Revista_Completa_ing-1

Revista FGV Online
Year 5 – Number 1
ISSN 2179-8729

Summary
7 Distance education from theory to policy: technology,
emancipatory learning and equity in a transformed environment
19 Strategies to bridge the gap between theory and practice in
the school environment
23 Gamification within the context of corporate blended and
multi-mode education
43 Educommunication and distance education tutoring:
managing communication oriented at education, dialogue and
critical thinking in distance education
69 From MOOC to personal learning
79 Potentialities and challenges of blended learning in
secondary education
91 Teaching crowds and crowds that can teach: learning as a
social process

5
A word from the editor
From theory to practice, Distance Education has trailed a long way. The articles presented in this 9th edition of FGV Online
Newsletter discuss online classroom teaching practices– both virtual and face-to-face – as they refer to professional
qualification through formal and corporate education.
The opening article, entitled Distance Education – from Theory to Policy: technology, emancipatory learning and equity in
a transformed environment, is authored by Alan Bruce, CEO and Director of Universal Learning Systems, a Dublin-based
consulting company, and Vice-president of the European Distance and E-learning Network (EDEN). The article discusses the
impact of adapted teaching and innovative education as applied to the European context - the challenges and contradictions
faced when attempting to implement technological sophistication in a fragmented, resilient and tradition-bound social
context. The author explores best practices, digital repositories, open education initiatives and the role of social agents that
lead pioneering movements.
The mission of education today was the driving theme of the interview conducted by Professor Rosinda Ramos, PhD in
Applied Linguistics and Language Studies, with Maristela Rivera Tavares, Academic Production Manager of the Educational
Solutions Department of Getulio Vargas Foundation. The interview discusses how educational games have changed the role of
education – from a merely informative role into a more integrative mission aimed at the development of cognitive processes.
In her article Gamification within the Context of Corporate Blended and Multi-Mode Education, Eliane Schlemmer, PhD in
Educational Information Technology and MA in Psychology from Unisinos UFRGS, discusses the use of games in professional
qualification and development learning environments.
The following article - Educommunication and Distance Education Tutorship - is co-authored by Luci Ferraz de Mello (MSc)
and Dr. Ismar de Oliveira Soares, with the Communication and Education Center of the School of Communication and Arts,
São Paulo University. The authors discuss education-oriented and technology-mediated communication management with
reference to Distance Education.
A potent voice in on-line and network learning and one of the pioneers in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Stephen
Downes, senior researcher with Canada's National Research Council, authors the article From MOOCs to Personal Learning
which explores the concept of network connectivity as related to MOOCs and their effectiveness in individual learning.
Professors Adriana Barroso de Azevedo, coordinator of the Distance Learning School of São Paulo Methodist University,
and Lucivânia Antônia da Silva, with São Paulo State Education Network, shed light to the discussion on Potentialities and
Challenges of Blended Learning in Secondary Education with reference to both face-to-face and distance learning.
In her Review of Teaching Crowds – Learning and Social Media, journalist Cristina Massari highlights the authors’ concern
about knowledge transmission through social networks, the risks inherent to this practice and the changes in educational
systems that may result from this practice.

6 http://www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/revista
Enjoy your reading!
FGV Online Newsletter welcomes your contribution as an author, as well as your suggestions. FGV Online Newsletter is
a theme-oriented publication issued twice a year. Our next edition will be about Blended Learning. Check how to submit
your article!

7http://www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/revista
Distance education from theory to policy:
technology, emancipatory learning and equity in a
transformed environment
Dr. Alan Bruce
Dr. Alan Bruce is CEO and Director: Universal Learning Systems, Dublin, Ireland; Vice-President: EDEN (European Distance
and E-learning Network) National University of Ireland (Galway) and Senior Research Fellow: University of Edinburgh.
Abstract
This paper reviews the impact of adaptive learning and concepts of innovative education from the point of view of the
European experience and the challenges and contradictions in trying to implement the technological transformation in
fragmented and resistant traditional teaching milieus. It looks at best practice, innovation, digital repositories, open learning
initiatives and the role of new and non-traditional social actors in pioneering change in our understanding and application
of accessible learning tailored to individual needs. It examines concepts of access and equity in developing and fostering
inclusion. Reference will be made to key case studies and innovative EU programs and initiatives.
Keywords
access; emancipatory learning; inclusion; digital support; adaptive systems; globalization; international collaboration;
equity; human rights; European initiatives.
1. OVERVIEW
At this stage of development of educational theory and practice, we are now able to look back at a solid history of distance
learning and to see the context in which it was shaped. Distance learning began in a formal sense almost 200 years ago.
Its conditions and circumstances are powerful indicators of the impulses, values, technologies and vision that shaped its
origins as well as its delivery systems. From the outset, the distance learning programs developed by the University of
London in 1840 were grounded in a number of clear policy frameworks.
These were:
1- Innovative pedagogical methodologies
2- Use of currently available delivery technologies
3- Enhanced methods of assessment an accreditation
4- Development of as widely available access as possible to formerly disenfranchised or marginal groups of learners.

