eLearning Papers - Special edition 2008

eLearning Papers Promoting innovation in lifelong learning Special edition 2008 http:// www.elearningpapers.eu

Editorial Promoting innovation in lifelong learning Roberto Carneiro and Lluís Tarín Articles HELIOS: Redefining eLearning Territories Claudio Delrio and Thomas Fischer Observing the eLearning phenomenon: The case of school education. Analysing the transformative innovation of eLearning Nikitas Kastis Open Educational Resources and Practices Sandra Schaffert and Guntram Geser Communities of Practice and virtual learning communities: benefits, barriers and success factors Patricia Margaret Gannon-Leary and Elsa Fontainha Digital Inclusion: Best practices from eLearning David Casacuberta eLearning Papers eLearning Papers is a digital publication created as part of the elearningeuropa.info portal. The portal is an initiative of the European Commission to promote the use of multimedia technologies and Internet at the service of education and training. Edition and production Name of the publication: eLearning Papers Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L. Postal address: P.A.U. Education, C/ Muntaner 262, 3º, 08021 Barcelona, Spain Telephone: +34 933 670 400 Editorial team coordination: Elina Jokisalo Email: editorial@elearningeuropa.info Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 2.5 licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning Papers, are cited. Com- mercial use and derivative works are not permitted. The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/deed.en 2 eLearning Papers | 2008

Editorial Promoting innovation in lifelong learning Since 2006, when the digital eLearning Papers was launched, we have brought to readers articles showcasing different topics related to ICT in lifelong learning. Different aspects of these topics have been presented in our themed issues: inclusive eLearning; blended learning projects and initiatives; quality aspects of eLearning; observing eLearning; learning in communities of practice and, recently, learning in intercultural environments. Articles are provided by the very readers of the elearningeuropa.info portal who are interested in disseminating their work among their peers through our publication. It is worth mentioning that eLearning Papers provides readers with a very special feature: full texts are available in English and executive summaries of each article are translated in 19 languages. Moreover, the open online access of the publication enables a wide dissemination and visibility of the selected essays. This special printed edition is a collection of five selected articles published during the past year in the digital eLearning Papers. The editorial board has considered these articles of special interest to readers, and wishes to contribute with this initiative to the diffusion of knowledge and good practices in eLearning. Use of ICT for learning and training provokes a wide interest among different stakeholders, not only for its innovative character and ability to present novelties, but also for its social impact. The article “HELIOS: Redefining eLearning Territories” shows precisely and clearly different areas of impact of eLearning. In fact, the classification by territories seeks to go beyond the classical divisions by sectors and describes the phenomenon as 12 territories that develop in a multidimensional way. The authors, Claudio Delrio and Thomas Fischer, define it the best: “Instead of focusing on unidirectional laws of evolution, taking a descriptive and inductive approach and attempting to insulate and spot coherent areas of eLearning, it is probably more appropriate to capture a multiform phenomenon such as eLearning.” The eLearning territories are like additional layers of differentiation and articulation of ICT in lifelong learning. This enables us to understand better actual dynamics and future developments of eLearning. Using the scheme and dynamics provided by eLearning territories, the article by Nikitas Kastis centres on the school environment and on how it is affected by the transforming innovation of eLearning. The described perspective takes into account three strategic evolution dimensions: that related to decision-making processes (running of schools); that related to accessibility level in relation to the achievement of a standard quality and, finally, the emerging inter-twinning fields of professional teacher development and the value chain of content. The territory of content is often associated with the effectiveness of learning. The article “Open Educational Resources and Practices” by Sandra Schaffert and Guntram Geser describes the OLCOS project (Open eLearning Content Observatory Services). The authors clearly present how open resources can turn into one of the key elements of learning and training processes. The innovative learning practices that relay on open access and exchange and evaluation of ideas reinforce without a doubt the creative aspects of collaborative learning among students. The collaborative creation of content and the exchange of open resources among learning communities is the true catalyst of learning innovations. Furthermore, virtual learning communities and communities of practice can be considered as one of the territories obtaining growing attention and interest in recent years. Patricia Gannon-Leary and Elsa Fontainha present in their article the nature of this kind of networks formed by people with similar interest areas and people who use Internet for communication. Undoubtedly communities of practice and learning communities face problems, especially in the initial phase; however, we are most certainly looking at a phenomenon that possesses a great social impact and with a long future. To conclude the issue, the article by David Casacuberta provides us with an insight into another key territory: social inclusion. The article “Digital Inclusion: Best practices from eLearning” describes the five most promising strategies to establish best practices for the use of eLearning in eInclusion. The battle against the digital gap has many fronts and all of them deserve the highest possible attention. We hope you enjoy reading these and the other articles always available at eLearning Papers! Roberto Carneiro, Lluís Tarín, Director of the Editorial Board, eLearning Papers Content Manager, elearningeuropa.info Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 1

HELIOS: Redefining eLearning Territories Claudio Delrio Researcher SCIENTER cdelrio@scienter.org Thomas Fischer Senior Researcher FIM-NewLearning, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg thomas.fischer@fim.uni-erlangen.de Executive summary: For a long time, the evolution of industrial society has been represented in terms of growing functional differentiation between different social spheres. According to this paradigm, the more a social phenomenon is developing, the more it moves from an undifferentiated nature to its distinction in different social spheres or systems, assuming varied functions in each of these. Thus, it could very well be true that the evolution of eLearning over recent years has corresponded to its functional differentiation. However, it is not possible to assume that the only divisions of evolution for eLearning are to be associated purely with functional differentiation in social sub-systems. Many other possible divisions are emerging (e.g. by sector, purpose and target group) and have contributed to a growing differentiation of eLearning. Moreover, technology enables an increasing number of scenarios of use; eLearning has been often associated to face to face learning in blended formats, and country-specific eLearning developments can be identified. Instead of focusing on unidirectional laws of evolution, taking a descriptive and inductive approach and attempting to insulate and spot coherent areas of eLearning, it is probably more appropriate to capture a multiform phenomenon such as eLearning. Therefore, this article presents the so-called ‘eLearning Territories’, created by the HELIOS consortium. The eLearning Territories are considered useful for several reasons: • They help to overcome views on purely functional differentiations of eLearning and its development; • They contribute to overcome the debate on the disappearance versus full deployment of eLearning, as it is argued that eLearning is at different evolutionary stages in different territories; • They provide a platform for dialogue for practitioners and policy-makers, and they are expected to nurture the research agenda of researchers; • They support networking, coordination and integration among sectoral, specialised and national observatories and projects; • They promote ‘benchlearning’, as they suggest a shift from comparative assessments towards reflective and adaptive analysis; • They therefore contribute to the identification and collection of relevant indicators on eLearning development and impact within each territory. • They can finally be used as a roadmap for e-earning developments, starting from a territorial, instead of an aggregating, position. Keywords: eLearning, eLearning Territories, evolution, mapping, observation Introduction assuming many forms’, is introduced to describe the In Greek mythology, Proteus is the son of Poseidon. He current eLearning phenomena. is blessed by the gift to be able to foretell the future, It can be argued that the evolution of eLearning over but first you have to catch him. This may be difficult recent years mirrors its ‘protean’ nature. And it is as he is also able to change his appearance into all furthermore difficult to predict in a univocal way possible forms. Hence the word ‘protean’, with the its evolution as it is taking many different forms in general meaning of ‘versatile’, ‘mutable’, ‘capable of 2 eLearning Papers | 2008

different contexts, settings and individual and societal developing a map of so-called ‘eLearning Territories’, ‘life worlds’. which are still “largely unexplored” (Salmon, 2002). Some of the eLearning territories are already in For long time social scientists as Émile Durkheim the consolidation phase, while others are currently (1893) conceptualised the continued development emerging. Some are clustered according to their of industrial society in terms of growing functional purpose, some other according to the education or differentiation among different social spheres. training sector in which they are mainly observable, and According to this paradigm, the more a social others are of more ‘transversal’ nature. Every territory phenomenon is developing, the more it moves from implies different visions and perceptions of eLearning, an undifferentiated nature to its distinction in different sometimes with rather permeable boundaries but also social spheres or systems (for instance the economic or with clear ‘identities’ that provide analytical ground for the political sphere) assuming varied functions in each differentiation. of these. All the emerging and consolidated territories of Following this theoretical approach, it might be indeed eLearning can be represented graphically according to true that the evolution of eLearning over recent years their position on a map defined by a first continuum has corresponded to its functional differentiation. ranging from formal learning to informal/non-formal Certainly eLearning takes different forms, for instance, learning (Commission of the European Communities, in different learning systems and their sub-systems (e.g. 2000; CEDEFOP, 2002, 2004). vocational training, corporate, education…). Some of the territories still reflect the traditional However, a purely functionalist approach is not articulation of learning systems into sectors and their sufficient to seize the poliedricity of eLearning in physiognomy is influenced, but not ‘overturned’ by complex societies (Luhmann, 1995). eLearning. In contexts such as ‘ICT for Learning Among the several criticisms that have been raised Purposes within Schools’ or in Vocational Education to the functionalist approach (Coser, 1977), one is and Training (VET), despite the introduction definitely central for eLearning: it is not possible of eLearning (indeed with a varying degree of to assume that the only cleavages of evolution for implementation) the vast majority of learning initiatives eLearning are to be associated purely with functional occur in a context that is organised and structured in differentiation in social sub systems. a substantially formal and ‘traditional’ way. On the other hand in territories as ‘Non professional eLearning Many other possible cleavages are emerging. Not only a Communities’ or in ‘Communities generating eLearning rich debate, numerous documented practice cases and as a side effect’, eLearning is usually not organised or a growing amount of literature have enhanced (and at structured, nor necessarily intentional from the learner’s the same time threatened) the concept of eLearning by perspective. One might therefore argue that informal associating it to more established modes of learning, eLearning (Conner, 2005; Cross, 2003;) sometimes giving origin to the so-called ‘blended’ learning circumscribed as ‘GoogleLearning’ defines the vast and approach. At the same time varying fields of application almost infinite universe of informal learning activities. (e.g. by sector, by purpose, by target group) have Moreover, especially in the territories in which informal contributed to a growing articulation and differentiation eLearning prevails, online services look increasingly of eLearning. Moreover, these developments take place centred on their users, or even are co-built with users, in a context where technology enables an increasing supported by the emergence of open source software number of scenarios of use. Finally, country specific and contents (such as ‘Second Life’, ‘creative commons’, eLearning developments can be identified (Danish ‘YouTube’ or ‘Flickr’). Successful blogs, vlogs, podcasts, Technological Institute, 2004; L-CHANGE, 2004; virtual communities and forums are indeed those, Demunter, 2005, 2006; HELIOS, 2006). which are created bottom-up by individual or groups of ‘netizens’ (Tapscott, 1999; Downes, 2005; Stephenson, How to catch ‘proteus’ eLearning in contem- 2005; Veen, 2005) and not imposed from the top. porary societies? Another discriminating cleavage or continuum which Instead of focusing on presumably unidirectional laws may be useful for mapping eLearning territories is of evolution taking a descriptive and inductive approach the distinction between ‘intra-muros’ embodying and attempting to insulate and spot ‘coherent areas’ of the transition to a virtual environment of a group eLearning, not necessarily corresponding to traditional established in presence, and ‘extended learning context’, segmentations related to the functional differentiation representing a diversification of learning contexts, paradigm, seems to be more adequate. settings, persons and organisations involved. The HELIOS consortium (HELIOS, 2006) attempts to There is nowadays a widespread pressure on learning escape simplistic views of eLearning differentiation by systems towards openness, internationalisation, Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 3

enrichment and increasing boundlessness of learning learning and the improved flexibility of the learning contexts. Along these lines, the extension of eLearning delivery, there is an increasing societal diversification contexts corresponds, for instance, to such trends as of ‘learning patrimonies’ (POLE, 2004) or learning the increase of international virtual mobility exchanges contexts surrounding learning experiences. This and the multiplication of learning spaces and arenas diversification can be seen on the basis of such elements (Stephenson, 2005; LEONIE, 2005). as (Sheinberg, 2001): The extension of learning contexts should be also • Physical features: age, gender, disabilities; appreciated in the framework of the Lifelong Learning (LLL) paradigm. Due to the increased participation in • Educational background: fields of study, degrees earned, digital literacy; Figure 1: HELIOS Map of eLearning Territories Informal Learning Individual Development through eLearning Communities generating eLearning as a side effect Non-professional eLearning at the eLearning Virtual Professional Workplace Communities Networks Extended Intra-muros Learning Context ICT for Learning Purposes Inter-organisational in VET Institutions Development through eLearning ICT for Learning Purposes within schools ICT for Virtual Mobility of Learnes ICT for Learning Purposes Training of Teachers and within Tertiary Education Trainers on (and through) eLearning Evolved Distance Education Formal Learning 4 elearningpapers | 2008

