• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case Study
 

Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case Study

on

  • 456 views

The insights shared through this article build on data collected in real life situations. The work described here attempts to understand how trust can be used as leverage to support online learning ...

The insights shared through this article build on data collected in real life situations. The work described here attempts to understand how trust can be used as leverage to support online learning and creative collaboration. This report explores this understanding from the teacher perspective. It examines trust commitments in an international setting within which learners from different European countries collaborate and articulate their learning tasks and skills at a distance. This research endeavour aims to recognize both individual and group vulnerabilities as opportunities to strengthen their cooperation and collaboration. We believe that by understanding how to assess and monitor learners’ trust, teachers could use this information to intervene and provide positive support, thereby promoting and reinforcing learners’ autonomy and their motivation to creatively engage in their learning activities.
The results gathered so far enabled an initial understanding of what to look for when monitoring trust with the intention of understanding and influencing learners’ behaviours. They point to three main aspects to monitor on students: (1) their perception of each others’ intentions, in a given context, (2) their level of cooperation as expressed by changes in individual and group commitments towards a particular activity; and, (3) their attitudes towards the use of communication mediums for learning purposes (intentions of use, actual use and reactions to actual use).

Statistics

Views

Total Views
456
Views on SlideShare
456
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case Study Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case Study Document Transcript

    • In-depth Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case StudyAuthors The insights shared through this article build on data collected in real life situations. The work described here attempts to understand how trust can be used as leverageSonia Sousa to support online learning and creative collaboration. This report explores this under-sonia.sousa@tlu.ee standing from the teacher perspective. It examines trust commitments in an interna-David Lamas tional setting within which learners from different European countries collaborate andDavid.Lamas@tlu.ee articulate their learning tasks and skills at a distance. This research endeavour aims toTallinn University, Institute of recognize both individual and group vulnerabilities as opportunities to strengthen theirInformatics cooperation and collaboration. We believe that by understanding how to assess and monitor learners’ trust, teachers could use this information to intervene and provideTags positive support, thereby promoting and reinforcing learners’ autonomy and their mo- tivation to creatively engage in their learning activities.creativity, trust, e-learning,personal learning The results gathered so far enabled an initial understanding of what to look for whenenvironments, innovation, monitoring trust with the intention of understanding and influencing learners’ behav-learning Interactions, iours. They point to three main aspects to monitor on students: (1) their perception ofe-participation each others’ intentions, in a given context, (2) their level of cooperation as expressed by changes in individual and group commitments towards a particular activity; and, (3) their attitudes towards the use of communication mediums for learning purposes (intentions of use, actual use and reactions to actual use). 1. Introduction This article focuses on the use of trust as leverage in technology enhanced learning settings. Although most of us perceive educational settings as true and honest, we are also aware that there are exceptions, as individuals tend to favour their own well being over the com- munity’s. This is even more so in online environments within witch there is little or no threat of retribution (Preece, 2001). These exceptions potentially lead to mistrusted behaviours, which might result in a decrease in motivation, lower participation and lessened collabora- tion potentially leading to unsuccessful learning cases. Building on the relation between trust and students’ attitudes in online environments, a research plan was devised comprising three main stages. The first stage provided a com- prehensive understanding of what trust is and how it potentially relates to online learning communities. Based on these results and during the second stage of this research plan, a socio-technical model of trust was designed and validated. This article reports on part of the work carried out during the third phase of this research plan, within which we used a real life setting to observe students, seeking an understanding of the interplay between trust and the learners’ perceptions, commitments and attitudes. ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eueL ers 30 u ers.e gpap www .elea rnin n.º 30 • September 2012Pap 1