The critical issue here is that, from the outset, access was linked to equity and inclusion. This is all the more relevant
as the technologies that made access and development of distance learning possible occurred at a time of exceptional
interest in extending this access to hitherto unimaginable groups of learners, particularly those with experience of disability.
The extraordinary advances in education for learners with disabilities, for example, were pioneered in a fever of creative
endeavor and experiment, particularly for those with experience of deafness or visual impairment.
Distance learning was also central to vocational training, extension programs for occupational and vocational clusters,
outreach programs for geographically dispersed and rural learners, lifelong learning initiatives, increased participation of
women and an ever-growing range of measures, methods and technologies that maximized increased access for all on
almost unimaginable scales.
Embedded in distance education from the outset, therefore, we can discern three key trends. One trend is the creation
of learning opportunities on an imaginative and inclusive level for ever greater numbers of those historically excluded
from established educational and schooling systems. It is critical to bear in mind that in earlier centuries knowledge
and access to learning were highly restrictive. The demands of early capitalist societies and rapidly expanding industrial
production systems placed a new requirement for levels of education and expertise that earlier systems simply could not
provide. Interest in education expanded exponentially the nineteenth century, from provision to pedagogy, from access
to certification. By the end of the century an entirely new system had been created of mass schooling and opening up of
learning to unprecedented numbers of learners.
The second trend was the congruence between expanded learning opportunities and the wider socio-economic system,
including the needs of a profoundly restructured and expanded labor market. Education was no longer the provision of
standardized curriculums to children or young adults (a stratified system that remained restrictive and elitist in essence).
The transformed world of capitalist production and consumption, allied to global imperial trade systems, meant a vast new
canvas of human interaction had unfolded. More and more, education needed to be tailored to actually existing economic
and social systems, shaped by a transformed labor market and mass production system. On-job learning, vocational training,
technical colleges and many more structures shaped - and were shaped by - this dynamic inter-relationship between work
and learning.
The third trend was the creative use of rapidly evolving technologies and communications systems and networks. Learning
and educational systems have always been shaped and formed by available technologies. The development of printing in
Europe with Gutenberg’s Bible in 1454 transformed availability of texts while also vastly expanding the hungry market for
information and knowledge. Distance learning is embedded in technology and in its adaptation to meet communicative
and learning needs. Every form of mass media has been used in distance learning from the postal system to cinema, from
telephone to radio, from television to the Internet – learning systems have adopted or adapted to new available technologies
as they emerged. This trend in fact has continued to escalate and deepen.

Throughout all this extraordinary evolution, the theme of access and equity has been present. Often, when starting to
analyze society, one of the first concepts is that of globalization of economic and financial systems. However, a more
historical and socio-cultural approach (such as those found in education and training) suggests contemporary society is
experiencing spectacular changes in the social organization of knowledge production, use and distribution.
Formal education systems transmitted and propagated accepted scientific doctrine. This was knowledge produced by means
of curricula that selected the ideas and skills that learners required for subsequent application to their trades or professions.
Education placed emphasis on teaching and instruction. The professor or teacher played a major part in this framework,
given that these were the people who taught those that did not know. This was a banking conception of education. In such
a matrix, the student was conceptualized as an empty container that had to be filled with content, as opposed to a candle
to be lit (Freire, 1970). On the whole, traditional learning systems in the Western World were modeled around the idea
of differential access to learning and knowledge, thus reflecting existing differences in existing stratified class systems.
Classrooms were structured in strictly didactic ways in terms of pedagogy. In addition, classrooms were located in fixed
places - the architecture itself reflecting notions of hierarchy, order and control (Bruce, 2009).
Parallel to school divisions and stratification were similar systems in the world of work. Schooling structures were linked
more and more explicitly to industrial needs and labor market requirements during the age of industrialization (Braverman,
1974). Hierarchies of knowledge transfer are seen clearly in the division of work. This hierarchy can be conceptualized
as a type of pyramid. At the peak of the pyramid is the owner-stakeholder (or entrepreneur, engineer or designer) who
originates an idea or technique that can then be implemented by taking advantage of economies of scale. The concept of
the independent ‘genius’ who creates new ideas or techniques and the technocrat who ensures they are implemented by
‘front-line’ workers maintains, legitimates and reproduces an inherently unequal distribution of the capability to produce,
know, learn and derive shared benefit from the ideas/techniques.
The education and training of workers, given their subsidiary function, therefore only develops to the most basic level
required to satisfy production needs. Veblen powerfully conceptualized the impact of fragmented knowledge and skill
acquisition for craft workmanship resulting from industrialization as long ago as 1914 (Veblen, 2006). Veblen’s pioneering
work looked at learning as it related to the needs of advanced society and the interconnectedness of that learning with
other socio-economic objectives.
Such a process raises new issues around structures of learning, working and production and how they might promote
innovation or creativity, not least for those who are the learners. It is necessary to consider and compare different types
of organizational structures that contribute to creativity, learning and innovation. It should be possible to identify different
forms of organizational structures from evaluations of practice and to investigate how different methods for developing
innovation and creativity work in different systems or organizations. This also raises questions regarding the nature of
learning in knowledge-based societies. It is important to consider what learning looks like in societies where hierarchies
are modified or shaped in more fluid ways.