• Cultural background: language, place of origin, which have been developed within the classroom traditions, sensitive subjects, migration status or within the institutional context of the learning experience. • Occupational background: experience, time in current job, relationships with other participants; In summary, it can be argued that a discriminating choice for present and future eLearning is either to • Psychological variables: needs, intentions, go deeper (i.e. maintain, develop and reinforce the expectations, motivation. relational ties created intra-muros) or to go wider The whole notion personalised eLearning experiences (i.e. allowing to expand relational networks beyond is based on considerations on these fundamental organisational and social cultures as well as geographic contextual elements. boundaries). On the other hand, the diversification of learning The positioning of the eLearning territories represented contexts has not meant the disappearance of classrooms in the following map (see Figure 1) depends on the and institutions. With regard to eLearning, this could proximity of each territory to the identified cardinal imply the change of a school setting or a working group points i.e.: informal versus formal learning and ‘intra created in presence (or ‘intra-muros’) into a virtual muros’ versus ‘extended learning context’. environment. The most common dynamic of blended The ‘eLearning territories’ approach therefore advocates learning is transformation: group formed in presence additional layers of differentiation and articulation and within the boundaries of a single institution or in order to better understand the present and future a number of institutions develops on-line with the dynamics of eLearning. possibility of further physical moments. In these situations, eLearning does not serve the purpose of The main territorial features are described in Table 1 going beyond traditional/institutional learning contexts, together with current and emerging trends observable but helps to maintain the social (and emotional) ties, in different countries. eLearning Territory Main Characteristics ICT for Learning Use of ICT for learning within school settings. The range of institutions covered by the term Purposes within varies from country to country. The term school refers to primary schools (sometimes divided Schools even further into pre-schooling and junior schools) and secondary schools. The applications of eLearning within schools can take several forms: activities enabled through ICT conducted into classroom or at a distance (e.g. e-Homework); activities led by teachers or organised by learners’ group, activities involving a single classroom or classroom networks, school e-twinning, etc (L-CHANGE, 2004; EUN, 2007). ICT for Learning Use of ICT for learning in universities, colleges etc., which may lead to an academic degree, and Purposes within in research centres. The applications of eLearning can take several forms, ranging from lectures Tertiary Education placed on line by a single teacher, to the dual mode or mixed mode (institutions offering programmes for both campus-based full-time students and off-campus part-time students), to the provision of degrees entirely on line. Even students or the faculty/teachers or even the university or region/country can lead initiatives (Bang & Dondi, 2001; L-CHANGE, 2004; PLS, 2004; SEEQUEL, 2004; OECD, 2005; Stephenson, 2005). ICT for Learning Vocational Education and Training (VET) prepares learners for careers or professions that are Purposes in VET historically non-academic, but rather related to a trade, occupation or ‘vocation’, in which the Institutions learner participates (or aiming at). Vocational education is in most cases a form of secondary or post-secondary education. In some cases, vocational education can lead to tertiary education study and an academic degree, however it is rarely considered in its own form to fall under the traditional definition of higher education. eLearning in the vocational training settings encompasses ways of delivery similar to those endorsed in school education or higher education, or to those endorsed in the corporate sector (i.e. eLearning chunks on demand/on the job). In any case the most significant ‘trait d’union’ of the majority of eLearning application into VET is the competence based approach, directed at current and likely future jobs, duties and tasks within an occupation or industry (CEDEFOP, 2002; Kearns, 2002; L-CHANGE, 2004; Snook, 2004). Table 1: Main Characteristics of the HELIOS eLearning Territories Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 5

eLearning Territory Main Characteristics eLearning at the Use of ICT for learning into the corporate sector and the public administration/agencies. Workplace Differences in the scope and in the delivery schemes of eLearning, between the public and the corporate sector, prevail mainly due to the organization structures and practices and the related human resources policies. In general, eLearning may take the form of structured training programmes fully on-line or blended schemes (complemented with seminar/ classroom based training), eLearning chunks on demand/on the job. The driving concerns related to most of these eLearning offers are the return on investment (emerging also in the public sector), the increased access and flexibility in training delivery, the contribution of the eLearning in achieving organisational change and fostering knowledge management practices. In this territory the slow emergence of “communities of practice” approaches is also observable in the most sophisticated organisations (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Kearns, 2002; Crompton & Munro, 2003; Piskurich, 2003; L-CHANGE, 2004; Snook, 2004; Stephenson, 2005). ICT for Virtual Virtual mobility is considered an instrument for internationalisation, learning, working, etc., Mobility of Learners further contributing to the integration of the European area. Virtual mobility has been at the heart of open and distance learning (ODL) projects of the European Commission since the second half of the 90s but its full scale development depends, to a large extent, on the establishment of strategic partnerships among education and training institutions focused on research collaboration and curriculum development. Constituting elements of virtual mobility are: trans-national lectures and/or learning materials, cross-border recruitment of students, intensity of communication flows, the international accreditation of learning achievements, the multilingualism, complementary to both physical mobility and conventional teaching (Bang & Dondi, 2001). Evolved Distance According to its original definition, distance education takes place when a teacher and his/ Education her student(s) are separated by physical distance, whereby technology means, often in concert with face-to-face communication, is used to bridge this gap. Distance education programs can provide adults with a second chance at a college education, reach those disadvantaged by limited time, distance or physical disability, and update the knowledge base of workers in on-the-job training schemes. The evolution of distance education is mainly featured by the wide adoption of ICT, as delivery means (by the “traditional” distance universities and distance learning organisations), as well as at the institutional level, through the ‘birth’ of a new generation of organisations exclusively offering distance and open education, in particular at the university level (e.g. UOC). Training of Teachers In the foreseeable future teachers and trainers will make even more use of ICT for professional and Trainers on (and activities including lesson planning and preparation of didactic materials, recording learning through) eLearning progress of the students and other administrative tasks, as well as their own professional development and continuing education. Many governments are investing in preparing teachers and trainers for a ‘technologically rich’ future: enabling them to acquire proficiency in using technology for education purposes and also challenging their pedagogic practice (Papert & Cavallo, 2000; L-CHANGE, 2004, EUN, 2007). Individual Individual development through eLearning includes ‘home learning’ as a whole, ranging Development from education to training related activities, together with any other technology-enhanced through eLearning learning activities not necessarily mediated by formal E&T institutions, in a ‘Lifelong Learning’ (LLL) perspective (Commission of the European Communities, 2000; Conner, 2005; Cross, 2003; Downes, 2005; eUSER, 2005; HELIOS, 2006; Tapscott, 1999). Virtual Professional A professionally oriented virtual community is geared towards professionals and/or facilitates Networks the dialogue on professional issues. Professionals participate in this type of communities, in order to contact each other and exchange information with people outside their own team or organization who require similar information to carry out their own (professional) duties. In these communities learning is sometimes intentionally generated in order to achieve professional development goals (although non professionally related learning might be a side effect; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Kearns, 2002; Piskurich, 2003; O’Murchu et al, 2004) 6 elearningpapers | 2008

Inter-organisational Inter-organisational development can be described as a cooperative relationship between Development organisations that relies on neither market nor hierarchical mechanism of control but through eLearning it is instead negotiated in an ongoing communicative process. Collaboration between organizations has come into focus in recent years with the recognition that success in a global economy comes from innovation and sharing of ideas. The more change there is in its environment, the more connections an organization needs with the outside world. eLearning, given the networking possibilities that it enables, is increasingly used for the purpose of inter- organisational development (Argyris & Schön, Rashford & Coghlan, 1987; Senge, 1994; Piskurich, 2003; Holmqvist, 2003). Non-professional Non-professional learning communities can be found, for instance, in the areas of E&T, eLearning if learning is shifted to the ‘virtual space’. They can be created by training providers as Communities a complement of a course or by grassroots initiatives due to a common personal (non- professional) interest. Their learning purpose is explicitly perceived and agreed by all members of the community, although not necessarily leading to formal recognition. Learning taking place in these communities might contribute to the development of skills and competences for the workplace, but also for private and social life (Conner, 2005; Cross, 2003; Downes, 2005; eUSER, 2005; HELIOS, 2006; Tapscott, 1999). Communities These virtual communities do not foresee learning as their main objective. Establishing a generating relationship to other members of these communities is prompted first and foremost by eLearning as a side a common interest or common value commitment resulting from either geographical or effect intellectual proximity, demographic similarity, common hobbies, belonging to the same NGO or charity, to name a few. These communities may take the form of popular chat rooms, blogs, fora where informal learning takes place (Conner, 2005; Cross, 2003; Downes, 2005; eUSER, 2005; HELIOS, 2006; Tapscott, 1999). Table 1: Main Characteristics of the HELIOS eLearning Territories Conclusions (Ritzel, 2006) as it is argued that eLearning is at a The presented analysis and the findings of HELIOS different evolutionary stages in different ‘territories’; until today are not all suggesting an ‘atomisation’ • They provide a platform for dialogue for of eLearning as none of the introduced ‘eLearning practitioners and policy makers, and it is expected to Territories’ should be conceived as insulated nurture the research agenda of researchers; areas with impermeable and static boundaries, but implies that further research is needed on the • They support networking, coordination and interdependencies and interactions of territories and integration among sectoral, specialised and national their contextualisation into learning patrimonies. observatories and projects; Neither should be excluded that new eLearning • They promote ‘benchlearning’ as they suggest to shift territories may emerge and replace those proposed from comparative assessments towards reflective and or significant re-restructuring or restructuring of adaptive analysis; eLearning territories may take place. Moreover, different representations and descriptions of the • They therefore contribute to the identification variety of present eLearning developments are equally and collection of relevant indicators on eLearning plausible. development and impact within each ‘territory’. However, the articulation of ‘eLearning Territories’ • They can finally be used as a roadmap for eLearning and their assessment and analysis by the HELIOS developments starting from a territorial instead of an eLearning Observatory as they evolve over time are aggregating position. considered useful for several reasons: As ‘proteus’, eLearning is able change its appearance • They help to overcome views on purely functional easily, rapidly and steadily. The trends listed above differentiations of eLearning and its development; enframe current snapshots on eLearning as ‘eLearning Territories’, in order to achieve a more valid picture of • They contribute to overcome the debate on the the current state of play as well as the possible future disappearance versus full deployment of eLearning of eLearning. Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 7

References ➜ Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. A theory of action perspective, Reading: Addison Wesley ➜ Bang, J. & Dondi, C. (2001): The Challenge of ICT to University Education: Networking, Virtual Mobility and Collaborative Learning. In Trindade, A. (Ed.). New Learning: Invited Articles of the Conference ODL Networking for Quality Learning, Lisbon: Universidade Aberta, 380-418. ➜ Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. In Organization Science, 1991, 2(1), 40-57 ➜ CEDEFOP (2002). ELearning and training in Europe: A survey into the use of eLearning in training and professional development in the European Union, Thessalonica: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training ➜ CEDEFOP (2004). Terminology of vocational training policy. A multilingual glossary for an enlarged Europe, Thessalonica: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training; http://www2.trainingvillage.gr/etv/publication/download/panorama/4030_6k.pdf ➜ Commission of the European Communities (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2000) 1832, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/MemorandumEng.pdf ➜ Conner, M. L. (2005). Informal Learning, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.agelesslearner.com/intros/informal.html ➜ Coser, L.A. (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, Long Grove: Waveland Press ➜ Crompton, P. & Munro, J. (2003). Assessing the Application of Online Learning in a Work-Based Setting, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.theknownet.com/ict_smes_seminars/papers/Crompton.html ➜ Cross J. (2003). Informal Learning – A Sound Investment, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_col_effectiveness.asp?articleid=277&zoneid=104 ➜ Cross J. (2003). Informal Learning – the other 80%, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.internettime.com/Learning/The%20Other%2080%25.htm ➜ Danish Technological Institute (2004). Study of the eLearning suppliers’“market” in Europe. Final Report, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/elearning/doc/studies/market_study_en.pdf ➜ Demunter, C. (2005). Internet activities in Europe. Statistics in Focus 40/2005. Luxemburg: EUROSTAT; http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NP-05-040/EN/KS-NP-05-040-EN.PDF ➜ Demunter, C. (2005). The digital divide in Europe. Statistics in Focus 38/2005. Luxemburg: EUROSTAT; http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NP-05-038/EN/KS-NP-05-038-EN.PDF ➜ Demunter, C. (2006). How skilled are Europeans in using computers and the Internet? Statistics in Focus 17/2006. Luxemburg: EUROSTAT; http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NP-06-017/EN/KS-NP-06-017-EN.PDF ➜ Downes, S. (2005). ELearning 2.0, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1 ➜ Durkheim, E. (1893). The Division of Labor in Society, New York: The Free Press; reprint in 1997 ➜ EUN (2007). Equipped, trained … and now what? Trends and issues in eLearning in European school systems, Brussels: European Schoolnet; http://insight.eun.org/ww/en/pub/insight/misc/specialreports/elearningtrends.htm ➜ eUSER (2005). D 5.1: First Synthesised Inputs to Knowledge Repository, Including Initial Survey Results and Good Practice Examples. and eUSER (2005). D 3.2: User needs, preferences and requirements concerning European online services – a descriptive analysis of the EUSER population surveys. Bonn: empirica. URL: http://www.eusereu.org/eUSER_PopulationSurveyStatistics.asp?MenuID=73 ➜ HELIOS (2006). Evolving eLearning. HELIOS Yearly Report 2005/2006. Brussels: MENON Network EEIG; http://www.education-observatories.net/helios/reports ➜ Holmqvist, M. (2003). Intra- and inter-organisational learning processes: an empirical comparison. In Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2003, 19 (4), 443-466. 8 elearningpapers | 2008

➜ Kearns, P. (2002). Towards the Connected Learning Society. An International Overview of Trends in Policy for Information and Communication Technology in Education, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/otherpub/towards_the_connected.pdf ➜ L-CHANGE (2004). Change in European Education and Training Systems related to Information Society Technologies (IST). Yearly Report 2003/2004, Bologna: SCIENTER; http://www.education-observatories.net/lchange ➜ LEONIE (2005). Understanding Change, Adapting to Change, Shaping the Future. Change Drivers, Trends & Core Tensions for European Learning Systems & Educational Policies, Brussels: MENON Network EEIG; http://www.education-observatories.net/leonie/outputs/LEONIE_Report_2006.pdf ➜ Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems, Stanford: Stanford University Press ➜ O’Murchu, I., Breslin, J. G., Decker S. (2004). Online Social and Business Networking Communities, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.deri.ie/fileadmin/documents/DERI-TR-2004-08-11.pdf ➜ OECD (2005). ELearning in Tertiary Education: Where do We Stand, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ➜ Papert, S. & Cavallo, D. (2000). Entry Point to Twenty First Century Learning, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://learning.media.mit.edu/learninghub.html ➜ Piskurich G. M. (Ed.) (2003). The AMA Handbook of ELearning. Effective Design, Implementation, and Technology Solutions. Boston: American Management Association ➜ PLS (2004), Studies in the Context of the ELearning Initiative: Virtual Models of European Universities, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.eLearningeuropa.info/extras/pdf/virtual_models.pdf ➜ POLE (2004). Technologies for the Knowledge Society & Lifelong Learning. Key Findings and Suggestions for Action. Brussels: MENON Network EEIG; http://www.education-observatories.net/pole/key_report_web.pdf ➜ Rashford, N.S., & Coghlan, D. (1987). Enhancing human involvement in organizations - a paradigm for participation. In Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 1987, 8(1), 17-21 ➜ Ritzel, L. (2006). eLearning is Learning, retrieved from http://www.prasena.com/public/eLearning%20is%20Learning.doc ➜ Salmon, G. (2002). Future Learning Encounters, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.solki.jyu.fi/eurocall2002/eurocallencounters.pdf ➜ SEEQUEL (2004). SEEQUEL Core Quality Framework, Brussels: MENON Network EEIG; http://www.education-observatories.net/seequel/SEEQUEL_core_quality_Framework.pdf ➜ Senge P. M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organizations. New York: Currency Doubleday ➜ Sheinberg, M. (2001). Know Thy Learner: The Importance of Context in ELearning Design, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2001/oct2001/elearn.html ➜ Snook, A. (2004). The future is ‘e’, , retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.eLearningzone.co.uk/feature7.htm ➜ Stephenson, S. (2005). Putting the Learner First in eLearning, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.johnstephenson.net/js-isel05.pdf ➜ Tapscott, D. (1999). The Rise of the Net Generation. Growing up Digital, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.growingupdigital.com ➜ Veen, W. (2005). 2020 Visions, retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.global-learning.de/g-learn/downloads/veen_visions2020.pdf Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 9