    • In-depthThe main goal is to model a tool to help online learning teach- degree of commitment with which each student addressesers and facilitators to design and deploy interventions fostering a specific learning activity, (2) The degree to which studentsstudent’s trustful expectations and behaviours leading to higher share their resources, (3) How they communicate; and (4) Howstudent engagement and fruitful creative collaboration. A sec- do they engage with others in the learning process (Gambetta,ondary goal is to raise both teachers’ and facilitators’ awareness 1998, Tschannen-Moran, 2001, Preece, 2001, Preece & Shnei-of how important it is to support positive relations and coopera- therman, 2009).tion. In this context, we took a closer look at trust, as we believe it plays a key role in supporting and motivating learner’s commit-2. Background ments towards learning and strengthens their learning collabo-Today, the teacher’s role in education is seen as a facilitator of ration. It is for these reasons that trust has been seen as a majorthe learning process rather than the possessor of knowledge. determinant to foster individual active participation in socialThis transformation has been and is being continuously sup- systems. What users perceive to be “trustworthy” in such sys-ported by enhancements brought by technology into our learn- tems is influenced by a number of factors, including perceptionsing settings. Learning anywhere and anytime is now an option of the communication medium, the history of participation andfor a significant part of the population, even when active partici- perception of other users (Davis, 1989; Meyerson, 1996; Lewis,pation and group collaboration are required. 1985; Lewicki, 1995).However, this flexibility has also brought challenges to both We propose to view trust as a sense making of the students’teachers and learners, as it demands from all an up-to-date set interaction process. Although, we agree that trust multidiscipli-of skills as well as it requires them to face the fast-paced evolu- nary nature makes it a concept hard to discuss and consider intion of education technology (Pink, 2008). areas, which integrate social and computer science theories, it is possible to find consensus on the importance and contribu-Moreover, even though technology has an important role in this tion of the trust factor to support interpersonal relations or/andchange, technology per se does not have the ability to engage to enhanced technology mediated interactions.us in social, innovative and creative learning scenarios, and ifthe settings enabled by technology enhanced learning are not As trust is considered an important element in influencing theproperly supported, then results can result in information over- success (or lack thereof) of a relationship in that it is a key el-load, procrastinating attitudes, effects that will probably lead to ement in influencing the willingness to cooperate, share andthe disruption of information flows and ongoing discussions. participate in a given context (Mishra, 1996; Guiddens, 1991), then within this focus we consider issues like learner’s persua-Nevertheless, technology assumes an important role in foster- sion, emotions and trust commitments important dimensionsing creativity through enriched collaboration, a role facilitated to attain when seeking for greater technological inclusion andby motivated learners engaged in group cooperation. learning success.That is why we aim to contribute to understand how trust can As an example of that multidisciplinary approach trust can bebe leverage for supporting online learning creativity, as trust see from a sociological perspective as a reflection of behaviors,ensures effective commitments and reduces the level of un- choices and decisions (Gambetta, 1998; Fukuyama, 1995; Gar-certainty (Giddens, 1991, Kramer, 1996, Luhmann, 2000). We finkel, 1963); for psychologists, trust is seen as an attitude orbuild our rational on the attempt to understand the potential of intention (Erikson, 1968; Rotter, 1971); on the other hand socialsupporting trustful interactions as leverage to develop creativity psychologists interpret trust as a interpersonal phenomenonand innovation among online learners. (Meyerson, 1996; Mishra, 1996; Weber, 2003; Luhmann, 2000), and economists see it as a commitment in a form of a rational2.1 Trust and online learning communities decision (as a game) (Bachrach, 2007). More, the computer sci- ences perspective separates the trust concept in two distinctIn the attempt to observe possible implications of technology approaches, one connects trust to security processes, reputa-in contemporary education and learning processes’ we encoun- tion and privacy (Abdul-Rahman, 1999; Walter, 2008; Falcone,ter in the literature four main aspects to be considered: (1) The 2002) and another relates trust to the interaction process that is ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu eL ers 30 u ers.e gpap www .elea rnin n.º 30 • September 2012 Pap 2