The key point is that structured learning cannot be divorced from socio-political structures and constructs of organized
power in social terms. Knowledge is rightly described in the old aphorism as being ‘power’. Rather than being a truism, this
points to the importance most socio-economic structures attach to the need to define knowledge and to define the terms
and conditions under which it is transmitted and to whom. This integrated linkage enables us to understand the background
issues and concerns around access and equity.
2. FRAMING INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY
Today, concepts around innovation and creativity are locked in a context where use of advanced technologies and the Internet
and have re-shaped the market economy (globalization) and have led to an unprecedented change in observed rhythms and
intensity of growth. Knowledge has become the cornerstone on which to rest the development, survival and profitability of
corporations. Creativity and innovation have turned into new tools to lead processes effectively towards new aims.
Jan Fagerbert (2003) summarized the dominant discourse regarding innovation and learning and the future of European
globalized economies.
• Innovation introduces novelty (variety) into the economic sphere - if innovation stops, the economy does not increase
• Innovation tends to cluster in certain industries/sectors, which consequently grow more rapidly leading to structural
changes in production and demand and, eventually, organizational and institutional change
• Innovation is a powerful explanatory factor behind differences in performance between firms, regions and
countries. Those that succeed in innovation prosper at the expense of less able competitors.
Literature on the subject indicates four main trends reflecting the effect of globalization on innovation processes:
• Acceleration. Technological change has significantly speeded up during recent decades. This is illustrated by the
fact that the time required to launch a new high-tech product has been significantly reduced. The process from
knowledge production to commercialization is much shorter. The rapid development and wide dissemination of ICT
has played a key role in bringing about this change.
• Inter-firm collaboration and industrial networks. New products are increasingly integrating different technologies -
technologies increasingly based on different scientific disciplines. To master such a variety of domains is impossible,
even for big organizations. This is also reflected in the costs of developing new products and systems, which have
grown. Most firms do not have the capability or the resources to undertake such initiatives - this is the main reason
for the expansion of collaborative schemes for research and the growing importance of industrial networks.
• Functional integration and networking inside firms. Speedy adaptation and innovation gives the functionally
integrated firm an advantage. Flexibility, interdisciplinary linkage and cross-fertilization of ideas at managerial and
laboratory levels within companies are now important keys for success.
• Collaborationwithknowledgeproductioncenters. Increasing reliance on advances in scientific knowledge for major
new technological opportunities has been an important stimulus for firms to collaborate with scientific centers like
public and private laboratories, universities and other applied research centers.

These trends, more visible in some countries than in others, reveal a new and more collaborative interconnected and
relational conception in organizational culture. They evoke a socio-economic model where the key to success is using
much greater degrees of diversity, interdependency and complexity to manage risk and achieve goals. This way of
doing things is diametrically opposed to techniques of hierarchy, simplification, uniformity and control used during the
industrial era.
In terms of dialogic, expansive and third-order notions of learning, working as a community or in collaboration is a crucial
part of obtaining a more complete and more complex understanding of learning. Thus, collaborative learning and the
creation of new learning environments based on trust emerge as real driving forces in both education and work contexts
(Markkula, 2009; Hargreaves, 2003). The goal would seem to lie in the consolidation of large communities, networks
involving universities and education, companies and governments who promote generation and fostering of innovating
processes and policy. This is a very different dynamic for understanding the learning process in advanced societies. It relates
forms of education and knowledge transmission to a dynamic and fluid space where old hierarchic structures are no longer
useful or helpful. This transformed landscape of learning has powerfully shaped European policy and strategic planning
for the purposes of improved and enhanced learning for the 21st century. Whether the full impact of the transformation
wrought and change required is fully appreciated is more difficult to say.
The evolution in the understanding of learning in today’s world and its evolving role in work and education points to an
important cultural change around cooperation, collaboration and collective creation in widely different cultural aspects. In
this new culture, community and its relational meaning take on transcendental value. Along with the idea of community is
the goal of union between sets of different communities shaping communicative networking processes. This issue lies at
the heart of inclusive education approaches, particularly in contexts where human diversity has increased or accelerated.
The emerging communities are not the rigid ones of a static and hierarchic linear production system as in the 19th century.
Rather these communities are diffuse, complex and mutating, and they form and re-form in complex ways.
This raises many issues in relation to the extent to which good practice examples develop a community of learners and
overcome traditional barriers to learning. It also raises issues concerning power relations in the learning process and the
extent to which learning opportunities are collaborative or characterized by continuing hierarchical boundaries. It finally
creates the question of who builds the learning process and the extent to which processes that promote creativity and
innovation also promote equity.
The increased importance of innovation reflects the fact that it represents a major response to intensifying competition
by enhancing the learning abilities of organizations and individuals alike. Organizations can no longer establish sustainable
growth without innovation and learning. The scope of the challenges posed by the globalizing learning economy requires
that all innovation policies rest on inclusion of a learning component. This frames the conceptualization of creativity in a
dynamic learning and production nexus.