Observing the eLearning phenomenon: The case of school education. Analysing the transformative innovation of eLearning Nikitas Kastis President MENON Network nikitas.kastis@menon.org Executive summary: Over the past 25 years, the school sector has been the promising area for public policies and funding activities, as well as for commercial interests, to increase the availability of ICT in education. From the years when the questions basically addressed the needs of piloting innovations in the learning process, the international discourse about the impact of ICT on the outcomes of school education has gradually taken on a more mature and purposeful approach whereby the necessary changes that characterise interrelations with decision-making in education as well as with out-of-school developments are currently being taken into account. These interrelations have been greatly affected by the ICT penetration of society at large, implying a holistic approach to the evolution in learning at school level as regards the education outcome and its long-term impact on growth and social inclusion. A lot of public spending took place, in the form of subsidies for the development of end-products or funding of pilot products (mainly off-line) at both the national and the European level. Nevertheless, although there are not any well-documented surveys regarding the returns in terms of quality and effectiveness of learning, it seems that these targeted content applications have been put to use only marginally in school curricula. In the meantime, the changes in digital content (business) models, brought about by the continuous enhancement of Internet-based services, which are revolutionising the content services markets, are further undermining the traditional paradigm of knowledge building at school (from a straightforward “push” to a blended “push-pull-push” model). This means that the availability of hardware (infrastructure) and the (sometimes) abundance of textbook-like digital content (the fallacy of “new” textbooks in the electronic era) do not appear to be sufficient to cater for advanced, enriched and innovative learning experiences, thus marginalising any returns on investments. We have hereby considered three strategic evolution dimensions: that related to the decision-making processes (running of schools); that related to the accessibility level in relation to the achievement of a standard quality and, finally, the emerging inter-winning fields of professional teacher development and the value chain of content (knowledge) as it cuts across the traditional fragmentation between the “creator” and the “consumer” of “knowledge” . Keywords: Schools, innovation, education School Education: the Primary to the last grades of the Secondary Education the territory and social priorities (Upper Secondary). During the last 20-25 years, starting from the early ‘80s, computers and later on networking The term School Education refers to any form of learning and communication technologies have continuously - that takes place at the age between 4-6 years and 17-19 and in waves - been installed in schools, following their years old. According to the dominant paradigm in the widespread adoption and penetration in almost all other last century (20th), in all developed societies, any type of social contexts. These installed ICT resources are being learning offer, covering subjects and programs, curricula characterized by widely varying usage rates and even and textbooks, or learning setting, basically school-based, more varying returns, in terms of both the quality of the including those from age to subject-structured school learning process as well as the learning achievements and classes and project teams - or even those taking the form the education attainment. of home-based learning (‘home schooling’) -, all these are to much extent prescribed, regulated and more often Evidently, in these 25 years, the school sector has been directed by the country/region education authorities, the promising area for public policies and funding in the form of national or sometimes local curricula activities as well as for those commercial interests aiming as well as through the established practice of teaching at increasing the availability - and hopefully use - of ICT (“patrimony”) in the relevant school system. in education at large. Moving from those early years on, when the research questions were basically addressing There has already been a lot of research on the the needs of piloting and validation of innovations in the introduction, use and the potential impact of the micro-setting, the learning process, as it happened with Information and Communication Technology (ICT) on the CAL (Computer Aided Learning) and other similar learning which takes place or is related to schooling, from initiatives, at present the international discourse about 10 eLearning Papers | 2008

the rationale of the introduction, use and, eventually, classrooms. The so-called infrastructure availability and the impact of ICT on the outcomes of school education, access has always been the major – in fact in most of has gradually reached a more mature and purposeful the times the only - concern of all governments and the approach. Whereby, the necessary changes which EU itself, in the context of the Lisbon Process (and the characterize the interrelations with the operational Education and Training 2010 Objectives). As regards aspects and decision-making in education as well as with particularly this policy priority, some countries, like the the outside-school developments, in the content services ones of Southern Europe, had to go a long way in order and entertainment (the “home market”), are currently to bring their gap towards the Nordic countries and the being taken into account more systematically. UK into a reasonable range (see references about the latest figures, for the year 2002-3). These interrelations, between the micro-level, the learning process – sometimes described by the term Nevertheless, relevant progress in this area, as measured “school practice” - and the macro-level, when referring to nowadays with the “famous” pupils-per-networked- policies and action planning for the running of the school computer ratio, seems not to be enough in order to system (education policy), have been greatly affected facilitate the foreseen changes in schools (upgrade of by the ICT penetration in the society at large. Thus, the quality of the learning process and the outcome). implying or better asking for a holistic approach to the To this ‘under-performance’ we should also add the still analysis and understanding of the evolutions in learning problematic objective of sustaining a quantity and quality at school level, the changes in terms of the education threshold of access to ICT resources, which turns to be “outcome” and their long-term impact on growth and a rather expensive exercise for the public authorities – social inclusion (the social and individual values, the new for the maintenance cost as well as the hardware and ‘balance’ between the public and private sphere, the social software upgrades. mobility etc.). Apart from the main objective (“pillar”) of the Emerging Trends and Developments infrastructure availability – which is actually only partly defining the accessibility level (the access to learning The types of institutions defined by or using the term resources) -, most of the self-respected education policies School does not vary a lot, at least in the European Union in EU member states addressing the school sector in the area. The term is used when referring to the pre-tertiary last 15 years, have dealt with the “digital learning content education establishments, which are either Primary availability”, usually subsidising the cost (‘paying for’) (and nursery) schools or Secondary schools (Lower the develop ment and piloting of so-called “educational” Secondary, ages 13-15 yrs and Upper Secondary, ages software. It used to be and still is, at least for some of 16-18/19 years). All of them are in most cases run by the them, another demanding and controversial area of state or by other forms of socially accountable entities, intervention and expanding policy making. like the municipalities or local educational authorities. The private sector has a rather marginal existence in There has been a lot of public spending in the form of some EU countries, mainly for purpose or target specific either subsidies to the development cost of end-products schools (like faith schools, etc.). Greece corresponds to (in the eligibility margins of the competition regulatory an exception, as the system although dominated by the framework) or in the form of funding of pilot products public school sector allows for the existence of tightly (mainly off-line), under research and development regulated private (in fact profit making!) entities offering support frameworks, at both the national and the school education (i.e. they own and run schools). European level. The driving objective being always the facilitation of a rich and expanding “pool” of quality The applications of eLearning in School Education can digital learning materials, in order to provide the school take several forms, ranging from the activities enabled communities with more demanding than “drill and through ICT, conducted in the classroom, to those at practice” software with really engaging multimedia titles, a distance (e.g. e-homework). Or, even more, from the using cultural and scientific content of high value from activities addressing the teachers to those engaging the across Europe. Nevertheless, although there are not any pupils and, from national programmes to grassroots well-documented surveys as of the returns, in terms of initiatives involving only one school class and, finally, to quality and effectiveness of learning, it seems that these virtual mobility programmes of school teachers and pupils. targeted content applications have only found a rather The advancements of ICT have usually been transferred marginal use in the school curricula. to basically only technical enhancements in ICT-for- In the meantime, the changes in the digital content learning (eLearning) infrastructures in schools, thus development and publishing (business) models, brought constituting the driving concern of waves of public about by the continuous enhancement of the Internet- spending, in order to support widely accepted policies that based services which takes place in the last 10 years were to sustain the availability of computers and, later and is still revolutionizing the content services markets, on, of networking in the European schools and the school are further undermining the traditional paradigm of Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 11

knowledge building in the school (from a straight “push” In the following, we come to foster the critical to a blended “push-pull-push” model). Meaning that, components of successful (effective) policy making and whichever availability of hardware (infrastructure) and the flourishing practice, through the reference to certain (sometimes) abundance of textbook-like digital content cases of innovative and sometimes successful policies (the fallacy of the “new” text-books in the “electronic era”), and projects from across Europe. We tried to point to these do not seem enough to cater for advanced, enriched government initiatives or even school-driven projects, and innovative learning experiences, thus marginalizing which have either been completed successfully or provide the returns of the relevant investments. evidence of a long-term impact on future evolutions in the school system (e.g. the change of the role of A common mantra as regards the rational approach the teacher, the consolidation of new service delivery to policy-making and design for the introduction of schemes to schools, etc.) ICT-driven innovations in the school system used to go about focusing on all the three lines (areas) of potential Observing the Change: action, namely infrastructure (“equipment”), learning materials (“content”) and teachers preparation (training, Is Innovation taking place? the “human factor”). And, going even further, including We have considered three critical, strategic dimensions recommendations as regards the split of the available which should be brought to the attention of both education resources, with the “golden rule” of allocating a third to analysts (researchers) and policy makers. We start with each action line. This is leading us to the most problematic what has to do with the decision-making processes policy area as regards the ICT-for-learning in School and the running of schools, then we proceed with the Education, which is related to the “human factor”, the dimension of the accessibility level in relation to the school teachers. attainment of a standard quality (as regards “access”) and, finally, the dimension that defines the emerging inter- Although teachers have historically been considered the winning fields of teacher professional development and the critical factor for the success of any type of innovation in value chain of content (“knowledge”), as it cuts across the education, it seems that both the scale and the potential traditional fragmentation between the “creator” and the effect of the ICT-driven changes in school education “consumer” of the “knowledge”. go beyond the capacity of the education system, which has to sustain an ever increasing level of quantity and • The competitive advantage of the autonomy at quality of the “teacher” factor (the “teaching capacity”), school or local level considered enough to address the continuous increase From the extended review of the ICT-for-learning of the demand for learning in our societies. The school policies and activities in the EU, it seems that those education systems, with different reasons to look for in countries that are running a rather decentralized the developed and the developing parts of the world, are school system, whereby autonomy in decision-making facing an intensifying problem of relative decrease of concerning the curriculum, school program, equipping, the teachers’ professional development capacity, which etc., is high, as it is in the case of the Nordic countries, the constitutes a challenge of the 21st century societies UK and the Netherlands, show a comparative progress. when considering the impact on the provision of school This progress has to do with an increased and more education and the effects on the social inclusion policies demanding use of ICT in the learning process. In the as well as on the productivity and the economic growth. HELIOS Comparative Analysis Report (an Observatory Action run by the MENON Network, www.menon.org), In most of the widely acknowledged papers and research these countries usually correspond to the “champions” work, the impact of ICT on the learning processes of eLearning and, as in most of the cases, they provide implies significant changes of the role (job) of the a policy-making practice that goes with a systematic teacher, asking for an increased capacity for strategic evaluation work, accompanying any type of action and thinking, motivation and leadership and collaborative- introduction of innovation. What is also very interesting, communication potential, in order to provide mentoring in these school systems, as documented by the PISA in new forms of learning experiences for her/his students. results, only a small part of the variation of the testing In this evolutionary context, how could we define “good performance among the students can be attributed to the practice”, in order to serve a bottom-up approach to the difference between the schools. consolidation of new school learning paradigms and, at the same time, to constitute an effective approach to holistic • How to go with investing in infrastructure and serv- policy-making, in order to reach the right balance with ices to schools top-down planning, meeting the challenges of “access to learning” (see “infrastructure-equipment”), “creation It has already been mentioned that the success of those and sharing of knowledge” (see “learning materials”) and policies that aim at providing the necessary computing “building of competences in learning communities” (see and communication infrastructure to schools is very teachers training and professional development)? much dependent on the extent to which they are integrated in a much broader and more holistic approach 12 elearningpapers | 2008

to education objectives, an approach which actually demanding job, which will ask for high-end competences copes with the principle of accessibility or, in other words, related to knowledge and skills acquisition and the sustainability of a minimum “access level” to the ICT cognitive procedures as well as to the communication resources. This sustainability comes as the result of (a) the and project management. This also implies a strong availability of funding to ensure a certain maintenance linkage to the emerging knowledge building schemes, level for both hardware and software and (b) of the whereby information – i.e. content - with potential and capacity of spatial and time-wise arrangements as well as varying learning value (sometimes named “learning the competence of the school staff to ensure significant materials”) is being developed, shared, used and re- use of ICT resources by the students. purposed dynamically, especially through communities of common interests – see the parallel of project/subject • Joint actions for online learning materials and teacher or age-defined classrooms in the schools. It is promising professional development for their education systems to mention that in both Many studies and surveys – and the widely accepted France and Germany, with still rather centralised and understanding of education analysts – suggest that the authoritative school systems, interesting policy cases most critical evolution of the school system has to do have been identified. The cases point to the inter-winning with the changes related to the role/job of the teacher. of teacher professional development and the learning Everybody is convinced that we need to cater for a more content and knowledge building in schools. References ➜ eEurope 2005: An information society for all, COM (2002) http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/news_library/documents/eeurope2005/eeurope2005_en.doc ➜ OECD planning paper 2002-4 ➜ Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom, Larry Cuban, Harvard University Press, 2001: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/CUBOVE.pdf ➜ Peter Kearns “Towards the Connected Learning Society” Global Learning Services, Draft Version. Australia 2002. , ➜ Policies concerning ICT in education, Towards the third phase of policy making in ICT league countries, NL-Nordic alliance paper, February 2002 ➜ THINK and NOW studies: http://eminent.eun.org/workshop1.cfm; http://eminent.eun.org/THINK_FULL_DRAFT_2pp.doc ➜ Wired to learn: What’s holding up the school of the future, Tom McMullen, Adam Smith Institute, 2002 http://www.adamsmith.org.uk/policy/publications/pdf-files/ict-7-jan-02-doc.pdf ➜ The REFERNet Country Reports (HELIOS Observatory) – 2005 ➜ Commission Staff Working Paper – Progress towards the Lisbon Objectives in Education and Training, 2005 Report. ➜ Equipped, trained… and now what? Trends and issues in e-learning in European school systems & INSIGHT Country Reports – EUN INSIGHT team paper, Febr. 2006. ➜ Education in Europe: Key Statistics 2002-2003, Eurostat. ➜ Education in Europe – Eurydice 2005. ➜ ICT in Education around the world: trends, problems and prospects – W.J. Pelgrum and N. Law, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris 2003. ➜ Commission Staff Working Paper: New Indicators on Education and Training – Brussels 2004. ➜ Investment in Education: the implications for economic growth and public finances – European Economy/ Economic Paper by A. Montanino, B. Przywara and D. Young, European Commission, DG Economic and Financial Affairs. ➜ Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers, OECD publication, Education and Training Policy, 2005. ➜ The Teaching Profession in Europe: profile, trends and concerns, Eurydice 2003. ➜ Some Simple Analytics of School Quality, E.A. Hanushek, NBER Working Paper Series, 2004. ➜ Visions 2020: Transforming Education and Training through Advanced Technologies – US Department of Commerce, 2002. ➜ Upon What Does the Turtle Stand? Rethinking Education for the Digital Age, Ed. Aharon Aviram & Janice Richardson, Springer, December 2004. ➜ Are Students Ready for a Technology-Rich World? What PISA Studies Tell US, OECD Report, 2005. ➜ Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2006, OECD Report, 2006. ➜ The Economics of Knowledge: Why Education is Key for Europe’ s success, Andreas Schleicher, the Lisbon Council Policy Brief, July 2006. Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 13

