14 computer-mediated learning environments 138, 140, 145, 146 computer skills 222, 239 computer software applications 239 computer system 167 conference brainstorming 167 constructionism 288, 292, 365, 366, 367, 368, 370, 372, 379, 381, 382, 384 constructionist pedagogy 368, 369, 378 constructivism-based pedagogical model 446 constructivist learning design (CLD) model 422, 427 constructivist learning theory 437 content-related answers 163 content syndication 166 content tagging services 166

continuing medical education (CME) 309 corrective 150, 153, 156, 160, 163 course blogs 270 course design 422, 431, 434 course management system (CMS) 120, 262, 280, 281, 282, 287, 288, 424, 456 course-related communications 127 courseware 170, 179 Creative Commons (CC) 279 critical reflection 137 critical-thinking processes 151 cross-culture communication 425

D database 182 decision-making 189, 192 Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252 designers 169, 170, 171, 179 desire-to-learn (D2L) 281 dichotomies 199 didactic-pedagogic activities 389 diffusion of innovations 114 Digital 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115 digital age 278, 279, 280, 293 digital-age teacher 368 digital artifacts 368 digital broadcasting 172 digital citizenship 366 digital collaboration 473 digital computing technologies 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 106, 108, 114, 115 digital consumers 94 digital content creation 370 digital divide 262 digital enterprise 308, 309, 313, 315, 318, 320, 322 digital environment 213, 221, 223 digital generation 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112 digital knowledge architect 213, 217 digital learning environment 317 digital music stores 165

571

Index

digital natives 24, 93, 94, 110, 243, 251, 261, 262 digital objects 368, 370 digital society 330 digital storytelling 402, 411 digital tools 211, 213 digital workers 217 digital workplace 211 distance education (DE) 423 distance learning 20, 21, 26, 222, 223, 228, 230, 234, 235, 238, 239 dot-com collapse 167 drill-and-skill practice 371 Dublin Core (DC) 475 dynamic educational system 222

E e-community of practice (e-CoP) 185 e-dissemination 262 education 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 educational podcast 375, 378 educational software 232, 234, 239 educational testing service (ETS) 265, 266 educational tools 138 educators 165, 166, 167, 170, 171, 173, 174, 179 e-learning 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 , 455, 456, 457, 461, 462, 466 e-learning 1.0 paradigm 317 e-learning 2.0 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 34, 165, 169, 172, 179, 260, 262, 263, 266, 267, 268, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 440, 446, 453 e-learning 2.0 environment 260 e-learning 2.0 technologies 308, 309, 310, 313, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 322 e-learning 2.0 transformation 308 e-learning courses 227, 455, 456, 457, 461, 462, 466 e-learning environment 95, 165, 167, 263, 291, 290 e-Learning eXperience Design (eLXD) 407 e-learning experiences 402, 403, 406, 408, 416, 417

572

e-learning horizon based 167 e-learning paradigm 165, 169 e-learning, social 19 e-learning solution 471, 472, 473, 478, 487, 491 e-learning tools 440, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453 electronic bulletin 168 Electronic Document Management (EDM) 200 e-mail 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 115 emergent knowledge 221 enterprise knowledge 213 enterprise researchers 213 environmental vague parameters 480 rscapist design 421 evidence-based pedagogical model 329 evidence-based programming 310 experience design 402, 403, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417 experience design (ED) 415 experience economy 402, 420 explicit knowledge 197, 198, 200 eXtensible Markup Language (XML) 482

F Facebook 11 face-to-face 141, 149, 333, 334, 336, 338, 339, 344 face-to-face class 120, 121, 123, 128 face-to-face course 455, 456 face-to-face interaction 96 face-to-face orientation 429, 431 face-to-face teaching 344 Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) 117, 121 Findability 209 Flickr 11 folksonomies 19, 23, 37, 210 Formative Feedback 150, 163 Free/Libre and Open Source (FLOSS) 279 futuristic model 322 fuzzy logic 479, 480, 482, 492 fuzzy membership functions 484 fuzzy rules 479, 482, 483, 484 fuzzy sets 479, 492

Index

G game-based learning 170, 174 General Public License (GNU) 279, 281 Geographical Information Systems (GIS) 422 GIL modules 126, 129, 131 global business management 116, 117, 121, 131 globalization 425 global networked resources 211 global systems for mobile communications (GSM) 27 Google calendar 26 Google Docs 26, 385, 386, 389, 390, 391, 392, 395, 396, 401 Google Page Creator 385, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 401 Grade Level Expectation (GLE) 375 Greek education system 222 Greek nation and humanity 222 Greek dociety 222 group work 124, 137 guided independent learning (GIL) modules 128