Figueredo (2009) importantly distinguishes between the concepts of incremental innovation and disruptive innovation.
Incremental innovation builds on existing thinking, products, processes organizations or social systems. They can be routine
improvements or they can be dramatic breakthroughs but they address the very core of what already exits. Disruptive
innovation is addressed to people who do not have any solutions. It takes place in simple, undemanding applications that
are not breakthrough. People are happy to use them in spite of their limitations because no other solutions exist. This has a
direct bearing on how educational systems and learning structures will be shaped to meet the demands of a changed and
globalized Europe where issues around rights, access and inclusion are now pressing in multiple ways.
In the recent past the European Union, national governments, regional and local authorities have developed new policy
instruments - and reused old ones - to tackle these emerging new challenges (social, demographic, economic and cultural).
However, in most cases this amounts to incremental adaptation of old policy instruments rather than the introduction of
radically new mechanisms (Miller, et al. 2008). The response to the new trends is often partial or fragmented. It is useful,
therefore, to provide a more comprehensive picture of what is going on in the field of innovation in European contexts. This
is a challenge, given the theoretical framework in which the notion ‘learning economy’ is embedded, especially as this itself
is rapidly evolving in the contexts of economic re-structuring, pervasive ICT usage and equality of access.
3. ENVISAGING SOCIAL INCLUSION
Social inclusion is not about halting the irreversible. It is about ensuring that alternative aspects of the human experience
are fostered and vindicated. This in itself calls for communities of the marginalized to better define their needs and their
potential contribution to the wider societies and communities of which they are part. Rather they should be seen as integral
components of a global effort to ensure that the world passed on to subsequent generations is not a uniform, suburbanized
market place but a living and diverse collection of richly different communities.
Social inclusion can be therefore seen as an integral element of a reassertion of the primacy of human values in teaching,
research and best practice. Overcoming exclusion and marginalization means equipping students and educational
stakeholders alike not simply with the mechanisms to understand social challenges - but also, and more fundamentally,
to be able to do something about them. Social exclusion implies both a structure and a process in the ordering of
human relations. As a structure, social exclusion relates to unequal levels of ownership of resources, unequal levels of
opportunity and unequal levels of privilege and status in accessing goods, services or information. As a process, social
exclusion is concerned with categories that historically may vary but are, in whatever form, denied full participation and
equality. As a process, it is also further concerned with the forces and groups that, for whatever reason, implement and
maintain exclusion.
Social exclusion concerns itself therefore with:
• Groups that can be defined as excluded
• The nature of the exclusion experienced

• The attitudes of those who maintain exclusionary practices
• The knowledge, skills and attitudes of officials in developing policies in these areas
• The body of knowledge and practice regarding equality legislation and practice.
Two issues emerge strongly from this. One is the question of equality of opportunity. Embedded firmly in the thinking
and values of the French Revolution, equality as a concept has been a highly contentious issue in Europe ever since.
From Napoleon to Thatcher, equality has been often derided and demeaned as a concept. From securing the franchise to
ensuring a documented Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, equality has been at the coalface of resistance and opposition
from vested social interests. In the United States there is a richer tradition of the acceptance and assertion of rights but a
corresponding marginalization of the need to accept any underlying a priori equal status between human beings, except in
the context of the obligations of citizenship. Equality should not be seen therefore as axiomatic and widely accepted in all
western societies.
Second is the question of the norm against which exclusion is judged. In charting the poor levels of access for those
experiencing social exclusion the literature of the European Union refers constantly to ‘average’ persons. In a context where
the average is never defined or the normal spelled out, it is difficult to see social exclusion as anything other than that which
is variably defined at any one time by individuals and structures which envisage themselves as average or normal. Clearly
this value-ridden concept is less than useful. The norm clearly does not refer to a statistical average. Nor does it refer to
a historical constant. Its very use excludes. Its very use contains the bias against which equality approaches must engage.
What is important is that conceptual clarity be employed from the outset in approaching issues around social exclusion.
What is important is that a rigorous analysis of the existing conditions and characteristics of the presenting society be
employed to make sense of the discrimination in practice and attitude that undoubtedly exists. This has been a key challenge
for the European Union.
4. OPEN LEARNING, ACCESS AND INCLUSION
Grave problems persist throughout the European Union, despite financial harmonization and freer movement of goods
and labor. Unemployment remains disturbingly high. Social and economic inequality has increased with wide variations
in access to income. Racism and discrimination have increased. Most importantly, the grim instability of violence has
re-appeared with shocking intensity in the Balkan wars and genocide. Above all, the shock of the crisis since the banking
collapse of 2008 has now seen a ruthless focus on neo-liberal responses based on austerity and deconstruction of social
welfare systems established over the last 60 years.
Central to European growth and development strategy has been the whole concept of employment. The ability to find
and retain work is viewed as fundamental to human development. In a situation where the fundamental characteristics of
work and employment have been transformed by the pace of change it still remains true that work, however constituted,