Open Educational Resources and Practices Dr. Sandra Schaffert Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Dept. EduMedia sandra.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at Dr. Guntram Geser Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Dept. EduMedia guntram.geser@salzburgresearch.at Executive summary: In the last few years, Open Educational Resources (OER) have gained much attention. From January 2006 to December 2007 the Open eLearning Content Observatory Services (OLCOS), a project co-funded by the European Commission under the eLearning Programme, explored how OER can make a difference in teaching and learning. The project aimed at promoting OER through different activities and products such as a European OER roadmap and OER tutorials. In this paper we present some results of the roadmap which provides an overview of the OER landscape and describes possible pathways towards a higher level of production, sharing and usage of OER. Moreover, the roadmap provides recommendations on required measures and actions to support decision making at the level of educational policy and institutions. The roadmap emphasises that the knowledge society demands competencies and skills that require innovative educational practices based on open sharing and the evaluation of ideas, fostering creativity and teamwork among the learners. Collaborative creation and sharing among learning communities of OER is regarded as an important catalyst of such educational innovations. The OLCOS project also developed free online tutorials for practitioners. The objective of these tutorials is supporting students and teachers in the creation, re-use and sharing of OER. To promote hands-on work, the tutorials advise on questions such as the following: How to search for OER? Which materials may be re-used and modified? How to produce and license own OER? The tutorials will be accessible and, potentially, will evolve beyond the end of the OLCOS project, because they are published on an open and successful Wiki based platform (Wikieducator.org) and can be updated by anybody. Keywords: Open Educational Resources, Open Content, Open Source, Educational Policy, Roadmap, Tutorials, collaborative creation combine and repurpose the content; consequently, Definition and Background that the content should ideally be designed for easy re- In the last few years Open Educational Resources (OER) use in the open content standards and formats which have gained much attention, though an authoritatively are being employed; accredited definition of such resources does not yet exist. However, at the UNESCO-IIEP Forum (2001) it • that for educational systems/tools software is was agreed that OER include Open Course Content, used for which the source code is available (i.e. Open Source development tools, and Open Standards Open Source software) and that there are open licensing tools. (cf. The International Institute for Application Programming Interfaces (open APIs) and Educational Planning/UNESCO 2001) authorisations to re-use Web-based services as well as resources.” (Geser 2007, p. 20) Stephen Downes observes that “there is a great deal of debate extant concerning the definition of ‘open’ open acces: content (including resources”. (Downes 2007a, p. 299) In the OLCOS metadata) is provided free of charge project, Guntram Geser (2007) argued that experts who understand OER as a means of leveraging educational open licensed: liberally licensed for practices and outcomes will define OER based on the re-use, favourable free from restrictions “open” to modify, combine and repurpose following core attributes (see also figure 1): educational resources open format: produced in open • “that access to open content (including metadata) is format and designed for easy re-use provided free of charge for educational institutions, content services and end-users such as teachers, open software: produced with open students and lifelong learners; source software • that the content is liberally licensed for re-use in Figure 1: The meaning of “open” in “Open Educational Resources” , educational activities, free from restrictions to modify, own illustration following Geser 2007, p. 20 14 eLearning Papers | 2008

These are rather demanding principles and, in fact, downloaded freely from the project website, www. repositories of educationally relevant resources often do olcos.org. Furthermore the OLCOS project developed not fully abide by them. Hence, readers should be aware free online tutorials for practitioners. The objective of that when we refer to “open” resources, there may be these tutorials is to support students and teachers in the several criteria that current OER projects do not meet creation, re-use and sharing of OER. while still being developed in the spirit of the current Open Access movement. Open Educational Practices Following Geser (2007), OER are understood to be an The OLCOS road mapping has been carried out to important element of policies that want to leverage inform and support a transformation in educational education and lifelong learning for the knowledge practices that brings learning processes and their society and economy. This expectation is to some outcomes closer to what individuals will need to degree influenced by the observation that the huge participate successfully in the knowledge society. investments made so far in ICT-enabled teaching and The OLCOS Roadmap 2012 on Open Educational learning have not brought about profound changes Practises and Resources (Geser 2007) explores in educational practices. In particular, notions that possible pathways towards a higher level of the use of ICT would promote student-centred and production, sharing and usage of OER and provides collaborative approaches have not been fulfilled. recommendations on required measures to support Rather there is a considerable mismatch between decision making at the level of educational policy and teaching and learning as framed and maintained institutions. by typical educational institutions and the fabric of work in a knowledge-based economy “out there”. In The roadmap emphasises that the knowledge addition, there is an obvious gap between current society demands competencies and skills that educational practices and what a younger generation require innovative educational practices based on of students uses almost naturally to communicate open sharing and evaluation of ideas, fostering and form communities of interest outside “the of creativity, and teamwork among the learners. classroom”. Collaborative creation and sharing among learning communities of OER is regarded as an important In this context, the importance of Open Content and catalyst of such educational innovations. Therefore, Open Source Software tools that enhance learning OER should become a key element of policies that processes has been acknowledged by international aim to leverage education and lifelong learning for initiatives and organisations. For example, the OECD the knowledge society and economy. (2007) published a study about OER based on an international survey, and the William and Flora However, the project also emphasises that for Hewlett Foundation commissioned a review about achieving this goal it is crucial to promote innovation the OER movement (Atkins, Brown and Hammond and change in educational practices. In particular, 2007). Furthermore, there are some projects co- OLCOS warns that delivering OER to the still financed by the European Commission, for example dominant model of teacher-centred knowledge OLCOS (focus on open educational content) and transfer will have little effect on equipping teachers, Bazaar (focus on Open Source tools). students and workers with the competences, knowledge and skills to participate successfully in the Open eLearning Content Observatory Services knowledge economy and society. (OLCOS), a project that ran from January 2006 to December 2007 under the eLearning Programme, Therefore the OLCOS project focuses on explored how OER can make a difference in teaching open educational practices that are based on a and learning. The project consortium comprised competency-focused, constructivist paradigm of the European Centre for Media Competence learning and promote a creative and collaborative (Germany), the European Distance and ELearning engagement of learners with digital content, tools Network (Hungary), the FernUniversität in Hagen and services in the learning process. (Germany), the Mediamaisteri Group (Finland), the Open University of Catalonia (Spain) and the project Recommendations for Open Educational co-ordinator Salzburg Research, EduMedia Group Practices and Resources (Austria). The OLCOS Roadmap 2012 provides recommendations The project aimed at promoting OER through on measures which stakeholders from educational different activities: OLCOS produced a roadmap to policy makers and funding bodies to individual teachers provide educational decision makers with orientation and students can apply to promote and support open and recommendations on how to foster the further educational practices and benefit from sharing and re- development and use of OER. This study can be using OER. Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 15

Recommendations for educational policy makers and contracts of employed researchers and educators funding bodies should acknowledge the IPR of authors, but require • Promote open educational practices that allow for non-exclusive copyrights for the institution to make acquiring competences and skills that are necessary to accessible educational resources under appropriate participate successfully in the knowledge society licenses. • Foster the development of OER, e.g. through creating Recommendations for teachers a favourable environment for Open Access to • Clarify the professional role, appropriate approaches educational content and required skills of a teacher in a knowledge society • Support the development of widely used, state-of-the- • Employ open educational practices to help learners art and sustainable open access repositories acquire competences for the knowledge society • Demand public–private partnerships to concentrate • Make use of tools and services that support on ventures for innovating educational practices and collaborative learning processes and learning resources communities In particular, educational policy makers and funding • Share proven learning designs, content and bodies should demand that academic and educational experiences through open access repositories and resources that have been fully or to a larger part publicly open licenses funded are made freely accessible under an appropriate license (e.g. Creative Commons or similar). With In particular, teachers should change their role respect to educational open access repositories, funding from dispensers of knowledge to facilitators of open criteria should demand an in-depth understanding educational practices that emphasise learners’ own of how an as broad as possible active usage of the activities in developing competences, knowledge and repository can be established. Funding schemes should skills. Hence, teachers should favour learning designs provide for a longer-term perspective, through initial that make use of novel, low-barrier tools and services funding for achieving full operation, and further (e.g. Weblogs, Wikis, RSS-based content provision, funding based on a critical assessment of factual usage. etc.) for collaborative learning and sharing of ideas, experiences and study results. Recommendations for boards, directors and supervisors of educational institutions The roadmap also suggests that teachers should share within a community of practice experiences, lessons • Scrutinise whether educational institutions are learned and suggestions on how to better foster employing innovative approaches beyond teacher- the development of students’ as well as their own centred knowledge transfer competences and skills. This would be part of a new • Promote the sharing and re-use of Open Educational understanding of teachers’ professional work that Resources and experiences from open educational includes a permanent questioning, evaluation and practices improvement of educational practices and resources. • Establish reward mechanisms and supportive Recommendations for learners and students measures for developing and sharing Open • Demand educational approaches that allow for Educational Resources and experiences acquiring competences and skills for the knowledge society • Clarify copyrights and define licensing schemes for making Open Educational Resources available • Suggest open learning practices using new tools and services A very critical element in OER initiatives are reward mechanisms and supportive measures that stimulate the • Develop an own ePortfolio and make study results development and sharing of resources. Boards, directors accessible to others and supervisors will need to question established values, traditions and practices, for example, the greater value • Respect IPR/copyright of others and make one’s own that is often attached to research publications than creative work accessible under an open content license to teaching material, particularly when it comes to Students should demand educational approaches that academic promotion. ensure that learning experiences are real, rich and The roadmap also urges that in many institutions it relevant, for example through addressing real world is far from clear who owns IPR/copyrights and what problems, working collaboratively, using new tools and licenses should be employed when making resources information services, and critically discussing content available to others. A recommendation here is that and study results. Students will also benefit from an own 16 elearningpapers | 2008

e-portfolio for documenting and reflecting the progress and allow for making use of a variety of information and results of their study work, and to make results sources. Such practices do not require large, centrally they are proud of accessible through an open access managed systems; rather, they will make use of easy repository under an open content license (see also to implement and manage tools and services such as Attwell, Chrzaszcz, Hilzensauer, Hornung-Prähauser & Wikis, Weblogs, Web-based e-portfolios, RSS feed Pallister 2007). aggregators, and others. Recommendations for educational repositories How-to Guidance through Tutorials • Do not follow a top-down strategy of delivering Besides the roadmap and recommendations, the learning objects; empower teachers and learners OLCOS project developed a series of free online tutorials for practitioners (Córcoles, Ferran Ferrer, • Support individual content creators and communities Hornung-Prähauser, Kalz, Minguillón, Naust-Schulz of practice with useful tools and services & Schaffert, 2007). These tutorials provide information • Make licensing of content as easy as possible and guidance on how to plan, search, produce/re- use, share and publish open educational content for • Allow for easy discovery of and access to resources eLearning. In addition, an OLCOS collection has been • Assist open content initiatives in the creation of rich built, presenting and providing links to many online metadata and provide semantically enhanced access to resources such as OER repositories. resources To support the idea of OER, the OLCOS tutorials The key point with respect to educational repositories had to be open, free and collaboratively developed. is that they should abandon the currently dominant The project team decided to use the WikiEducator top-down approach of trying to deliver learning objects project as a suitable platform to collaborate with to teacher-centred education, as this reinforces the still authors external to the project and involve other dominant knowledge transfer model of education and interested parties. The WikiEducator is a community will not promote innovation in teaching and learning. project “working collaboratively with the Free Culture Instead, repositories should promote open educational Movement towards a free version of the education practices and empower teachers and learners to do curriculum by 2015”. Its technical infrastructure is and achieve something themselves. This is not about supported by the Commonwealth of Learning, which repository users as consumers but as potential co- is an intergovernmental organisation created by creators of shared, commons-based resources. Commonwealth Heads of Government to “encourage the development and sharing of open learning Recommendations for developers and implementers and distance education knowledge, resources and of eLearning tools and environments technologies”. (WikiEducator, 2007) • Involve teachers and students in the development of The choice of this platform has been fruitful for both learning tools parties, as can be seen from the fact that the launch of the OLCOS tutorials in September 2006 was a • Promote open educational practices through help in highlight for the WikiEducator team with an average setting up appropriate tools of 1000 hits per day; today, the hits are often even • Favour institutional learning environments that higher (WikiEducator 2007). In December 2007, support group-based, collaborative learning practices Steven Downes in his Weblog named WikiEducator as “best educational wiki”: “Numerous educational • Closely observe the development and consider testing wikis could have taken the podium here – Curriki, of Learning Design based systems Wikiversity, more. WikiEducator is chosen as the At present there is a considerable gap between most (apparently) active of these initiatives.” (Downes developers of eLearning tools and teachers and 2007b) students. Developers should actively seek to involve Concerning the content of the OLCOS tutorials, the teachers and students in collaborative development, basic concept is that through practical information which could help greatly in making tools more usable and case descriptions the learners should be enabled in educational contexts. In fact, for the adoption of to themselves solve some concrete assignments. a tool it will be important that the users develop a The didactical templates of the WikiEducator (e.g. sense of ownership and take an interest in its further assignment, web-resources) as well as links to existing development. content on the Web have been used. The tutorials Within educational institutions, implementers of have been tested and evaluated in several workshops. eLearning tools should favour environments that Originally written in English, since August 2007 they support collaborative, self-managed learning practices also are available in German and Spanish. Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 17