    • In-depthmediated through technology (Dong, 2010, Constantine, 2006; 2.2 A socio-technical model of trustMcKnight, 2002; Mcknight, 1996; Preece, 2001). Finally educa-tors tend to see the trust concept more as an interpersonal phe- The reflections above lead us to the second step of our researchnomenon (Hoy, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). within which a socio-technical model of trust was devised (see figure 1) which presents trust (1) as building upon trust predis-Our definition of trust combines three interpretations; we share position, reciprocity, predictability, honesty, benevolence andthe social psychologists perspective with the economist’s views competency; and (2) as determining Intentions to relate, mani-of commitment and connect it with the interaction process fested through behaviours, attitudes and beliefs, eventuallyview presented in computer sciences. With this view we aim leading to (or not) specific relations being established.to connect our technological knowledge in human computerinteraction with distance education paradigms and today’s on- In this model:line social facilitator phenomenon. From that perspective we • Trust predisposition represents the inclination to depend onsees these human online facilitator factors manifested in online each other, with a felling of relative security. Influencing thelearning environment through small exchanges of learners’ be- level of commitment of the group (two or more people) to-haviors, attitudes and expectations (those manifested through wards the situation (a learning activity or process).time and when learners’ interact online socially, and express or • Reciprocity, believing that others have confidence on my ac-exchanges emotions and feelings). tions increases my motivation to trust and my disposition to trust. • Predictability, be able to perceiving others’ intentions in a giv- en context and if the attitudes and behaviours match the ex-Figure 1: Trust social-technical model in TEL contexts ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu eL ers 30 u ers.e gpap www .elea rnin n.º 30 • September 2012 Pap 3
    • In-depth pectations and performance. Also could be observed through land (University of Oulu); Norway (Norwegian University of Sci- signs of interface stability (security), level of user control (pri- ence and Technology Trondheim); Romania (Valahia University vacy). of Targoviste); and Estonia (Tallinn University).• Honesty, as predictability, honesty is a belief that depends on The project’s main purpose is to find new solutions for promot- perceiving nature of the intentions of others. Open and trans- ing creative collaboration in terms of new and innovative learn- parent attitudes ensure security that person is not deceiving ing models based on social media and mobile technology. Most activities performed in the course involve collaborative tasks, and will act accordingly. collaborative thinking and reflection. In the course students• Benevolence indicates attitudes of caring about the benefits were initially divided into small groups (from 4 to 9 students of others. ‘Kindness’ raises trustworthiness but, it needs for a maximum) and different tutors were assigned to the groups. declaration of good intentions which results in the increasing All learning activities were design and coordinated by a teacher who coordinate overall group activities. The kick-off meeting of confidence on others was made via Adobe Connect Pro in 24th of February 2012, and• Competency in this context is expressed by the expectation students had face-to-face meetings with the local facilitators that all parts involved will act in a competently and dutifully twos week before the start. way. It is inferred by the online identities and reputations of the people involved in the process (teacher, institution, staff 3.1 Procedure and colleagues). Competency indicators are professional paths and past achievements, photos, friends, personal aims, This study relied on an initial survey and diary logs observation procedure. The survey was conducted online by using an open collective networks, style of writing. Competency, could also source web application called LimeSurvey and used the Likert be inferred throughout the level of tool efficiency. scale as well as open-ended answers. The survey’s aim was to explore students’ background profile (gender, age and national-2.3 Trust through time ity), their initial social interaction perspectives (on safeness, and privacy preferences) and finally explores students’ use of socialFinally, as far as trust is concerned, three main moments in time media towards learning. Accounted for fifteen (15) questions.were identified: Forty-nine (49) students answered to the survey from a sam- ple of fifty-five (55) students. Two (2) of those forty-nine (49)• A initial moment (the articulation), where attributes like reci- inquires were considering invalid due to be incomplete. Which procity, predictability or honesty are important because they resulted in the analysis of the answers of six (6) Estonian partici- help to create learners’ empathy and commitments towards pants, eighteen (18) Finnish, one (1) Norwegian and twenty-two group work. The empathy supports the shift where the learn- (22) Romanians. er stops to see as individual