is central to the participation and development of human beings in society. It is for this reason that European employment
strategies and interventions have been the foundation of wider social and community approaches. Employment therefore
is seen as the key bridge in the movement to enhanced social inclusion.
The glue holding this all together is the concept of lifelong learning. This is of fundamental importance in understanding
the significant shift away from skill specific training towards training and education that is focused on process, problem
solving, adaptability and innovation.
Nothing reflects the pace and rate of change in contemporary European societies than this concept. The move away from
school-based (or location based) education and training to more complex and flexible forms of learning design and delivery
is changing the nature of our understanding of learning. The change of understanding in moving from time-limited curricula
to self-study, open-learning and on-line learning (often in work contexts) alters profoundly the traditional understanding
of traditional training and educational approaches and methodologies. The stated reference of education and training to
actually existing social and economic characteristics of the labor market drives learning in the direction of applicability and
relevance rather than mere accumulation of formal knowledge.
Of all the priorities advanced by the EU in the context of unprecedented levels of social change and economic transformation,
the concept of lifelong learning holds out most promise as the way to view best practice in education, training and
development particularly in relation to the process of social inclusion. Its ethos and methodology will influence most
strongly the characteristics of training provision and occupational guidance in the years ahead. It is well therefore that
professionals and administrators working with social exclusion have as thorough an understanding as possible of the
principles involved.
Although there has been a considerable increase in participation rates and schooling during the last ten years or so, many
young people still leave school without the requisite qualifications, knowledge or skills for open, competitive employment.
In addition they often do not have that love of learning and motivation to learn that is essential for further learning and
growth in the rest of their lives.
Throughout all Member States of the EU there is growing concern about the capacity of traditional schools and education
systems to change, adapt and provide an appropriate foundation for lifelong learning. It has become urgent for governments
to review the ways in which schools are organized, the content of curricula, modes of delivery, design and location of places
of learning and the integration of advanced information technologies into the overall educational structure. In such an
environment it is important to evaluate and re-assess the role and function of schools in our society and the relationship
between education and families, employment, business, enterprise, culture and community.
The OECD thinking on lifelong learning has produced a wide-ranging debate on the type of society we are presently
constructing and wish to leave after us. Education and training are not just some abstract themes to be tacked on to the

real business of making money. They are at the heart of what it means to grow and develop - both as individuals and as
communities. That sense of community which is most threatened by the growth of social dysfunction, racism, violence and
despair is best preserved in a context where people are allowed to learn and develop at their own pace with the satisfaction
of knowing that their development feeds into processes of creativity and innovation for all.
Lifelong learning requires more than vision. It requires investment. It is for that reason that it has been closely associated
with the idea of equality from the outset. The emphasis on equality underlines the key role that learning plays in sustaining
economic, social, cultural and political well-being. The emphasis on learning for all recognizes that education and training
are prerequisites for not simply employment (or, even more rudimentary, a ‘job’) but for equitable participation in society.
This is why the principles and methods of lifelong learning have had such a resonance in the disability community -
especially in the United States among the independent living movement. Concepts of empowerment, autonomy, ease
of access, flexibility and innovation are central to lifelong learning and fit well with the structures and objectives of the
disability consumer movement.
These issues are pointers to strategies and policies that will be central in the forthcoming approach to education and
training for social inclusion.
This can be seen in the range of creative EU funded projects, which have been developed to address issues around exclusion
and socio-economic marginalization. These have been creatively funded under many EU programs, most notably the
Lifelong Learning Program. Projects such as FIESTA (www.fiesta-project.eu) have sought to create powerful networks of
those working around social inclusion and transition support in education. Other projects have addressed universal design
as applied to learning and inclusion such as UDLnet (www.udlnet-project.eu). Others have looked at language learning for
the blind, such as ADOLL (http://adoll.eu/en/). Finally there is the biggest project of all, Open Discovery Space (ODS) which
aims to serve as an accelerator of the sharing, adoption, usage, and re-purposing of the already rich existing educational
content base. It met the educational needs of these communities, supported by a European Web portal: a community-
oriented social platform where teachers, pupils and parents discover, acquire and adapt eLearning resources.
This new open and competitive environment means that the emphasis on quality and transparency becomes more important
than ever. It is incumbent on professionals and agencies to understand the structures, objectives and terminology around
meaningful inclusion. It is also critical to have a strategic sense of the impact of social exclusion. Individual sectors
experiencing exclusion will more and more have to engage with other sectors and groups marginalized by the attitudes and
prejudices of “mainstream” society to develop networks and generic models of best practice.

5. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY CONTEXTS
Issues of diversity and equality are pressing ones for a number of connected reasons. This reflects the demographic, social
and cultural changes of the wider socio-economic environment. It also reflects the powerful challenges and struggles in the
organization, structure and control of work and labor conditions that have emerged in the new globalized environment. The
current context of equality and diversity is concerned with the composition of the workforce in terms of multiple elements
of identity: race, religion, gender, language or nationality for example. This links to issues like:
• Forced migration
• Regional impoverishment
• Increased participation rates for women
• The changing nature of work itself (due to technological advances and improvement)
• Legacies of colonialism and racism
• Implications of legislation and human rights practice.
These touch on diversity in regard to rights, ethical practice, conflict resolution and promotion of equal opportunities.
The labor market manifests changes in work practice that have been conditioned, on the one hand, by the process of
globalization and, on the other, by the enactment of equality-based legislation in various jurisdictions. In European terms,
management of diversity has been centrally linked to the enforcement of principles of equality among citizens and the
prohibition of discrimination on a wide range of specified grounds. While legislation varies significantly between all Member
States, in most there remains a gap between the legal prohibition of discrimination and the actual outcomes for traditionally
disadvantaged groups. In all countries, legal proof of discrimination tends to be very difficult.
The dramatic changes in employment and economic performance in recent years relate to the identified fact that European
rights are in fact increasingly restricted. They are sometimes seen to be available only to European citizens and not to
the millions of external workers, refugees and asylum seekers who have arrived in Europe in ever-greater numbers. The
extension of equality of rights of participation, citizenship and access to all citizens (and indeed non-citizens) is now a
fundamental question of European social policy.
Managing diversity and equality approaches can be seen, at a minimum, as tools to enable educators to adapt to
challenges posed by differentiated populations. In a wider context, they may be seen as powerful resources to engage
with external change processes and tap into levels of creativity and potential produced by radical departures from past
certainties. This was the origin of distance learning as enhanced access. It may also be its future – as a rich source of
outreach to those excluded.
The critical need for engagement and learning needs to be emphasized. Rights and inclusion are international issues – a fact
not as widely represented in professional teaching formation as it should be. The removal of barriers to participation will be
about asserting the primacy of a global vision that challenges traditional complacencies and inherited structures. This also
emphasizes the role ICT can play in achieving best practice and innovative quality. Barriers to equality stem from prejudice