guidance on how to find Open Content that can be re-used in a project. It shows efficient ways of searching the Internet for relevant material and how to keep up- to-date about resources of interest. Tutorial: Produce & Remix OER Following the advice of the first tutorial, a user may find a course module or learning unit which fits her or his requirements very well. Usually, however, one will create his own material by mixing and adapting Open Content. Therefore, it is important to be aware of what is permitted by the content creators. In addition, Open Content is often produced collaboratively, which Figure 2: Screenshot of the tutorials means that several teachers and learners work together in an open process. Furthermore, this tutorial provides Users of the tutorials firstly are introduced to basic information on content formats that can be published definitions and to the overall planning of didactical, as OER, tools that support this process, and how to use technical and legal aspects. Then the tutorials show how standards and metadata. open content practices can be developed. Tutorial: Share OER The top-level topics for this development are as follows: There are many possibilities to publish and to share • Find and evaluate existing Open Content Open Content. But one should bear in mind that employers might have interests and rights in one’s • Create Open Content with Open Source tools work. This means that authors may have to ask before publishing their work as Open Content. This tutorial • Publish and share of the content provides information and practical tasks in publishing • Technical considerations and planning and sharing OER, and how to facilitate the sharing of the new content by using suitable formats, licenses, • Legal/license considerations and planning educational metadata, and visibility strategies. In the following, the tutorials are described briefly. Tutorial: Choose a License Introduction: PLAN the use of OER Before authors publish their content or before they start to build up a collaborative community creating The introductory section provides a definition of Open Content, they should decide about the legal OER, information about benefits of using OER, and requirements for re-using the learning material. instruction on how to plan the (re-)use and creation This is needed, because the established international of open content in the daily work of teachers, trainers, copyright requires to ask the owner of the copyright students and learners. of the material for permission to use, copy, modify the In addition, we present some exemplary collections of content, and to enter into a contractual relationship. With an Open Content licensing scheme such as • Open eLearning content repositories Creative Commons the authors and users can benefit in several ways: From clear descriptions of the rights • Institutions with OER policy of the author(s) and the users, licensing formulations • Open Content licensing approaches which are approved by legal practitioner, the awareness level of the license and the possibility (for others) to • Open formats, educational standard and tools for more easily discover the content with the most popular producing open educational content search engines. This tutorial provides information and practical tasks for choosing one of the most common Tutorial: Search & Find OER licensing models, the Creative Commons licenses, and The first learning scenario we use in this tutorial is the how they can be attached to learning materials. following: In a project, a group of students is working on a presentation about pollination of apples. The Tutorial: Use open source tools group is trying to find materials which they can use Open Source Software is based on and supports open for a project webpage. They not only want to collect standards and, hence, particularly suits the creation of hyperlinks, but also want to re-use the materials. Open Educational Content. As ever more such tools For this purpose they need more information and become available, this tutorial provides information advice. The tutorial provides practical information and about other services and lists that offer useful overviews 18 elearningpapers | 2008

and recommendations on which tools to use for OER to the still dominant model of teacher-centred particular purposes. knowledge transfer will have little effect on equipping teachers, students and workers with the competences Summary and skills to participate successfully in the knowledge Open Educational Resources (OER) can be an society and economy. Teachers should change their role important element of policies that want to leverage from dispensers of knowledge to facilitators of open education and lifelong learning for the knowledge educational practices that foster learners’ activities in society and economy. The urgency of the lifelong developing competences and skills. learning agenda in Europe and beyond makes OER Today the digital environment offers many initiatives targeted at driving participation particularly opportunities for a creative and collaborative welcome. The OLCOS road mapping work was engagement of learners with digital content, tools conducted to provide decision makers with an overview and services in the learning process (“eLearning 2.0” of current and likely future developments in OER and instead of “click & learn”). One such opportunity is the recommendations on how various challenges in OER collaborative creation, evaluation and sharing of open can be addressed. content and learning experiences. A new generation of In particular, OLCOS emphasises that besides offering easy-to-use Web-based tools and services, e.g. Wikis, OER it is crucial to also promote innovation and Weblogs, platforms for content sharing, RSS-based change in educational practices, because delivering content provision, makes this easier then ever before. References ➜ Atkins, Daniel E.; Brown, John S. & Hammond, Allen L. (2007). A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges and New Opportunities. Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. URL: http://cohesion.rice.edu/Conferences/Hewlett/emplibrary/A%20Review%20of%20the%20Open%20 Educational%20Resources%20%28OER%29%20Movement_BlogLink.pdf (2007-09-01) ➜ Graham Attwell, Agnieszka Chrzaszcz, Wolf Hilzensauer, Veronika Hornung-Prähauser, John Pallister (2007). Grab your future with an e-portfolio – Study on new qualifications and skills needed by teachers and career counsellors to empower young learners with the e-portfolio concept and tools – Summary Report. Poland. URL: http://www.mosep.org/study (2008-01-05) ➜ Córcoles, Cesar; Ferran Ferrer, Nuria; Hornung-Prähauser, Veronika; Kalz, Marco; Minguillón, Julià; Naust-Schulz, Viola & Schaffert, Sandra (2007). Open Educational Content - Introduction and Tutorials. OLCOS materials. URL: http://www.wikieducator.org/Open_Educational_Content (2007-09-01) ➜ Downes, Steven (2007a). Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources. In: Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, Volume 3, p. 29-44. URL: http://ijklo.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p029-044Downes.pdf (2007-09-01) ➜ Downes, Steven (2007b). Not the Edublog Award Winners. Weblog Post. 2007-12-17. URL: http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/12/not-edublog-award-winners.html (2008-01-06) ➜ Geser, Guntram (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources - OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Salzburg. URL: http://www.olcos.org/english/roadmap/ (2007-09-01) ➜ Geser, Guntram; Hornung-Prähauser, Veronika & Schaffert, Sandra (2007). Observing Open ELearning Content: A Roadmap for Educational Policy and Institutions and Hands-On Tips for Practitioners. Full paper in the Proceedings of the Interactive Computer Aided Learning Conference (ICL) in Villach (26-28 September 2007). ➜ The International Institute for Educational Planning/UNESCO (2001). IIEP Virtual Institute Discussion Forum. The Impact of HIV/AIDS on the Organization of Educational Systems, 15 October – 9 November 2001, Paris, France. URL: http:// www.unesco.org/iiep/eng/training/virtual/hiv_rep_2001.pdf (2007-09-01) ➜ OECD (2007). Giving Knowledge for Free. The Emergence of Open Educational Resources. Paris. URL: http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9607041E.PDF (2007-09-01) ➜ Schaffert, Sandra & Hornung-Prähauser, Veronika (2007). Thematic Session: Open Educational Resources and Practices. A Short Introduction and Overview. Full paper in the Proceedings of the Interactive Computer Aided Learning Conference (ICL) in Villach (26-28 September 2007). ➜ WikiEducator (2007). About. URL: http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:About (2007-09-01) Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 19

Communities of Practice and virtual learning communities: benefits, barriers and success factors Patricia Margaret Gannon-Leary Northumbria University, United Kingdom pat.gannon-leary@unn.ac.uk Elsa Fontainha Assistant Professor ISEG – Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal elmano@iseg.utl.pt Executive summary: A virtual Community of Practice (CoP) is a network of individuals who share a domain of interest about which they communicate online. The practitioners share resources (for example experiences, problems and solutions, tools, methodologies). Such communication results in the improvement of the knowledge of each participant in the community and contributes to the development of the knowledge within the domain. A virtual learning community may involve the conduct of original research, but it is more likely that its main purpose is to increase the knowledge of participants, via formal education or professional development. Virtual learning communities may have learning as their main goal or eLearning generated as a side effect. Virtual communities of practice (CoPs) and virtual learning communities are becoming widespread within higher education institutions (HEIs) thanks to technological developments which enable increased communication, interactivity among participants and incorporation of collaborative pedagogical models, specifically through information communications technologies (ICTs) They afford the potential for the combination of synchronous and asynchronous communication, access to -and from- geographically isolated communities and international information sharing. Critical success factors (CSFs) for a virtual CoP are discussed. These include usability of technology; trust in and acceptance of ICTs in communication; a sense of belonging among members; paying attention to cross-national and cross-cultural dimensions of the CoP; shared understandings; a common sense of purpose; use of netiquette and user- friendly language and longevity. The authors recognise the enormous potential for the development of CoPs through e-mail discussion lists and discussion boards but have themselves experienced the difficulties inherent in initiating such a community. These are corroborated and illustrated with text from interviews with academic staff. Much of the literature on CoPs emanates from outside Europe, despite the fact that eLearning articles have a large diffusion around Europe. The authors suggest further exploration of this topic by identifying and studying CoPs and virtual learning communities across EU countries. Keywords: Communities of practice; collaborative; environments; informal learning; interactivity; usability; eLearning Introduction Virtual learning communities may have learning as A Virtual Community of Practice (CoP) is a network their main goal or eLearning generated as a side effect. of individuals who share a domain of interest about Informal learning rather than more formal learning which they communicate online. The practitioners occurs within a virtual CoP and, according to Lave & share resources (for example experiences, problems and Wenger this involves “the process of becoming a full solutions, tools, methodologies). Such communication participant in a sociocultural practice” (Lave & Wenger, results in the improvement of the knowledge of each 1991: 29) whereby more experienced participants pass participant in the community and contributes to the on to neophytes the knowledge and skills they have development of the knowledge within the domain. acquired and, in consequence, the shared expertise of Virtual CoPs may share news and advice of academic/ the participants is enhanced. professional interest but are unlikely to undertake joint Owing to technological developments, academic projects together – this is more the role of a Distributed staff and students in higher education institutions Research Centre (Bos et al, 2007). A virtual learning (HEIs) now have the opportunity to operate in community, on the other hand, may involve the conduct improved learning environments through increased of original research but it is more likely that its main communication, interactivity among participants, and purpose is to increase the knowledge of participants, incorporation of collaborative pedagogical models, via formal education or professional development. specifically through information communications 20 eLearning Papers | 2008

technologies (ICTs) (Robey, Khoo, & Powers, 2000; learning. Lave and Wenger’s work did not produce a Rogers, 2000; Stacey, Smith & Barty, 2004). Using new pedagogical approach but provided an analytical ICTs in learning environments afford the potential for view of learning, questioning the place of formal the combination of synchronous and asynchronous education. This shifted the emphasis from the abstract communication, access to -and from- geographically bodies of knowledge taught in formal education isolated communities (Hlapinis & Dimitracopoulou, towards the ‘situated learning’ that occurs as people 2007) and international information sharing. engage with real-world problems in ways which may already be mediated for them by existing CoPs Benefits of sharing and learning (Brown, Collins & Duguid 1989; McLellan 1995; Engaging in a virtual CoP enhances the learning Fox 2005). As Fox (2005) says, networked learning environment since, according to Johnson (2001), has, “as no educational process has had before, the “the learning that evolved from these communities is capability to facilitate and enable new forms of collaborative, in which the collaborative knowledge imagined community” (Fox 2005: 108). Lave and of the community is greater than any individual Wenger (1991) discuss learning as participation in knowledge” (Johnson 2001: 34). This is similar to the a social world describing how people learn better concept of synergy in which two or more discrete in social settings and through social interaction. agents acting together create an effect greater than that Virtual CoPs encompass this concept in that they which would be expected from the separate activities of establish a networked environment where the the individual agents. It also echoes Vygotsky’s (1978) necessary interactions that improve learning can argument that a person’s learning may be enhanced occur (Wenger et al., 2002). The interactions within through engagement with others, which enable the these communities focus around knowledge sharing extension of that person’s capability to a new, higher within the membership, who may range from experts level. through to novices. Via the interaction of the expert and novice, a neo-apprenticeship style learning, One example of this is the use by two researchers similar to that proposed by Vygotsky, can occur. (Winkworth & Gannon-Leary, 1999) of a virtual CoP in Learners participating in a virtual CoP are assimilated the form of a discussion list to supplement research they into the sociocultural practices of the community had conducted for a conference paper. The topic was and gain knowledge/skills from those community government interest in library performance measures, members positioned as masters (Lave & Wenger 1991). and they wished to gain an international perspective. This view reiterates the model of apprenticeship or Knowing that membership of a related discussion list learning in social and situated contexts, especially (lis-perf-measures) comprised some 400 information in the workplace (Fowler & Mayes, 1999; Fox, 2000; professionals from more than 30 countries, they posted Warhurst, 2003). a request to the list for additional data. Using this method they were able to gain up-to-date information Brown and Duguid (2002) suggest situated learning is from fellow professionals about the situation in their “knowing how to be in practice”, rather than “knowing countries. The data was presented at the conference about practice” (Brown & Duguid 2002: 138), and and disseminated via the proceedings to the wider thus involves a process of identity development for the professional and academic community. newcomer through participation in the practice of the community. Becoming a member of a virtual CoP and Much emphasis is given, when virtual CoPs are developing knowledge and skills is, therefore, important discussed, to the concept of sharing, e.g. Wenger, in identity formation of the newcomer. McDermott and Snyder (2002) discuss how common ground is found by CoP members as they “feel This is about the member describing their own connected … and have invaluable insights they can engagement…in terms of what they’re hoping to learn learn from each other” (Wenger et al, 2002: 71). The out of it…they model their own capabilities, so that same authors, discussing the development of CoPs in they create themselves as somebody who has more the workplace, see them as “groups of people who share value in relation to the context that they’re working in… a concern, set of problems or passion about a topic (UK academic)[1] and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this This factor has been subject to some criticism with area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al, regard to CoPs since it may result in the perpetuation of 2002: 4). Knowledge development in a CoP, therefore, communities and commonality rather than supportive is continuous, cyclical and fluid with no clearly defined of growth, change and diversity (Eraut, 2003). beginning or end. As White and Pagano (2007) comment, the concept of a CoP has been given currency in the HE discourse [1] The quotations are from the authors’ recent research with academics in the UK which, to date, has not been published elsewhere. The authors by practitioners in emergent areas of networked would like to thank contributors Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 21