and become part of a working The observed students included two distinctive groups (“Tech- community. Designers” and the “ThoseTwoLives”). The first observed group, included 3 from Finland and 1 from Romania, the second ob-• A second moment in time (the connecting), ensure the suc- served group included three (3) from Finland, three (3) from cess of the interaction and the success of precious working Romania and one (1) from Estonia. commitments. This moment provide necessary group sup- port and continuity for the interaction process and the moti- The diary Log procedure observed students discussion, group interactions and final achievements) and make possible inter- vation to be positively engaged in the working task. connections between (1) how learners perceive others inten-• The end moment (the reflection) happens after the course tions and how this affects the collaboration context, second fulfilment, when students re-evaluate their experience and (2) how learner’s commitments (level of cooperation) towards particular activity changed collaboration patterns; and final (3) decide how this will effect future relations. How the communication medium (reactions, intentions of use and actual use) affected learners’ trust perceptions. The diary3. A Case Study Log procedure observed students discussion, group interactions and final achievements) and make possible interconnectionsThe observed case study was about Technology Enhanced between (1) how learners perceive others intentions and howLearning TEL course, is part of CoCreat, an European project this affects the collaboration context, second (2) how learner’sabout enabling creative collaboration through supportive tech- commitments (level of cooperation) towards particular activitynologies (http://let.oulu.fi/cocreat). The course, was deployed changed collaboration patterns; and final (3) How the commu-by four partners from eight different European countries, Fin- ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu eL ers 30 u ers.e gpap www .elea rnin n.º 30 • September 2012 Pap 4
    • In-depthnication medium (reactions, intentions of use and actual use) cal platforms, Second Life and Moodle. Course learning activi-affected learners’ trust perceptions. ties were planed to foster international students collaboration. Course evaluation process includes a sort of assessments like.The observation period included a 10 weeks of activities. The peer-evaluation discussions, reading tasks; commenting ontutor role was to fill observation diaries based in three matrix weekly topic and individual and collaborative studying. In thistable items (group discussions, group interactions activities and course students were expected to design, development andgroup cooperation to fulfill their weekly tasks) and their percep- implement their own TEL course. Course included 15 hours oftion of students’ behaviors, attitudes and believed. lectures and individual and collaborative studying’s.The weekly observed assignments and task were divided intofive (5) major observation groups: 3.2 Results • Observation 1 (weeks 1 and 2) Main activity: “Get to know According to data, participants’ age range varies from 19 to 52 each other”, activities individual asynchronous communica- years old and all participants had at least a higher degree. Ma- tion interactions. jority uses Internet daily (85,71%) and consider as most useful • Observation 2 (weeks 3 and 4) Main activity: “Report on activities, activities like: future working methods and communication mediums”, • Reading and sending e-mail; activities included group asynchronous and group synchro- • Search for information; nous communications discussions. • Learning online; and • Observation 3 (Weeks 5 and 6). Main activity: “Write the Pedagogical script”, activities includes asynchronous and • Sharing ideas in formal education contexts (see figure 2). synchronous group discussions, group work assignments. Regarding participants online social activities, the inquired • Observation 4 (Weeks 7 and 8). Main activity: “Provide students claimed to publish very often, especially information peer-to-peer feed-back”, the activity was a group assign- about friends or themselves. They, also, use online tools or ment task. services in a daily bases. Tools most used are mobile wireless • Observation 5 (Weeks 9 and 10). Main activity: “Write the devices (32.65%), search engines (59.18%) and social networks Technical script”, activities includes asynchronous and syn- (40.82%). Regularly, collaborative sharing tools (42.86%). Some- chronous group discussions, group work assignments. times students use computer assessments and close learning environments. Not use at all, or used at least a few times col-This case study contributed towards not only to understand laborative drawing and social bookmarking services. Studentstrust and it’s implications in a real case context, but also to un- expect, as well, that teacher clearly define course privacy rulesderstand how teachers can use it to support and mediate learn- (42.86%), in regarding what will remain private or public in theer’s interactions. course.The observed course started in 24th of February and last 14weeks (a semester) and was deployed at a distance. The course- The survey analysis also indicates that students feel safe i.e. fell-learning environment was supported by two main technologi- ing a degree of control, which will read or have access to theirFigure 2: Activity and daily routines ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu eL ers 30 u ers.e gpap www .elea rnin n.º 30 • September 2012 Pap 5