and ignorance. The removal of barriers can be addressed by legislation and monitoring practice. Deeper transformation can
be achieved most rapidly by educators seizing the opportunities offered by social difference and incorporating them in
innovative learning paradigms.
Equality and diversity are common concerns. Such a focus provides a valuable network of specialists who have:
• Deeper understanding of equality and diversity issues and their relevance and application in the workplace
• Comprehensive knowledge of policies, procedures and legislation
• Understanding of difference, stereotyping and prejudice
• Understanding of diversity at work
• Skills to design and develop toolkits for work based equality interventions.
The removal of barriers to participation and the enhancement of embedded equality and inclusion approaches will, at
the end of the day, be about asserting strategic policy as well as the techniques necessary to embed best practice in
education. A sense of vision about what society means, and about what it is for, can inform the creative process of
learning and skill development. It can give a sense of value and direction to the design and development of employment
structures. A lack of informed understanding in contemporary society means that we could be forever condemned to
repeat past mistakes.
The changes produced in both the human and technical aspects of the globalization process shape how global education
may now include various learning communities previously excluded by reason of prejudice, discrimination or remoteness.
We need to support learners across the globe to transcend barriers and address conflict and persistent discrimination by
means of skillful application of potent technological tools in the metamorphosis of traditional educational systems to meet
unprecedented levels of socio-economic transformation.
6. REFERENCES
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum.
Bruce, A. (2009). Beyond Barriers: Intercultural Learning and Inclusion in Globalized Paradigms. EDEN: Lisbon.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Veblen, T. (2006). The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts. New York: Cosimo.
Fagerberg, Jan (2003), Innovation: A Guide to the Literature, Oslo: Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University
of Oslo.

Markkula, M & Sinko, Matti (2009), Knowledge Economies and Innovation Society Evolve around Learning. Elearningpapers.
http://pt.slideshare.net/elearningpapers/knowledge-economies
Hargreaves, A. (2003), Teaching in the Knowledge Society, New York: Teachers College Press.
Figueredo, A. (2009). Innovating in Education: Educating for Innovation, EDEN Research Workshop, Porto.
Miller, R.; Shapiro, H. and Hilding-Haman, K. (2008) School´s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: an Imagining
Exercise on the Future of Learning. Joint Research Centre. Scientific and Technical Report. European Commission.
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf
Supiot, A. (2001), Beyond Employment (Oxford: University Press).
Bruce, A. et al. (2010), Discovering Vision (San Sebastian: EHU/UPV Creanova).

Interview – Rosinda Ramos
Strategies to bridge the gap between theory and
practice in the school environment
Since the theme of the connection between theory and practice in learning processes has gained momentum in the academic
world, it was chosen as the driving theme of the interview conducted by Rosinda Ramos, PhD in Applied Linguistics and
Language Studies, with Maristela Rivera Tavares, Academic Production Manager of the Educational Solutions Department
of Getulio Vargas Foundation.
Professor Ramos points out that although Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are changing the role
of education – from into a merely informative role into a more integrative mission, the new generation of students is
very receptive to and values the use of practical problems in everyday instruction that promote the bridge between their
learning and reality.
Nevertheless, when dealing with the way in which content is presented to learners, Professor Ramos remarks the critical
importance of considering the context in which this approach unfolds in Brazil today, as the context is subject to an array
of variables.
A lot has been said about the connection between theory and practice and formal learning contexts. Do you believe
this theme has evolved within the school walls in the past years?
This might seem an uncomplicated question that could be answered with a simple “Yes” or “no”. However, as you’ve
put it yourself, the connection between theory and practice has been widely discussed – but that does not necessarily
mean the connection has been dealt with. This is a new education paradigm, introduced in the early 1990s with the
National Education Guidelines and Framework Law - the LDB - and the later passing of the National Curriculum Parameters.
Although this paradigm now shapes the whole Brazilian education context and establishes an intrinsic connection between
theory and practice, it deserves careful reflection. It first takes turning our focus to the school and when we consider what
kind of “school” we are talking about, a number of variables emerge. One of such variables is “Are we talking about state
or private schools”? Another variable is “Are we talking about primary – also called elementary school, secondary –also
called middle school, or about higher education? Additionally, what context are we taking into account, and how has the
paradigm evolved? A school in Rio de Janeiro? In Lages (Santa Catarina state), in Passos (Minas Gerais state) or in the
North of Brazil? All these variables lead us to realize that this is not really an uncomplicated question, as it means that
every school will probably have its own curricula and syllabuses which are probably aimed at the specific needs of its target
audience, or which may result from the beliefs of those involved in curriculum and syllabus design. So it begins to get more
complicated to answer this question straight-forwardly. We might say that if we take a more traditional school, one that
embraces theoretical and general knowledge as the norm, probably the connection between theory and practice and formal