Barriers to virtual CoPs and virtual learning A fifth barrier involves trust. The virtual CoP lacks communities the opportunity for face-to face interaction and socialising which can consolidate group membership. The first potential barrier to the virtual CoP may be Consequently individuals may fail to engage in the CoP, the discipline involved. In some areas, such as the preferring to work autonomously. Trust building is vital sciences, cutting edge knowledge may be difficult for sharing (Kirkup, 2002; Gibson & Manuel, 2003; to disseminate to large groups since it may require Ellis et al 2004) and trust primarily develops through specialised expertise and may be difficult to aggregate face-to-face interactions. In the virtual environment, or represent (Szulanski, 1992; Olson & Olson, 2000; Bos identities can remain hidden and members may adopt et al, 2007). Secondly, in many disciplines, academics different personas (Tomes, 2001; Turkle, 1997). enjoy a great degree of freedom and exist in a culture of independence, rendering open communication more You’re trying to replace a real learning environment with difficult. With colleagues and people known personally a virtual one… it’s a very ‘touchy-feely’ thing. There’s a to you, there is a sharing of tacit knowledge and whole raft of things that the virtual environment won’t let transactive knowledge (i.e. you know what your peers you do… (UK academic) know) (Hollingshead, 1998; Ozdemir, 2007). A sixth barrier also involves trust but at an institutional Each profession has its own terminology… we have a very level. Crossing virtual boundaries between institutions diverse language (UK academic) can result in institutional-related problems, especially legal issues, e.g. data protection, intellectual property A few have said how much of a struggle they have had (Stokols et al., 2003, 2005; Cummings & Kiesler, 2005; with the language. They have not all been from overseas Bos et. al. 2007). – a few have been in the UK – it is all cognitive and cultural, all linked. (UK academic) I worry about intellectual property rights: We give too much away… nobody else gives as much detail The third barrier, therefore, is collegiality since electronically… (UK academic) motivation to join a virtual CoP may be weak where there is a context of high collegiality, e.g. a strong A further barrier involves selectivity in the use of community of people who are physically co-located ICTs. Many academics, professionals and students are (Smith et al, 2005) strategic users of ICTs (Schwen & Hara, 2003; Smith et al, 2005; Kelly et al, 2007), matching their usage It’s more difficult to create the flow of information. We try to perceptions of meeting their operational needs, really hard to get members to communicate within their irrespective of the degree of their ICT skills. This is own group…but it’s quite difficult without the face-to-face relevant to another barrier, revolving around whether thing to break the ice (UK academic) the CoP is task-based or practice based. A virtual Lack of peer support and lack of contact with others… learning community may be short-lived have a finite The lack of contact was quite frustrating. (UK academic) beginning and end, being task-based, established for a specific learning activity such as a course or seminar. Another barrier involves the shifting membership of On the other hand, a practice-based or subject-based a virtual CoP which as Wenger et al. (2002) point out virtual CoP may develop more organically and be less is fluid in its composition. In consequence, virtual transient (Fowler & Mayes, 1999). CoPs need to work hard to maintain energy and a high degree of participation. Individual members of a virtual A final issue involves the use of technology to bridge the community must engage with it in order that it may geographical gap which can lead to misinterpretation develop and grow and have meaning (McMillan, 1996; of messages, as a lot of non-verbal cues can be missing Gibson & Manuel, 2003; Ellis et al 2004). Stuckey and from the communication (Gibson & Manuel, 2003; Smith (2004) argue that there are identifiable features Cramton, 2001; Gannon-Leary, 1999). ICTs lack the to a successful CoP, and most importantly the ability to richness of face-to-face interaction. Much anecdotal sustain the community, the chief of which is the need information features misinterpreted communication for ‘leadership’ which, in the case of a CoP, may be a online, easily exaggerated in the absence of cues and moderator, facilitator or list owner. feedback. (Trayner, Smith & Bettoni, 2006) When you’re delivering it electronically, a lot of members Organisations such as the UK National Health Service just don’t ‘get it’, but you can’t spot that… (UK academic) are increasingly using networked learning, eLearning platforms and blended learning but: Some members don’t say a word on-line. They’ll just sit there. There’s a lot of ‘lurking’ going on… (UK academic) [2] Working with other practitioners, I know that their computer skills are not necessarily 100%.… (UK Currently the preferred term for online behaviour whereby the participant [2] reads the postings of the participants in a virtual CoP but does not actively academic) contribute to the debate is ‘ROP’ or ‘read only participant’. 22 elearningpapers | 2008

They lack familiarity with systems … It means a new an accomplishment. This is illustrated by the HSBC learning curve, but we are now in a society and a cultural advertisements on television that identify different and technological environment of constant change, so we gestures which convey different meanings in different just need to be able to engage with change in a way that cultures when one is ‘doing business’ in a global context. doesn’t feel like a constant step backwards (UK academic) From this follows on a fifth CSF, that there should be shared understanding. Consideration needs to be Critical success factors for virtual CoPs and given to the influence of culture in the use of ICTs in virtual learning communities the development of a community (Campbell & Uys 2007). Culture impacts on the ability of the members One critical success factor (CSF) for a virtual CoP is to develop a shared understanding and sub-groups the technology and its usability. Virtual CoPs need to of the community, based on these cultures can easily make good use of Internet standard technologies such as emerge. Shared repertoire may include developed listserv, bulletin boards, and accessible web technology. routines, language, ways of working and stories within Moule’s (2006) findings suggest that a virtual learning the practice of the community, generated through community will need to ensure participants have the negotiating meaning (Wenger 1998). It is postulated technological provision and necessary IT skills to that virtual learning communities with a brief existence support mutual engagement (Wenger 1998). Difficulties may not have the longevity of engagement required with access and ICT skills in relation to online to develop shared repertoire (Fowler & Mayes 1999). discussions and e-based learning are acknowledged in Identifying elements of shared repertoire proved the existing international literature (Andrusyszyn et al. problematic in Moule’s (2006) analysis of the online 1999, Gillis et al. 2000, Hong et al. 2003). environment, which lacked the richness that might Technology needs to be regarded as an accepted – and be observed in a physically located CoP, where transparent – means of communication (Campbell presentations of gestures, nuances, routines and stories & Uys 2007). The evolution of a CoP is reliant upon are made manifest. the effective communication of the members, most Another CSF involves having a sense of purpose. A easily achieved through face-to-face meetings (Hinds virtual CoP must have a purpose and this purpose must & Wesiband, 2003; Raven, 2003; Wenger et al. 2002). be achievable via ICTs (Dube et al, 2005; Campbell & Personal interactions are valuable in building CoPs Uys 2007). A CSF which helps achieve this sense of and Broady-Preston and Felice (2006) demonstrate the purpose involves leadership which Stuckey and Smith creation of an electronic relationship between library (2004) have exemplified as sustaining a CoP through users and information providers in the University of sensitivity in monitoring, regulating, maintaining Malta, adopting a customer relationship management boundaries and responding to change. As the and communities of practice approach. This progressed community becomes more distributed, the need for from a physical to an electronic relationship and driving leadership becomes more important (Chavis et demonstrated the ability of the internet to function al 1986; Gibson & Manuel, 2003). Attendant on this is as a medium for managing relationships as well as a the CSF of netiquette and the modelling of good practice facilitator for interaction and communication (Broady- and the way guidelines about conduct in a virtual CoP Preston et al 2006) are put into practice by facilitators (Trayner, Smith & Communication, therefore, is another CSF and is Bettoni 2006; Gannon-Leary 1999). This is especially fundamental in the development of trust and the important in the case of ‘neo-apprentices’ in virtual community. Along with trust, communication allows the CoPs who may be wary about contributing because they CoP to grow, change and achieve its objectives. Trust is feel what they have to say is not sufficiently worthy or built through continued interaction developing common weighty. Seeing other people ‘flamed’ or send abusive values and a shared understanding (Gibson & Manuel, emails on virtual CoPs is likely to inhibit contributions 2003; Amin & Roberts, 2006). from putative members. A third CSF involves CoP membership. Andrews and Another CSF involves the CoPs usage of user-friendly Schwarz (2002) have reported the benefits of identifying language and what Trayner, Smith and Bettoni (2006) group members with prior knowledge of each other to describe as the ‘ecology’ of communication modes help consolidate membership and develop trust. and skills, or graceful ways of bringing people into conversations. Fourthly, CoP members must have a sense of belonging, of being an insider (Brown & Duguid 2002; Wegerif A final CSF revolves around time. Longevity of a CoP 1998). Trayner, Smith and Bettoni (2006) add that improves engagement, as mentioned in connection with paying attention to cross-national and cross-cultural task-based vs. practice based CoPs. Time is needed both dimensions in international online communities adds to for communication and to build up trust, rapport and a the complexity, challenges and value in such true sense of community (Trayner, Smith & Bettoni, 2006). Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 23

Benefits Barriers Critical Success Factors • Enhanced learning environment • Perpetuation vs. change and • Good use of Internet standard • Synergies created diversity technologies • Capabilities extended to higher level • Disciplinary differences • Technological provision • Knowledge sharing & learning • Culture of independence • ICT skills • Gaining insights from each other • Tacit knowledge • Institutional acceptance of ICTs as • Transactive knowledge communication media • Deepening of knowledge, innovation & expertise • Specialist language • Good communications • Cyclical, fluid knowledge • Collegiality, strong physical • Trust development community • Common values • Feeling of connection • Shifting membership, • Shared understanding • Ongoing interactions • Creating and maintaining • Prior knowledge of membership • Assimilation into sociocultural information flow • Sense of belonging practices • No F2F to break the ice • Cultural awareness • Neo-apprenticeship style of learning • Read-only participants (formerly • Sense of purpose • Identity development and formation lurkers) • Sensitivity in monitoring, regulating, • Practice-based usage • Hidden identities, adopted personas facilitating • Lack of trust – personal and • Netiquette institutional • User-friendly language • Selectivity in ICT use • Time to build up the CoP • No body language, • Regular interaction misinterpretations • Good coordination to achieve • Task-based usage regular but varied communication • Material resources or sponsorship to bolster and build up the community Table 1: Benefits, Barriers and Critical Success Factors Final comments communities, even if they do not foresee learning as The potential import of virtual CoPs is recognised their main objective, could generate eLearning as a by increasing interest in Europe in networked side effect. (Del Rio & Fischer, 2007) learning and eLearning, as witnessed by the The recently published European Commission development of organisations engaged in studying Green Paper (2007) is currently inviting views on its and producing data on the topic, e.g. Eurostat, proposals for a European Research Area (ERA). The Eurydice, IEA, Eurobarometer, EC projects. Among paper suggests that the ERA “progressively structure the last mentioned are “eLearning: Designing itself along the lines of a powerful web of research and tomorrow’s Education” (Commission of the innovation clusters. Their reach should be amplified European Communities, 2003) and “i2010: European through ‘virtual research communities’ created by Information Society for growth and employment” pooling and integrating activities and resources which was launched in June 2005 as a framework for from different locations in Europe and beyond…” addressing the main challenges and developments (European Commission 2007: 9). It also suggests in the information society and media sectors up to that virtual research communities can “constitute a 2010 (Commission of the European Communities, powerful vehicle to ensure the inclusion of researchers 2006). Another example is the LEONIE project that and students from all around Europe and other specifically indicates that one expected outcome countries.” (European Commission 2007: 18). One to evolve between now and 2010 is the creation of of the questions it poses in its concluding remarks learning communities. (Alfaro et al, 2006) is one of interest to the authors: “How can the EU The goals of the HELIOS Project (Horizontal and Member States best stimulate the emergence of E-Learning Integrated Observation System) include European and global virtual research communities, the “building of a systematic observation and exploiting fully the potential of computing, foresighting platform on eLearning at EU and national information and communication infrastructures?” levels” (HELIOS 2007: 1). It stresses that virtual (European Commission 2007: 19). 24 elearningpapers | 2008

The Internet offers the potential for access Although the potential for virtual CoPs through and interaction with a universally accessible, e-mail discussion lists and discussion boards would democratic and interactive hub of speedy, low- seem enormous, the authors’ recent experience in cost communications and resources connecting setting up and moderating such a list, coupled with individuals, disciplines, departments and services. the comments derived from academics trying to sustain discussion boards, suggests this potential is We see ourselves as a world player in the development of not being realised. The authors’ experience was that the eLearning community. There is a lot of potential for the announcement of the introduction of a new list, development of community through the Internet. (UK along with its aims and scope, resulted in many would- academic) be members from all over the world signing up and, We are still a long way off from providing a satisfactory by so doing, indicating an interest in the list theme, experience (UK academic) but few of the signees subsequently made an active contribution. List members included international The existence of virtual CoPs such as discussion lists experts in the list topic, with much valuable experience afford opportunities for collaboration which have which they could share with others so this lack of been facilitated by networked technology such as exchange of interaction was a matter of concern. e-mail, which many academics use regularly (Ciolek, 2000). Discussion lists may serve as virtual CoPs since Many of the articles cited in this paper are from they provide for interested professionals/academics areas other than Europe – from the USA (Gibson & to engage in discussion and debate; give others the Manuel, 2003; Hinds & Wesiband, 2003; Robey et benefit of their experience, and often save themselves al, 2000), Canada (Andrusyszyn et al, 1999; Gillis et reinventing the wheel by finding out what others have al, 2000) and Australia (Andrews & Schwarz, 2002; done when faced with particular problems (Gannon- Campbell & Uys, 2007; Smith et al, 2005; Stacey et al, Leary, 1998). In academia there are a variety of these 2004). Fox (2005) comments on the fact the Internet is special interest groups exchanging messages on a dominated by American-English and stresses the need range of topics. for networked learning “to engage with the issue of languages and through that the issue of other cultures In theory, the CoPs should add a new dimension to and communities.” (Fox 2005: 108) academic research and its communication. Mooted benefits of networking and communication include Recently Petersen (2007) from Denmark suggests rendering physical location unimportant and that concepts of learning in communities of practice isolation from the peer group less problematic when might be further developed and Wubbels (2007) academics are scattered geographically or work in from the Netherlands discussed the need for further small institutions, since virtual CoPs can grow up research in this area. The authors would concur with based on interests rather than on physical proximity this, given that networked learning and eLearning enabling collaborations, sharing of specialist interests articles have a large diffusion around Europe, and and affording access to mentors and like-minded would like to further identify and study CoPs and individuals (Schmitz and Fulk, 1991). virtual learning communities across EU countries. What are the benefits, barriers and success stories Among a group of people with a common interest in in Europe? Have we been slower to take advantage a topic, there is no natural hierarchy except the one of the potential of ICTs? Do Europeans display which evolves from participation and ‘natural’ experts special characteristics which differentiate their use of can emerge (Anderson et al, 1995). Enhanced access electronic media, specifically CoPs, from that made by is afforded to information, academics may strengthen their counterparts in North America and Australia? their command of their field of work and that work is Does the diversity of cultures and languages militate made increasingly visible to others (Ciolek, 2000). CoP against European academics engaging in CoPs to the members share information, insight and advice and, same extent? It would appear from the literature that in so doing, derive value from their interaction. Over there is currently a lack of knowledge about CoPs in time it is possible to develop a unique perspective on Europe, especially those associated with post tertiary a topic in addition to a body of common knowledge, and University education. One academic recognised practices and approaches. While the concept of CoPs potential benefits beyond those to himself: is not new, the development of the ICTs, combined with the need for more intentional, systematic If you’re involved in distance learning you can easily management of knowledge means that electronic become involved in on-line communities that revolve communications may afford an opportunity not only around your subject. There’s a lot of benefit that could to manage knowledge as an asset but also to keep be gained by the HEI from that sort of involvement both apace of change and core knowledge requirements. in terms of student recruitment and in terms of world renown. (UK academic) Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 25