    • In-depthshared resources, comments and assignments to share in the discuss synchronously their future working methods and whatfollowing online scenarios; communication mediums to use in the future. The group bound • In e-collaborative learning (57.14%) or in social network increased when divided in small groups and reach an important (44.90%) scenarios that uses for example tools like Google moment when students needed to articulate much their ideas docs, EtherPad, dropbox, Facebook, Google +, Twitter). to finished OBs3 activities, i.e. when they needed to write their • In close learning environments (42.86%). Pedagogical script.But, seamed to be undecided on regard the safety of open envi- Results also indicate that group social commitment and workronments that uses public blog-posts, public forum discussions articulation increased near a deliver deadline. During those mo-or Second Life, see figure 3. ments in time groups work cooperation increased and becomeRegarding students privacy preferences, it seams that students much higher after a synchronous communication (via Secondprefer to keep the information private by default, especially Life). During those periods each individual (on his way) seamed • Grading (36.73%) information, to become more committed towards the group as well as their • Feedback and comments (36.73%). level of empathy increased. Again during those moments the hostility towards the elements of the group who cooperate lessRegarding the diaries logs analysis, we focus our analysis in ob- increased.serving changes from the students perspective towards a partic-ular activity and then cross those particular moments with the Support communication. The teacher role in foster communi-data provided by the learning management system LMS looking cation was important, but not influenced student’s perceptionsfor changes on indicators. Results were summed and addressed (reactions, intentions of use and actual use) towards the com-in six (6) important issues, those are: munication medium. This was particular important to diminish- ing the existing technological, social and education cultural bias • Students’ commitments and group bound; between Finish students and Romanian students. There was a • Support communication; and clear tendency as well between familiarity and students believe • Work articulation and social connection; on tool efficiency.Students’ commitments and group bound. The first activity The work articulation and social connection. The tutor support(occurred during the two weeks OBs1) aimed to introduce stu- and student’s role-play were vital for foster the work articula-dent’s teachers. Although according to data that during that tion moment’s in the course. In this case all actors quickly inter-week students did not engage social with the intensity it was changed information in the group and provided efforts to keepexpected. Data revealed that students initial commitments the group connected, what seamed to support the group coop-started to be built during OBs2 phase, when students started to eration in future actions. Some individuals tended to assume more their roles than others, some passively students (less ex- perienced with the environment) wait- ed for others to define and establish the working and social rules before start to act. The initiator-contributor role as- sumed by some students helped to initi- ate the collaboration process, but in this case for this role to work most elements of the group had to be committed and provide feedback and cooperate when needed, as those who where assigned to perform the initiator-contributor role had to propose ideas or approaches to group problem solving and suggestion an approach for procedure.Figure 3: Privacy awareness towards eLearning tools ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu eL ers 30 u ers.e gpap www .elea rnin n.º 30 • September 2012 Pap 6
    • In-depthResults reveal that in spite both groups achieved expected re- synchronous communication, was also important to mediatesults, the “Tech-Designers” reached the group commitment and the individual and group commitments and to establishes theit members collaborate more than the “ThoseTwoLives”, what communication climate (what we see as the initial trust bound).affected the group performance. Results also showed a cultural bias towards the communicationThe “ThoseTwoLives” encounter an initial problems in initiate medium, the familiarity and the actual use of the tools (percep-their group activities during Week 5 and 6. tion of efficiency). Finish students seamed more familiar with online tool and it efficiency than the Romanian, what influencedGroup lack of reciprocity (no answer back or big spaces between students sharing patterns, group interactions, learning pathsanswers) during