learning contexts has not evolved much. However, in more innovative and transformative schools, advances can be seen in
the classroom regarding curriculum guidelines and the school syllabus. So, we should say that this is a rather relative issue
within the broad Brazilian education context.
What are the possible negative impacts on students when the school dissociates theory from practice?
If we take a school that focuses on both theory and practice but which dissociates theory from practical application, the
negative outcomes will be the students’ lack of resourcefulness or inability to use theoretical knowledge – which is abstract,
conceptual– to solve daily life needs, either at professional, personal or social level. Daily life requires turning specific
scientific knowledge into practical knowledge. Many people have a large knowledge inventory that is generally not well
used. We often hear complaints from the professional world about the lack of qualified labor to meet daily labor challenges.
So lack of preparation for work life is one of the negative impacts. Maybe the greatest problem is that our education does
not have specific purposes and so it is not able to bridge theory to practice.
What is your view on a competency-based curriculum framework?
Today I believe this is education’s greatest call of duty. We must focus on developing competencies to keep up with society’s
changes. Man has changed, the 21st century man is different from the 20th century man. Today’s man is faced with the
labor relations brought about by digital technology. We have new personal, interpersonal and professional relations. We live
within networks. Education now is challenged with what may be called a ‘complex paradigm’ – that of making learners able
to deal with uncertainty and the unexpected. To cope with that, we must be able to bridge theory and practice. We can no
longer consider someone who is not able to solve daily life problems or to deal with professional, personal or social issues
an educated person. We can’t dissociate professional life from personal or social life. These three spheres are interwoven
and education should aim at interwoven relations. The development of competencies should be an integral component of
school curricula and parameters so as to cater for the needs of this complex 21st century man who is challenged to be
prepared to deal with uncertain and unexpected issues. Competency-based education should educate individuals for work.
This is the ideal of education. Schools have broadly aimed at transforming old abilities into competencies, old objectives –
the so called general and specific objectives, into competencies. However, I believe school and its curricula and syllabuses
still lack thoughtful consideration of how to lead the change into this new mind frame and to understand that skills and
objectives are not necessarily synonymous to competence.
How important do young students assess having to solve practical problems? Do they value practical problems
more highly than students of the past?
I certainly believe they do, the young generation assigns more importance to practical knowledge. This does not mean that
theory ranks lower, but the idea is to put into practical application the so-called abstract or scientific, formal knowledge.
The new generation is much readier than older generations to deal with ‘quick-solution’ problems, problems that can be
promptly solved. So I believe the younger generation is more tuned to the world of practical application.

In what ways can Distance Education or Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) contribute to narrow
the gap between theory and practice in formal learning environments?
We know that distance education can be implemented at more traditional modes of instruction. However, digital technologies
have brought about great transformations for life in society and for education. With faster communication and more readily
available information, people can autonomously search for the specific information they need. So the former informative
role played by school is no longer needed. The role of education today is to develop individuals. As schools no longer have
to disseminate information, technology can aid school to look for new information and fulfill its new mission - to select
and guide learners in dealing with new information, as not all the information that is available is quality information.
Technology will facilitate the practical application of information as well as the exchange of information - not with another
single individual, but with several other individuals. People will work on networks, collaboratively, and will, at the same
time, learn to cope with other forms of communication and interaction. All these relationships will help to streamline the
exchange and the practical use of knowledge that is acquired through our interpersonal relationships, and eventually, help
us to develop new knowledge.
In what ways propositions like work-based learning or gamification can contribute to the teaching and learning process?
Gamification and work-based-learning are exactly about the theory-practice connection. Curriculum and syllabus design
should innovate the way this connection is implemented in teaching practices. Gamification and work-based learning are
teaching practices that will motivate individuals to engage in learning situations and tasks that will develop their cognition,
their reasoning and critical analysis. Games are not meant only for leisure, but are rather facilitators of cognitive processes
that generate new types of knowledge They can be turned into innovative teaching practices and learning activities that
will foster the developed of the aimed competencies as both games and work-based learning bring real-life situations to
the classroom. Particularly work-based learning, which will bring work life situations to class through case studies or real
workplace problems. If we consider students of foreign languages, which is my area of work, they will have to buy a ticket,
answer the phone, and do many other real-life tasks that will make school and real life work in consonance. Situated
learning will allow students to go through, in class, what they will experience outside school in their daily lives and so,
to construct new knowledge. Although neither gamification nor work-based learning was an originally education-aimed
strategy, we can’t brush off the motivation and engagement they foster. They can go beyond what the “new generation
needs” – “I’ll only learn what I like, what I’m interested in”. As students actually do that, these strategies will set targets to be
achieved. As I’ve said, although they were not primarily education-aimed strategies, they will add to the teaching practice
and allow the school to walk hand-in-hand with what happens in society, in the real world. One of the most commonly
heard complaints is that education has always been dissociated and miles apart from society and that knowledge that is
‘transmitted’ is never oriented to social life or the workplace. This way, these new paradigms and new teaching practices will
narrow the gap between education and society. We should reflect on the saying “knowledge and education at the service
of society”, and maybe, allow students to talk and interact more at school than we have until today.