Another academic expanded on her own Utopian research network in a very active way, even though vision of a CoP as an updated version of the eighteenth they’re thousands and thousands of miles apart… the century European ‘salon’ which provided a base for the democratising potential of that...recreates the conditions, discussion of social, artistic and scientific questions: almost, of a mass intellectual salon where people are able to argue and discuss, and be in contact (UK Scholarly exchange, the building up of research academic) communities... people really becoming part of a References ➜ Alfaro, J. et al (2006). Understanding Change, Adapting to Change, Shaping the Future, Change Drivers, Trends & Core Tensions for European Learning Systems & Educational Policies, Learning in Europe; Observatory on National and International Evolution, LEONIE Project, retrieved June 14, 2007 from http://www.education-observatories.net/leonie/outputs/LEONIE_Executive_Summary_2006.pdf ➜ Amin, A. & Roberts, J. (2006). Communities of Practice? Varieties of Situated Learning. Draft paper prepared for: EU Network of Excellence Dynamics of Institutions and Markets in Europe (DIME) retrieved Aug 21, 2007 from http://cops.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/Amin_Roberts.pdf ➜ Anderson, R. H. et al.: (1995). Universal Access to E-mail-Feasibility and Societal Implications, RAND Report MR-650- MF, retrieved June 6, 2007 from from http://www.rand.org:80/publications/MR/MR650/ ➜ Andrews T. & Schwarz G. (2002). Preparing students for the virtual organisation: an evaluation of learning with virtual learning technologies. Educational Technology and Society 5(3), 54–65. ➜ Andrusyszyn M., Iwasiw C. & Goldenberg D. (1999). Computer conferencing in graduate nursing education: perceptions of students and faculty. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 30(6), 272–278. ➜ Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, J., Yew, J., Yerkie, J., Dahl, E., et al. (2007). From shared databases to communities of practice: A taxonomy of collaboratories. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), article 16. Retrieved June 6, 2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/bos.html ➜ Broady-Preston, J., Felice, J. & Marshall, S. (2006). Building better customer relationships: case studies from Malta and the UK. Library management, 27 (6/7), 430-445 ➜ Broady-Preston, J & Felice, J. (2006). Customers, relationships and libraries: University of Malta – a case study. ASLIB proceedings, 58 (6), 525-536. ➜ Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ➜ Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42 ➜ Campbell, M. & Uys, P. (2007). Identifying success factors of ICT in developing a learning community: Case study Charles Sturt University Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24 (1) 17-26. ➜ Chavis, D.M., Hogge, J., McMillan, D. & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of community through Brunswick’s lens: a first look, Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 24-40. ➜ Ciolek, T.M. ed. (2000) “The Internet in 2000: Opportunities and Disadvantages to Scholarly Work (results of an online brainstorming session)” History Education Forum (HEF) 7 Dec p. 1-16, Dept of History, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, retrieved June 6, 2007 from www.ciolek.com/PAPERS/brainstorm-mar00.html ➜ Commission of the European Communities (2003). eLearning: Designing tomorrow’s education. Mid-term report SEC (2003) 905 retrieved June 14, 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/elearning/doc/mid_term_report_en.pdf ➜ Commission of the European Communities (2006). i2010 - First annual report on the European information society {COM(2006)215} retrieved June 14, 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/annual_report/2006/sec_2006_604_en.pdf ➜ Cramton, C. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346–371. 26 elearningpapers | 2008

➜ Cummings, J., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, retrieved June 6, 2007 from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kiesler/publications/PDFs/CummingsKieslerWeb0305.pdf ➜ Del Rio, C. & Fischer, T. (2007). HELIOS: Redefining e-Learning Territories, eLearning Papers, no.4 ➜ Dubé, L., Bourhis, A. & Jacob, R., (2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18 (2), 145-166. ➜ Ellis, D., Oldridge, R. & Vasconcelos, A. (2004). Community and virtual community, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38,145–186 ➜ Eraut, M. (2003). Editorial. Learning in Health and Social Care. 2 (3), 117-122. ➜ European Commission (2007). The European Research Area: New Perspectives - Green Paper. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, retrieved August 7, 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era-greenpaper_en.pdf ➜ Fowler, C. & Mayes, J. (1999). Learning relationships from theory to design. Association for Learning Technology Journal. 7 (3), 6-16 ➜ Fox, S. (2000). Communities of Practice, Foucault and Actor-Network Theory. Journal of Management Studies. 37 (6), 853-867 ➜ Fox, S. (2000). An actor-network critique of community in higher education: implications for networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (1) 95-110 ➜ Gannon-Leary, P. (1998). The ethics of electronic mail. IRISS International Conference, Bristol UK, retrieved Aug 6, 2007 from http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/archive/iriss/papers/paper11.htm ➜ Gannon-Leary, P (1999). The ethics of email. In Pourciau, L.J. (Ed.), Ethics and Electronic Information in the 21st Century. Indiana: Purdue U.P., 165-190 ➜ Gibson, C.B. & Manuel, J.A. (2003). Building trust: effective multicultural communication processes in virtual teams, In Gibson, C.B. & Cohen, S.G. (Eds.), Virtual Teams that Work. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons, 59-86. ➜ Gillis, A. Jackson, W. Braid, A. MacDonald, P. & MacQuarrie, M. (2000). The learning needs and experiences of women using print-based and CD-ROM technology in nursing distance education. Journal of Distance Education. 15(1), 1-20 ➜ HELIOS (2007). HELIOS report 2007 Executive Summary. Retrieved August 20, 2007 from http://www.education- observatories.net/helios ➜ Hinds, P.J. & Wesiband, S.P. (2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams, In Gibson, C.B. & Cohen, S.G. (Eds.), Virtual Teams that Work. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons 21-36 ➜ Hlapanis, G. & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2007). The school-teacher’s learning community: matters of communication analysis. Technology Pedagogy and Education 16 (2) 133-152 ➜ Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 659–671 ➜ Hong K.-S., Lai K.-W. & Holton D. (2003). Students’ satisfaction and perceived learning within a web-based course. Educational Technology and Society 6(1), 116–124. ➜ Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45-60. ➜ Kelly, P., Gale, K., Wheeler, S. & Tucker, V. (2007). Taking a stance: promoting deliberate action through online postgraduate professional development. Technology Pedagogy and Education 16 (2) 153-176. ➜ Kirkup G. (2002). Identity, community and distributed learning. In Lea, M. & Nicoll, K. (Eds.). Distributed Learning: Social, Cultural Approaches to Practice. London: Routledge/Falmer, 182-195. ➜ Kirschner, P.A. & Lai, K-W (2007). Online communities of practice in education Technology Pedagogy and Education 16 (2) 127-132. ➜ Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 27

➜ McLellan, H. (1995). Situated Learning Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications ➜ McMillan, D. (1996). Sense of community, Journal of Community Psychology,. 24, 315-25. ➜ Moule, P. (2006). Developing the Communities of Practice, Framework for On- Line Learning Electronic Journal of E-learning, 4 (2) 133-140. ➜ Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human Computer Interaction, 15, 139–179. ➜ Ozdemir, S. (2007). E-learning’s effect on knowledge: Can you download tacit knowledge? British Journal of Educational Technology (OnlineEarly Articles). Retrieved Aug 21, 2007 from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/showPdf?submitPDF=Full+Text+PDF+%2846+KB%29&doi=10.1111 %2Fj.1467-8535.2007.00764.x ➜ Petersen, K.B. (2007). e-Learning in Virtual Communities of Practice – And Beyond? Research Findings Based on Interviews with Students and Teachers in Second Language e-Learning Settings in Denmark. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on e-Learning, New York, 28-29 June, np. ➜ Raven, A. (2003). Team or Community of Practice Aligning Tasks, Structures and Technologies In Gibson, C.B. & Cohen, S.G. (Eds.), Virtual Teams that Work. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons 292-306. ➜ Robey, D., Khoo, H.M. & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. IEEE transaction on professional communication, 43 (1), 51-66. ➜ Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities Educational Technology and Society. 3 (3), 1-12. ➜ Schmitz, J. & Fulk, J, (1991). Organizational colleagues, media richness, and electronic mail: a test of the social influence model of technology use Communication-Research. 18 Aug. 487-523. ➜ Schwen, T. & Hara, N. (2003). Community of practice: A metaphor for online design?, The Information Society, 19, 257-270. ➜ Seddon, K. & Postlethwaite, K. (2007). Creating and testing a model for tutors and participants to support the collaborative construction of knowledge online. Technology Pedagogy and Education 16 (2) 177-198. ➜ Smith, P., Barty, K. & Stacey, E. (2005). Limitations of an established community of practice in developing online innovation, Breaking down boundaries: international experience in open, distance and flexible education. Proceedings of the 17th ODLAA conference, pp. 1-6, ODLAA, Adelaide. ➜ Stacey, E., Smith, P.J. & Barty, K. (2004). Adult learners in the workplace: Online learning and communities of practice, Distance Education, 25 (1), 107-124. ➜ Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L, et al. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 5(Suppl. 1), S21–39. ➜ Stokols, D., Harvey, R., Gress, J., Fuqua, J., & Phillips, K. (2005). In vivo studies of transdisciplinary scientific collaboration: Lessons learned and implications for active living research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28 (Suppl. 2), 202–213. ➜ Stuckey, B. & Smith, J.D. (2004). Building sustainable communities of practice, in Hildreth, P. & Kimble, C. (Eds.), Knowledge Networks: Innovation through Communities of Practice, Hershey, PA: Idea Group.150-164. ➜ Szulanski, G. (1992). Sticky Knowledge: Barriers to Knowing in the Firm. London: Sage Publications. ➜ Tomes N. (2001). Technology-supported collaborative learning. In Falchicov, N. (Ed.) Learning Together – Peer Tutoring in Higher Education. London: Falmer, 275–291. ➜ Trayner, B., Smith, J.D. & Bettoni, M. (2006) Participation in international virtual learning communities A social learning perspective CPsquare! …the community of practice on communities of practice, retrieved June 6, 2007 from http://www.cpsquare.org/News/archives/Webist_Setubal_Final.pdf ➜ Turkle S. (1997). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Touchstone Press, New York. ➜ Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 28 elearningpapers | 2008

➜ Warhurst, R. (2003). Learning to lecture: situating the knowing and learning of higher education teaching. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Edinburgh, September ➜ Wegerif R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 2(1), 34–39. ➜ Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, : Cambridge University Press. ➜ Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. ➜ White, I.K. & Pagano, R (2007). Making It Stick: The use of Online Discussion For a to Support Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education Communities of Practice. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on e-Learning, New York, 28-29 June, np. ➜ Winkworth, I. & Gannon-Leary, P.(1999). Library performance measures: government perspectives. Paper presented at: 3rd Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services, Longhirst, Northumberland, August 26-31. ➜ Wubbels, T. (2007). Do we know a community of practice when we see one? Technology Pedagogy and Education 16 (2) 225-233. Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 29

Digital Inclusion: Best practices from eLearning David Casacuberta Digital Area Project Management Transit Projectes, Spain dcasacuberta@transit.es Executive Summary: “eLearning 4 eInclusion” (EL4EI) is a EU-funded project seeking to build a community for those with valuable expertise regarding the use of eLearning for digital inclusion. The project seeks to gather and catalogue relevant best practice cases and, ultimately, to compose an eLearning charter which will be a reference tool for professionals working towards social inclusion. In this paper we describe the new methodology used to analyse, filter and present results and describe some of the key results gathered so far. Thanks to the innovative ways suggested for the recovering and processing of material, and a cognitive approach instead of a pure technological one, our project is able to clearly point the way towards important new solutions. So far, one of the most valuable achievements of this project has been to clearly indicate the need of a new paradigm, one based on more informal teaching environments, wherein the communication among peers is fundamental and damaging stereotypes regarding new technologies are avoided. The practice of digital inclusion has to combine both technical and cognitive approaches. EL4EI demonstrates that teaching technical skills involving the use of a computer or Internet turns out to be useless if unaccompanied by motivation and contextualization. Of course it goes without saying that these practices are all unviable without a necessary minimum of infrastructure, i.e. access to a computer and the internet. The battle against the digital divide must be waged on both fronts. According to the current research, the five most promising strategies in terms of establishing best practice in the use of eLearning for social and digital inclusion are: • combining teaching ICT with other non-digital knowledge equally important to social inclusion • communication to the target groups • establishing peer to peer teaching systems • creating informal environments • using teachers similar to the students themselves, especially in cases of eLearning focused towards women. Keywords: eInclusion, eLearning, cognitive approach, community of practice, teachers, education, disabilities, European charter, EL4EI Introduction Sections 5 and 7 feature a practical presentation of eLearning for eInclusion (EL4EI) is a European Union key results gathered thus far. In the interest of brevity, project, funded by the programme eLearning. The these have been curtailed to those involving issues of project seeks to build a community for those with multiculturalism, social inclusion and eLearning. valuable expertise regarding the use of eLearning for digital inclusion. Furthermore, it sets out to gather and Objectives catalogue relevant cases of ‘best practice’, and ultimately, Most projects concerned with digital inclusion tend to to compose an eLearning charter which will be a centre their focus on issues of hardware: donation of reference tool for professionals working towards social computers, cabling homes, the use of wireless devices, inclusion. etc. Though such issues are obviously unavoidable, they are not all there is to the matter. Moreover, the ultimate In sections 2 and 3, this article presents three beneficiary being targeted is all too often ill-defined. conceptual innovations in the pursuit of social inclusion Generally they are of two types: through eLearning: a reconsideration of the concept of digital inclusion from a social focus and in terms of • First, we have the handicapped people; in which empowerment; information processing from a cognitive case the targeted beneficiary is usually well analysed perspective of problem resolution, and thirdly, an and segmented into specific groups, given that ontological approach to the indexing of information considerations are different for the blind, the colour obtained. blind, the visually impaired and so on. 30 eLearning Papers | 2008

• Then, we have the general fallout of the so-called it is unwieldy to have to sift through a twenty-page Digital Divide; in which case the single identifying document in order to access a very precise bit of characteristic is one of computer illiteracy. Thus information on, say, something such as how best to one finds little distinction being made among such present a virtual forum to a group of women senior diverse targets as senior citizens, the unemployed, citizens. convicts, disadvantaged youth, and so forth. The blanket approach taken for all these groups is to Rather, we favour a cognitive methodology, analysing organise practical courses wherein these diverse best practices as proposals for solving a given problem. individuals are taught the how to of surfing the net, In such an approach the goal is not to document the e-mailing and whatnot. experience in detail – instead, it is to establish what problems are to be solved, what possible solutions are Considering the undifferentiated reasoning underlying available and how effective each one might be. such tactics to be specious, we propose an alternative approach based on the following imperatives: This approach is specifically based on the pioneering work carried out by the architect Alexander [1], and 1. Overcoming mental barriers as opposed to in particular on his developments within the field of simply technological ones. We find at present that cognitive science and artificial intelligence [2]. The major causal factors of marginalisation from the idea is one of an approach through cognitive patterns, information society are those such as the mistrust in which experiences are considered examples of often felt towards new technologies and the lack of patterns on how problems can be solved. any content attractive or useful to either the socially excluded or those at risk of being so. Thanks to this type of analysis, an experience becomes a pattern, a prescription for solving a problem from 2. An approach based on empowerment. We hold a given perspective. To do so, one adapts a system for that what is important is not so much knowing classifying experiences [3]. The following is an outline how to use, for instance, Netscape or Outlook, but of the main considerations used in analysing best rather the educational and liberating potential of experiences: new technologies. We seek to make the internet an instrument for integrating the socially excluded Purpose: The objective of the practice analysed. by using it to equip them with the skills that will Problem: The problem which the practice seeks to make them employable in the information society. resolve. Furthermore we seek to develop their capacity to think critically, to form their own political views Solution: In which way the practice offers a solution to and to organise themselves as citizens and cultural the problem within the context in which it appears. groups. The potential realisation of such substantial Target: The segment of the socially excluded goals advocates thinking about ICT in more social population at which the proposal is aimed. terms rather than through a reductive technical approach. Actors: The different actors involved in the practice. Methodology Effects: How things will change once the practice is Normally, the description of best practice is carried adopted. out through detailed reports. As if some clerical Implementation: Practical instructions on how to put task, dates, places and names tied to the experience the practice to use. are compiled, the context of the experience, the characteristics of the responsible organisation are This systematic means of classifying data produces assiduously described, and so forth. Such reports information which, unlike in the situation described function well enough to document work done and as at the beginning of this section, brings forth the a tool in the pursuit of further funding and support. generally applicable elements of the experience, while However, towards fulfilling a more scientific role they at the same time only needing the annotation and have the following drawbacks: processing of genuinely relevant information, leaving aside other data for more traditional reports. Given that the information is highly contextualized, it becomes difficult to discern which may be applied Once the information is compiled using the successfully elsewhere from which is tied to the cognitive models [described in 2], different patterns specificities of the occasion. are brought out, in a systematic and directed way, from the cases that, in terms of empowerment (as Due to the high degree of detail, it can often be described in the previous section), use eLearning for difficult to determine which information is the social inclusion. most important or relevant. Though not undoable, Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 31