H habitual learning patterns 409 hardware 283, 284 Health Information Management Systems (HMIS) 422 hierarchical intervention 200 hierarchical KM 197, 198 hierarchical managerial performance 200 Higher Education (HE) 340 Higher Education Institutions (HEI) 332, 341 home work environment 185 human-computer interaction (HCI) 405, 421 Human Interaction Processes 327 human performance 169 hybrid applications 456 Hybrid distance learning 116, 120, 137

I icebreakers 64, 65, 71 ICT knowledge 227, 230, 234 immediacy 70, 71, 72 immediacy, social 70, 71, 72

immediacy, technological 70 informal learning 213, 219, 221, 385 information, communication and technology (ICT) 222, 265, 443, 471 information literacy 361, 366 information society (IS) 223, 226, 422 informative 150, 153, 156, 160, 163 instant messaging (IM) 104, 127 instructional design method 368 instructional feedback 150 intensive scheduling 137 interaction model (IM) 315 interaction styles 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 interactive television (ITV) 4 interactive white boards 262 interactivity 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71 internalisation 350 International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) 462 internet telephony 247, 248, 256, 257, 258

J Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) 333, 349 just-in-time 211, 212, 214, 216, 221

K KM processes 199, 200, 204, 207 KM projects 197, 198, 199, 200, 207, 208 knowledge architecture 211, 212, 215, 218 knowledge architecture design 218 knowledge-based society 385, 386, 397 knowledge-based systems (KBS) 492 knowledge building 411, 421 knowledge-centered 441 knowledge creation 197, 198, 199, 200 knowledge designers 408, 410 Knowledge Management (KM) 197, 198, 199, 206, 208, 209 knowledge sharing 197, 198, 200 knowledge society 222, 226, 237 Korean collective work 167

573

Index

L learner-centered 281, 440, 441, 446, 452 learner-centered environment 441 learner-centered features 151 learner control 94 learner-interface interaction 457 learner satisfaction 150, 151, 154, 160, 163 learning-by-making 371 learning community 195, 196 learning content management system (LCMS) 23 learning designer 213, 216 learning environment 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, 173, 179, 180, 425, 426, 431, 432, 433, 434, 436, 437, 439 learning framework 213 learning management systems (LMS) 21, 24, 27, 32, 281, 282, 473 learning media 440 learning networks 288 learning object repositories (LOR) 472 learning object schema 472, 475 learning objects (LO) 472, 473 learning paradigm 165, 169, 179 learning preferences 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 learning preferences 145, 149 learning process 119, 120, 122, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 137, 140, 141, 145, 223, 225, 230, 232, 235, 236, 239, 298, 299, 301, 303 learning styles 140, 141, 145, 147, 148 learnscape 213, 214 life-centered 118 lifelong learning 239 life-oriented objectives 116 literacy learning 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 301, 304, 305

M management information dystems (MIS) 422 mashups 30, 33 Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) 280 MBA Systems 437

574

media culture 98 media sharing services 25 metacognition 355, 366 milestone artifacts 411, 412, 417, 421 Millennium Generation 93 mobile devices 167, 168 mobile learning 12 modal resources 298, 299, 305 mode neutral 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 348, 350 Moodle 281, 282, 283, 284, 287 Moodle LMS 21, 24 multi-agent system 487 multimedia description schemes 475 multimedia instruction 11, 15, 17 multi-media sharing services 166 multimedia technologies 377, 381, 382 multimedia technology tools 377 multimedia tools 371, 372, 376, 377, 378, 382 multimodal approach 294, 295, 298, 299, 300, 301, 304, 305 multimodal literacy 295, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305 multimodal resources 294, 295, 301 multi-tier architecture 472, 473, 480, 487, 488 multi-tier knowledge-based system 471 mutual commitment 182 MySpace® 11

N National Writing Project (NWP) 185 the net generation (n-gen) 24 Net Generation 170, 180, 181 network-based applications 165 networked environments 288 the network effect 38, 39, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55 neural networks 200, 210 New Literacies Studies 294, 295, 306 non-traditional student category 117 non-traditional students 116, 117, 128

Index

O object oriented (OO) 424 One Laptop Per Child (OLPC 494 online collaboration 124, 130 online communications 120, 124, 137, 280, 293 online communities of practices 281 online course 440, 443, 445, 446, 448, 449, 451, 452 online course experiences 169 online courses 150, 151, 152, 153, 161, 162 online discussions 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149 online environment 437 online instructor 150, 151, 152, 161, 163 online interaction 121 online interaction styles 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 online interaction dtyles 138, 139, 149 online internet-based portal 120 online learning 2, 5, 13, 16, 150, 151, 152, 154, 160, 161, 162, 163, 440, 441, 443, 444, 445, 446, 451 online learning community (OLC) 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74 online learning environment (OLE) 138, 145, 146, 147, 149, 415, 443 online learning styles 140, 149 online social presence 421 online teaching 151, 152, 161 open educational resources (OER) 285, 291 open source 279, 282, 284, 293 organizational environments 204 organizational knowledge 211, 213, 215, 216, 218, 220, 221 organizational strategy 217