their asynchronous discussion aggravates that and affected their performances. Also, individuals more com-problem. mitment to the group collaboration tend to expect more activeGroup commitment was recovered through teacher support asynchronous discussion when compared to the others.and two synchronous meetings, until then the “ThoseTwo- On the other hand those who initiate group initial articulationLives” group found difficulties in cooperate and collaboratively (the initiator-contributors) also seamed more committed to thework together. work than others. Others needed for initial synchronous before start to actively collaborate. The teacher main role was to pro-3.3 Discussion vide support and scaffolding.The Learning Managing System indicators show that the mostsocial and committed students tend to be more successful in 4. Conclusionperform their activities and tended also to become the group This work’s major contribution is the intersection of areas suchleaders. On the other hand more competent and experiment as trust, creativity and collaboration and it main outcome aimsstudents tend to contribute more during the synchronous com- to provide a comprehensive understand on how trust can bemunication than the other. The remaining students (less social leverage for supporting online learning creativity,engaged, committed or competent) tend to follow group workand contribute punctually. The achieved results clearly distinguish learners commitments as an important key tows establishing group collaboration andGroup-working methods differentiated from group to group, to ensure the success of the learning activity. Contradictory tothough in the end the majority of the groups achieved pretend- what expect open or close activities seamed less important fored results. Major group concerns were in understands what ac- ensure the success of the activity and the group interaction thantions they will need to take (each week) to achieve pretended their commitment towards the work and the group.results. Also there is evidence that the group work climate (cre-ative collaboration) and group commitment (cooperation) in- Competency, reciprocity and benevolence were important at-creased significantly near assignment delivering deadline. Until tributes to ensure students initial work articulation. Predict-then, most exchanged messages demonstrate attempts to un- ability, honesty and competency as well as reciprocity were im-derstand how to behave online, set the work climate and to de- portant attributes for engaging the group bound through timefine working actions that eventually lead to achieve their learn- and ensure group overall group commitment. Competency anding aims. Also, the individual commitment to the task seamed benevolence of participants seamed to be the most importantto influence the group performance, especially when the group skills for achieving the initial work articulation and not their ca-needed to articulate a working process. Group collaboration be- pacity to interact or communicate asynchronously. Then, duringcame higher through time. the connection phase, competency, honesty and predictability assumed an important role.Another behaviour that affected individuals or group commit-ments was the perception of other individual as competent and Reciprocity actions in the group seamed to validate both com-predictable. Members of the group that keep the group togeth- munication phases special when students initiated a new tasker were also those who established the working rules and level activity.of commitment of each individual. Tutor support during the ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu eL ers 30 u ers.e gpap www .elea rnin n.º 30 • September 2012 Pap 7
    • In-depthIn return, tool familiarity and usefulness were important attrib-utes for select the communication tool and to guarantee the Referencescommunication efficiency. Safe communications were related Abdul-Rahman, A. & Hailes, S. (1999). Relying on trustmore with this attributes that privacy or tool secureness. towards reliable information. In: In: Proceedings | International Symposium on Database, Web and Cooperative Systems (DWACOS’99).As future aims, towards this work is to develop a tool, whichsupport teachers on designing instruments and activities that Bacharach, M., Guerra, G., & Zizzo, D. J. (2007). The self-foster students and group commitments. This tool aims as well fulfilling property of trust: an experimental study Theory and Decision, pages 349–388.to assess learners’ trust commitments during the articulationand the connection phases so, it allows teachers to identify vari- Constantine, L.L. (2006). Trusted interaction: User controlations on students’ trust commitments and apply interventions and system responsibilities in interaction design for information systems. In: CAiSE. pp. 20-30.if needed. Dong, Y. (2010).The role of trust in social life. In Z.Yan, editor, Trust Modeling and Management in Digital Environments: From Social Concept to System Development, pages 421{440. IGI Global. Erikson, E.H. (ed.) (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. Free Press, New York. Fukuyama, F., editor (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press, New York. Falcone, R. & Singh, M. & Tan, Y. (eds.) Trust in cyber- societies: integrating the human and artificial perspectives, pp. 27{54. Springer, Berlin (2002). Gambetta, D. (1998). Trust making and breaking cooperative relations. In Gambetta, D., editor, Can we trust trust?, pages 213–237. Basil Blackwell. Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, Trust as a Condition of stable Concerted actions. Motivation and social Interaction, Ronal Press, New York. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-identity. Polity-Press, Cambridge. Hoy, W. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools: The omnibus t-scale. In: Hoy, W., Miskel, C.G. (eds.) Studies in Leading and Organizing Schools, pp. 181-208. Information Age, Greenwich [Online]. Available: http://communitiesofinquiry.com/ Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions, volume 50. Academy of Management, California. Lave, L. & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. In European Conference on Hypertext. Lewicki, J. & Bunker, B. (1995). Trust in relationships: a model of trust development and decline. In: Bunker, B., Rubin, J.Z. (eds.) Conflict, cooperation and justice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Lewis, J. David & Weigert, A.J. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63(4), 967-985. ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu eL ers 30 u ers.e gpap www .elea rnin n.º 30 • September 2012 Pap 8
    • In-depthLuhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Preece, J. & Shneiderman, B. (2009). The reader-to-leaderAlternatives, chapter 6, pages 94–107. Department of Sociology, framework: Motivating technology-mediated social participation.University of Oxford, electronic edition. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1):13–32.McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as Pink, D.H. (2008). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Willfoundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. The Rule the Future. Marshall Cavendish International.Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59. Solomon, G. & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and socialMcKnight, D. & Chervany, N. (2002). Trust and distrust aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education. 23, 1-24.definitions: One bite at a time. In Falcone, R., Singh, M. P., and American Educational Research Association. [Online] Available:Tan,Y., editors, Trust in cyber-societies: integrating the human and http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167286artificial perspectives, pages 27–54. Springer, Berlin. Sousa, S. C., Lamas, D., & Dias, P. (2011). The interrelationMcknight, Harrison & Chervany, N.L. (1996). The meaning of between communities, trust and their online social patterns. Intrust. Tech. rep., University of Minnesota - MIS Research Center. SCA2011 - International conference on Social Computing and its Applications. IEEE Computer Society.Meyerson, D. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In:Kramer, R., Tyler, T.(eds.) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory Sousa, S., Lamas, David & Paulo, D. (2012). The Implicationsand research, pp. 166{195. SAGE publications Inc., California. of Trust on Moderating Learner’s Social Interactions: A socio- technical Model of Trust. The International Conference onMishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2012). SciTePresscentrality of trust. In Kramer, R. and Tyler, T., editors, Trust in Digital Library.organizations: frontiers of theory and research, pages 261–287.SAGE publications Inc., California. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration 39(4), 308{331.Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction, DistanceEducation: new perspectives, Routledge, pp. 19–24. Walter, Frank & Battiston, S. (2008). A model of a trust-based recommendation system on a social network. Auton Agent Multi-O’Hara, K. (2009). A general definition of trust. Technical report, Agent Systems 16, 57-74.University of Southampton - School of Electronics and ComputerScience. Weber, L.R. & Carter, A. (2003) The social construction of trust, vol. 33. Springer.Preece, J. (2001). Etiquette, empathy and trust in communitiesof practice: Stepping-stones to social capital. Journal of UniversalComputer Science, 10(3):194– 202. Edition and production Name of the publication: eLearning Papers Copyrights ISSN: 1887-1542 The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject Publisher: elearningeuropa.info to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L. 3.0 Unported licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast pro- Postal address: c/Muntaner 262, 3r, 08021 Barcelona (Spain) vided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning Phone: +34 933 670 400 Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted. Email: editorial@elearningeuropa.info The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licens- Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu es/by-nc-nd/3.0/ ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eueL ers 30 u ers.e gpap www .elea rnin n.º 30 • September 2012Pap 9