Description of technology This is vital, because the members of the consortium Cognitive patterns are a powerful tool for ordering often propose solutions described in an overly anecdotal information relevantly and systematically. This way. For example, one ‘best practice’ involved using facilitates research enormously, as explained in the karaoke in teaching children to read. By means of the previous section. Furthermore, the intuitiveness ontology and other tools it was possible to re-classify of the cognitive pattern means that it is also highly this experience. On one hand it was classified as a recommendable for the organisation of information on motivating process, based on entertainment as a key a website. psychological factor, on the other, as a process whereby ICT was used to instil knowledge that is basic for This encourages us to implement the findings of social inclusion and necessarily previous to any digital cognitive analysis in a programmable ontology inclusion (i.e. literacy) facilitating the indexing and the location of information, so anyone interested in the use of One of the key results of this process has been to eLearning for social inclusion can find the solutions produce a rigorous classification of problems and proposed in the easiest possible way. solutions. This will greatly facilitate future discussions among experts, which will articulate recommendations Technologically, we settled on the use of topic maps[4]. and best practices to be presented in the European We did so because topic maps offer a good general Charter for digital inclusion. framework for building interconnected content networks. Hiring a large company to custom build a The rate at which different problems and solutions system is a solution which, aside from being expensive, have appeared in reports and documents has been is difficult to transport and maintain. Whereas a system statistically calculated so as to establish the relative based on topic maps is standardized, flexible and easy importance of each. We consider a key finding of this to maintain, as well as independent from the computer study that – though most of the actions taken towards application being used. inclusion involve entirely technical solutions and training – when the cases of best practice are studied Most vitally, the advanced architecture of topic maps exclusively, more than half of the proposals involve facilitates the conversion to a computerised format motivation, the development of specific contents and of something such as methodologies against social more cognitive solutions. exclusion through eLearning, which would seem to not lend itself easily to quantification. More specifically, the findings show that, among the more than 600 activities in favour of digital inclusion Finally, we greatly appreciated the way topic maps analysed, about 40% of the solutions proposed were facilitate the conversion of information into visual exclusively to do with the improvement of technical form. In the field of digital inclusion it is particularly infrastructure (affordable computers, the cabling of necessary to use structures that are intuitive and cities etc.), almost 75% combined such infrastructural easy to understand and process. Hence, the dynamic improvement with the teaching of technical skills (such visual maps expressing the breakdown of subjects are as the use of browsers and e-mail). However, when only extremely useful. the 100 best practices so far gathered are considered, it is found that in the majority of these solutions (about Presently, we are at work processing the best practice 50%), the key to their success was the motivation of cases as they come in, abstracting the relevant cognitive subjects through methodologies and tailored content. patterns and including them in an ontology on social inclusion which is being developed in XML using topic In the light of such findings it can be quite interesting to maps. For October, we expect to have the eLearning consider the failure of digital inclusion projects such as for social inclusion library fully up and running. The the Spanish state’s Plan Info XXI. In this particular case, vocation of the library is to become a reference tool in the plan was to increase the number of internet users the field of social education and, potentially, a point in Spain by a million; what in fact happened during of reference in the future theoretical development of the period of the project’s operation was that the total eLearning. number decreased. Developments and achievements One of the most valuable achievements of this project thus far has been to clearly indicate the need for a new At the present stage of development we have a partial digital inclusion paradigm. Of course, none of this goes ontology of problems and solutions available to us. to deny the need for technical infrastructure, since, In addition, we have a series of ‘data mining’ tools for obviously, without a computer or network there would connecting data and gathering solutions in the most be little sense in teaching the use of new technologies. useful way possible. But rather, the point is that, such exclusively technical 32 elearningpapers | 2008

considerations are a wasted effort if not backed up by a significantly reinforces the cognitive relevance of what cognitive plan to motivate the users. is being explained and greatly boosts motivation. Results The fourth strategy is to create informal environments, and has the advantage of being applicable for various The following is a list of the five strategies that, at this target groups. For instance, the traditional class stage in the research, seem the most promising in terms environment for teaching computer skills can be of establishing best practice in the use of eLearning for very boring for children who are not used to such. social and digital inclusion. Organising something more informal and experimental In first place is the strategy of combining teaching ICT – where the children use the computer as a toy – can with other non-digital knowledge equally important be highly effective. Likewise, such formal teaching to social inclusion. An example of this approach is the environments might be intimidating for immigrants case of a gypsy community wherein computers where whose cultural background is significantly different used as a tool to prepare a driving licence exam. The from the host country’s; they may feel more comfortable usefulness of this tool was enough to convince several in less formal circumstances. Moreover, much the same adults from the community to participate in eLearning can be said with regards to certain groups of women activities. Similarly, it has been found in other best and senior citizens. practices that, in order to motivate adults to use such The fifth strategy is to use teachers similar to the tools as Microsoft Office or a web browser, it was vital students themselves, something that is particularly well to show them how such knowledge would help them to documented in cases of eLearning focused towards find employment. women. Since digital technology tends to be thought This is an effective strategy for three reasons. Firstly, of as ‘man’s world’, adolescent girls often don’t feel the students are much more motivated, since they motivated by it. Hence, it can be advantageous to use associate learning ICT with something of genuine female monitors to explain the use of a given eLearning concern to them (obtaining a driver’s licence, a job etc.). environment, as well as female avatars to present Secondly, there is an efficiency factor to combining content, Though the effect may be a subconscious one, learning purposes; that is, at the same time the learners it can be important nonetheless, as it goes towards acquire internet skills, they also acquire others (such breaking the stereotype that only men can handle ICT. as learning how to drive). Thirdly, the fulfilment of the A similar phenomenon has been observed in the case of goal of social inclusion is greatly enhanced, given that immigrants; an instructor from the same culture tends not only digital skills are imparted, but also other skills to be more motivating, however well the immigrant which, though not digital, are nonetheless vital to social speaks the local language. inclusion. Business applications The second key strategy is communication. Our analysis Though our study is focused on the socially excluded, of failures has demonstrated that if the proposal thus having a basically ethical and social objective, is not properly communicated, it will not fulfil its many of the practices being compiled can be perfectly objectives. There are innumerable websites dedicated useful for other groups. In fact, one of the criteria used to helping women or immigrants that, however well in putting together the cases mentioned in the previous they may be designed and organised, don’t succeed in section was that they are also usable outside the social doing so because the ‘target’ does not know they exist. exclusion context. The following is a cursory overview Communication needs to be appropriate to both the of how practices drawn from our study can also be target and its geographical situation – i.e. if it is local, effective in other types of projects. national or international in character. Furthermore, it must make use of non-digital means to deliver the Firstly, all the findings regarding accessibility for those message, given that the target group is precisely the with physical and sensorial handicaps can be applied to digitally excluded. a commercial eLearning venture. Obviously, both from an ethical and commercial point of view, it is important A third strategy is to establish peer to peer teaching that, for example, visually impaired people are able to systems. That is, in the degree to which it is possible, use the eLearning application made available to them it is desirable for the students to teach each other. This (for the purpose of, say, learning a foreign language). can be structured either formally or informally. In the former case, the students are ‘promoted’ to the level Following similar reasoning, what has been said about of teachers; the important implication here is that excluded children can be entirely pertinent to perfectly if enough students are inspired to adopt a teaching integrated children as well. That is, formal learning role, sustainability is guaranteed. Meanwhile, in less situations might be counterproductive, whereas formally structured situations, the help students offer Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 33

informal environments learning through play can be Conclusions much more motivating to them. In summary, ELearning 4 E-inclusion, as it is in its A large part of are studies are centred upon developing present state, demonstrates how the practice of digital universal user interfaces, whereby students from inclusion has to combine both technical and cognitive different cultures can intuitively use the same approaches. Teaching technical skills involving the eLearning application. Such findings are obviously use of a computer or internet turn out to be useless if useful to any eLearning project, commercial or unaccompanied by motivation and contextualisation. otherwise, targeted at international or multicultural The conjunction of these elements is what makes such users. know how genuinely useful to the target group and effective in the fight against social exclusion. Combining two types of learning seems to us to be a potentially powerful strategy, as well as an underused Thanks to an innovative means of recovering and one in the eLearning sector. If a digital project can be processing material, our project is able to more clearly successful in seeking to motivate a group with such and rigorously point the way towards important new little initial proclivity such as the gypsies to use ICT to solutions that had been all too often overlooked, due acquire skills (driving skills in this case), the potential to the predominance of an exclusively technical focus of such strategies must presumably be quite large. For on the issue. In essence, the strategies put forth are instance, one might think of learning at the same time moving towards a new paradigm, one based upon the language, history and geography of a country. more informal teaching environments, wherein the communication among peers is fundamental and Finally, teaching by people from the same group as damaging stereotypes regarding new technologies are the students is a strategy which is both underused avoided. Of course it goes without saying that these and potentially capable of making the development practices are all unviable without a necessary minimum of eLearning products more efficient and less costly of infrastructure, i.e. access to a computer and the – thus more competitive. If a significant amount of internet. However, it is just as clear that investment learning is based on the students mutually supporting based on providing technical means is ineffective when each other through on-line networks, the implication unaccompanied by a new methodology, one based on for the company involved is a course that transmits contextualisation and motivation. Rather, the battle more relevant information more cheaply. against the digital divide must be waged on both fronts. References ➜ [1] Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., The Timeless Way of Building, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. ➜ [2] Gardner, K., Cognitive Patterns: Problem-Solving Frameworks for Object Technology, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ➜ [3] Shalloway, A.,. Trott, J. Design Patterns Explained: a new Perspective in Object-Oriented Design,. Cambridge (Mass): O’Reilly, 2001. ➜ [4] Park, J., Hunting, S., XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web,Cambridge (Mass): O’Reilly, 2002. 34 elearningpapers | 2008

Editorial board Director: Roberto Carneiro, Dean, Institute for Distance Learning, Catholic University of Portugal; Professor, School of Human Sciences (Portugal) Lluís Tarín, Content Manager, elearningeuropa.info portal; Training and development, TicSalut (Spain) Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, Director, European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning; University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany) Wojciech Zielinski, President of the Board, MakoLab Ltd; Member of Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz and Polish Virtual University; Secretary of Association of Academic E-learning in Poland Richard Straub, Secretary General, European Learning Industry Group (eLIG) (Austria) Claire Bélisle, Research Engineer, CNRS (National Scientific Research Centre); University Lumière Lyon 2 (France) Nicolas Balacheff, CNRS Senior Scientist, Grenoble Computer Science Laboratory (France) Jean Underwood, Professor of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University (UK) Antonio Bartolomé, Professor of Audiovisual Communication, University of Barcelona (Spain) Jos Beishuizen, Director of Centre for Educational Training, Assessment and Research (The Netherlands) Tapio Koskinen, Senior Advisor, Helsinki University of Technology, Lifelong Learning Institute Dipoli (Finland) Promoting innovation in lifelong learning 35

eLearning Papers Submission of articles We publish articles, interviews and good practices provided by the members of the elearningeuropa.info. Researchers and eLearning practitioners on every level are invited to submit their work to eLearning Papers. Through these articles, the journal promotes the use of ICT for lifelong learning in Europe. The articles will be peer-reviewed and the authors are informed about the reception and acceptance of their texts. Article structure Language: Full text need to be presented in English. Title: The title should be no longer than 15 words. Executive summary: Every submission must include an executive summary of 250-300 words in English. The abstract shall present the main points of the paper and the author’s conclusions. Keywords: 3-6 descriptive keywords need to be included Full texts: Full texts must be of 2,000-6,000 words divided into chapters with indicative subtitles. The text may be enriched with non-textual data, such as pictures, tables and figures. References: All the references need to be cited clearly and listed in alphabetical order at the end of the article. Author profile: The authors must provide their full details and a short bio to be published in the portal’s Experts directory. Copyright policy and responsibilities: Authors remain responsible for the content of what they submit for publication. The editors reserve the right to edit the contents, to publish or reject the material submitted and to select the publication time. See the complete submission guidelines at www.elearningpapers.eu Contact information Email: editorial@elearningeuropa.info Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu 36 eLearning Papers | 2008

eLearning Papers is originally a digital publication created as part of the European Commission’s elearningeuropa.info portal. The portal and eLearning Papers promote the use of multimedia technologies and Internet at the service of education and training. The printed edition of the eLearning Papers responds to the necessity to further promote this initiative. eLearning Papers adds a new dimension to the exchange of information on eLearning in Europe and stimulates research. As such, the articles provide views regarding the current situation and eLearning trends in different communities: schools, universities, companies, civil society and institutions. eLearning Papers provides all those interested with an opportunity to have their texts published throughout Europe. Through these articles, the journal promotes the use of ICT for lifelong learning in Europe. By registering on the elearningeuropa.info portal, you will receive an email alert when a new edition of eLearning Papers is published. Currently there are over 27,000 registered users in the elearningeuropa.info community. www.elearningeuropa.info www.elearningpapers.eu http:// www.elearningeuropa.info

eLearning Papers - Special edition 2008

by eLearning Papers

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 39

Statistics

eLearning Papers - Special edition 2008 Document Transcript

http://www.weebly.com	38
http://notebook.zoho.com	1