P pedagogical applications of e-learning tools 440, 453 Pedagogical Institute 230, 234, 235, 238, 239 pedagogical models 453 pedagogue 350 pedagogy 134, 137, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333,

341, 344, 348, 350 peer review 23 perceived behavioral control 246, 250, 256 performance-based portfolio 457 personal computer (PC) 95 personal data assistants (PDAs) 283 personal learning environment (PLE) 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 282 perspective transformation 137 physical environment 341, 345 podcast 375, 378, 383, 440, 441, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 453 podcasting 166, 168, 169, 377, 380, 381 point-of-care (POC) 321, 327 political nature 198 portfolio 457, 462, 470 power of the groundswell (PoG) 38, 39, 41, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55 practice fact-based arguments 129 presentation tools 262 print-based texts 295 project-based learning (PBL) 367, 368, 403, 408, 421 psychological skills 297

R Rastreability 207, 210 Read-Write-Web concept 279 really simple syndication (RSS) 3, 23, 26, 27, 28, 372 real-time 120, 123, 127, 129 real-world 123, 137 real-world applied knowledge 212 Research Methods in Education (RME) 389, 392 resource evaluation 270 RSS 205, 206, 210 RSS feeds 266, 269

S Salmon’s five-stage model 343 ScienceALIVE! 67 Second Life 11, 15, 17, 165, 166, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 437, 439 575

Index

Second Life Virtual Economy report 11 Self-Directed/Self-Initiated (SDSI) 318 Self-Direction 137 semantic social networks (SSN) 38, 54, 55 Semantic Web (SW) 19, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 309, 310, 323 sense of belonging 61, 67, 69 service-oriented-architecture 327 shared goals 61, 62, 67, 68, 69 Silberman College of Business (SCB) 117 social act 297 social bookmarking 26, 241, 246, 247, 248, 251, 256, 372, 373, 376, 377, 381 social bookmarking account 375, 377 social bookmarking tools 386 social connectivity 243 social constructivism 195, 196, 336, 342, 343 social constructivist theories 333, 339, 340 social dimension 437 social experience 185 social interaction 294 social learning 182, 192, 196 social media 221 social media sharing tools 386 social network 115 social network analysis (SNA) 216, 221 social networking 26, 241, 243, 246, 247, 248, 252, 279, 282, 290, 292, 293, 294, 295, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307 social networking communities 376, 377, 381 social networking services 294, 301, 304 social networking tools 330, 386 social networks 38, 39, 41, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 241, 242, 243, 247, 248, 251, 256, 303, 307, 309 social presence 151, 402, 412, 413, 440, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453 social processes 151 social spaces 415 social support networks 97, 115 social system 114, 115 sociological thought 96 socratic 150, 151, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163

576

software 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 292, 293 software architecture centric 423 software as a service (SaaS) 210 software packages 167 software release cycle 167 source software 281, 282, 284, 293 stage-of-life 96 Standard like Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) 482 STEP model 445, 446 student-based 378 student-created learning environment 378 subjective norm 250, 256 swarm intelligence 49 synchronous communication 115 systems analysis and design (SAD) 422, 423 systems development life cycle model 423

T tacit knowledge 197, 198, 199, 200 tag cloud technology 215 task-centered 118 Teaching Presence 442, 444, 447, 453 teamwork 135, 137 technological-rich experiences 385, 395 technology-based constructionism 381 technology enhanced learning (TEL) 331, 332 technology mediated learning (TML) 423 technology-supported pedagogy 385, 387 telephony-based media 115 text-based educational methodologies 94 the Internet 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 theoretical framework 367, 368 theory to practice 457 traditional classrooms 169, 179 traditional classroom teaching 179 training knowledge 239 transformative experience 421 transformative lLearning 137 trusting relationship 61

U University 2.0 278, 280, 282, 284, 285, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 293 User Generated Content 168, 181

Index

user generated content (UGC) 168

V vicarious interaction dtyle 149 vicarious learning 149 video conferencing 241, 247, 248 virtual chat rooms 120 virtual classroom 121 virtual classroom & virtual corporation systems (VICTORY) 3 virtual learning 10, 11 virtual learning community 182, 184, 185, 186, 191, 196 virtual learning environments (VLE) 19, 329 virtual space 274, 275 virtual world (VW) 275, 277, 331, 381, 422, 423, 424, 425, 427, 431, 437, 438, 439 visual thinking 409, 421 VLE 329, 340, 341, 342, 344, 345, 346, 347, 349 Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 340

W Web 1.0 19, 22, 32, 36, 279, 280, 281 Web 1.0 universities 281 Web 2.0 11, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 93, 94, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 179, 180, 181, 278, 279, 280, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 329, 330, 331, 332, 338, 339, 340, 346, 348, 349, 350 Web 2.0 applications 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252, 257 Web 2.0 characteristic 172 Web 2.0 concepts 93 Web 2.0 technologies 197, 199, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 367, 371, 372, 374, 377 Web 2.0 tools 197, 198, 199, 207, 208, 242, 243, 245, 246, 248, 251, 252, 255, 329, 330, 332, 339, 348, 367, 371, 372, 374, 383

Web 2.0 vision 166 Web 3.0 19, 30, 31, 34, 36, 40, 56, 57, 58, 59 web-based application 167 web-based courses 281 web-based document-creating application 167 Web-based messengers 167 web-based open content encyclopedia 167 Web-based portfolio 455, 458, 459, 461 web-based service 166, 299, 307, 347 Web-based technologies 100 web-based user interface 167 web blogs 305 WebCT 120, 267, 269, 281, 424, 429, 430 Weblog 440, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 453, 455, 456, 460, 461, 467, 469, 470 Weblog-based portfolio 455, 456, 461, 469 web pages 262 web resources 385, 395, 396 Web services 168, 309, 310, 313, 324, 325 Website 182 Web technologies 389 Web technology applications 166 white boards 120 wiki 256, 373, 375, 377, 378, 384, 440 wiki activity 393 wiki database 393 Wikipedia 167, 180 wikis 11, 17, 25, 27, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 166, 367, 371, 372, 375, 376, 377, 378, 381, 382 wireless connection 165 wisdom of communities 332 WYSIWYG 384

X XML learning object repository 471

Y YouTube 172, 173, 294, 301, 302, 303, 30 4, 307

577

Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-learning: Issues and Trends (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Technoethics

Handbook of Research on Technoethics

Handbook of Research on Strategy and Foresight

Handbook of Research on Literacy and Diversity

Handbook of Research on Discrete Event Simulation Environments: Technologies and Applications (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Heterogeneous Next Generation Networking: Innovations and Platforms (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Human Performance and Instructional Technology (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Virtual Workplaces and the New Nature of Business Practices (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Hybrid Learning Models: Advanced Tools, Technologies, and Applications (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Computer-Enhanced Language Acquisition and Learning (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Global Information Technology Management in the Digital Economy (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Computational Methodologies in Gene Regulatory Networks (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Ubiquitous Computing Technology for Real Time Enterprises (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Catholic Education

Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy

Handbook of Research on Social Studies Education

Handbook of Research on Wireless Security

Handbook of Research on Knowledge-intensive Organizations

Handbook of Research on Techno-entrepreneurship

Handbook of Research on Venture Capital

Handbook of Research on Venture Capital

Handbook of Research on New Venture Creation

Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Wireless Security

Handbook of Research on Family Business

Handbook of Research on Mobile Multimedia

Handbook of Research on Public Information Technology

Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-learning: Issues and Trends (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Technoethics

Handbook of Research on Technoethics

Handbook of Research on Strategy and Foresight

Handbook of Research on Literacy and Diversity

Handbook of Research on Discrete Event Simulation Environments: Technologies and Applications (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Heterogeneous Next Generation Networking: Innovations and Platforms (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Human Performance and Instructional Technology (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Virtual Workplaces and the New Nature of Business Practices (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Hybrid Learning Models: Advanced Tools, Technologies, and Applications (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Computer-Enhanced Language Acquisition and Learning (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Global Information Technology Management in the Digital Economy (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Computational Methodologies in Gene Regulatory Networks (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Ubiquitous Computing Technology for Real Time Enterprises (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Catholic Education

Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy

Handbook of Research on Social Studies Education

Handbook of Research on Wireless Security

Handbook of Research on Knowledge-intensive Organizations

Handbook of Research on Techno-entrepreneurship

Handbook of Research on Venture Capital

Handbook of Research on Venture Capital

Handbook of Research on New Venture Creation

Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling (Handbook of Research On...)

Handbook of Research on Wireless Security

Handbook of Research on Family Business

Handbook of Research on Mobile Multimedia

Handbook of Research on Public Information Technology

Recommend Documents