Gamification within the context of corporate blended
and multi-mode education
Eliane Schlemmer holds a PhD in Educational Information Technology, an MA in Psychology and a BA in Information
Technology, from Unisinos. She is Research Productivity scholarship researcher with CNPq, a full professor and researcher
with the Post-Graduate Program in Education (PPGE) and the leader of the Digital Education Research Group with GPe-du/
Unisinos/CNPq. She is also a software and digital educational environments developer for blended and multi-mode Digital,
Online and Corporate Education.
Abstract
This article initially discusses the tensions and challenges faced by competency-based Corporate Education in the light of
advances in digital technologies, workplace changes and blended and multi-mode instruction delivered to individuals that
were born into a highly technological society. The following section explores the world of games, mainly gamification and
the dynamics and mechanics that interweave gamified processes from the perspective of points, badges, and leaderboard
(PBL). Gamification is discussed as a persuasion strategy that promotes collaborative construction of knowledge. Finally,
this article discusses blended and multi-mode learning, ubiquity and the interaction promoted by gamification in the
referred learning context.
Keywords
gamification; blended learning; multi-mode instruction; ubiquity; Corporate Education.
1. SETTING THE CONTEXT
The year is 2025, and a significant portion of corporations no longer operate based on geographical distribution, but rather
within an ubiquitous context composed of blended spaces. Work concepts and practices have changed radically. Workers
no longer need to go to work to perform their tasks - they can do them asynchronously, anywhere and anytime. Going
to work, when necessary, is done through an avatar or a hologram, and all relations are mediated by some type of digital
technology. Can you imagine these workplaces? And the environments where staff are trained? Which competencies are
staff required to have? How can they be developed? You might reply “Oh, no, this will never come true, having a physical
workplace and formal working hours will always be necessary!” Will it really?
Iwouldlikeyounowtogoback,tothe1990s,whencomputerswerewidelyusedandinternetwasintroduced.Individualsborn
in the 1990s grew up in a highly technological world, in which computers (386), internet (dial-up access) and videogames
(Super Nintendo, Mega Drive) were some of the technologies they used to interact and construct the world around them.

Quick access to a large body of data and expedite communication accelerated the pace of life. The existing paradigm in
corporations, at the then called Human Resources Department, which later became People Management, was staff training
based on an instructional approach and delivered through predominantly lecturing modes. Training technologies were a
white board, markers, PowerPoint slides and a projector. Let us now move on to 2005, when those born in the 1990s have
become teenagers... Computers have evolved significantly; they are smaller and allow greater mobility. Broadband internet
is available through Wi-Fi and 3G access. Smartphones, smart tags – radio frequency identification (RFID), more modern
videogame consoles (Xbox, Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii – launched in 2006). The paradigm that still prevails in corporations
regarding People Management is that of staff training, although now quite often translated into terms like “development
of competencies”. Do you remember the methodologies and technologies used then? And finally, to end our journey, we
go back to 2015, when a whole assortment of mobile devices is available – voice-controlled smartphones, tablets, smart
bracelets, watches and goggles (wearable) – that allow us to be continuously connected through wireless networks at a
considerable speed. 4G, Xbox One, Playstation 4, 3D virtual worlds, mixed reality, augmented reality are all available. But
how about the paradigm embraced by corporations for people management, what has changed? What methodologies and
technologies are used?
We should bear in mind that individuals born in the 1990s became teenagers in 2005 and today, 2015, are joining the
work force. Let us now discuss the challenges faced by Corporate Education considering this workforce, advances in digital
technologies and workplace changes towards blended and multi-mode staff development. What tensions and challenges
are posed by this context to Corporate Education?
2. CORPORATE EDUCATION: TENSIONS AND CHALLENGES
Some tensions have emerged between, on one hand, the qualification and capacity-building required by a network
society and on the other hand, the needs and expectations of the objects of such qualification and capacity-building, the
programs provided by educational institutions and the return on investment for corporations that sponsor said programs.
These tensions emerge generally because traditional approaches have proven to be inefficient and ineffective concerning
curriculum and syllabus design, methodologies and teaching practices, and last but not least, the instructional resources.
The failure of some programs may be related to the following factors: (i) standard, massive and shelf content-based
instruction, in which students are spectators, and not agents, of the process; (ii) programs in which theory rules over and
is dissociated from practice, despite their argument that application of theory is sure to happen in the future; (iii) program
planning that ignores corporate context, needs, expert knowledge and target audience features, as well as learners’ profile,
learning styles, mastery or lack of specific competencies and knowledge. These factors, therefore, add to the problems
already faced by Corporate Education.
A clear mismatch can be noticed between the programs offered and current learning theories and findings of inter- and cross-
disciplinary research. this mismatch may result from lack of knowledge or disregard of recent theory and research findings.

In addition, there is a clear lack of clarity about distinct phenomena like qualification, capacity-building and training.
Maturana and Rezepka (2000) state that human qualification is a broader process, closely linked to human development,
and so enables individuals to collaboratively build a desired social environment. Capacity-building means the acquisition of
specific skills and abilities necessary to act in society and mastery of the operating resources available for free-will action.
That means building environments of action where one can practice and elaborate on the aimed skills, and reflect upon
action. Rosemberg (2002) views training as a traditional methodology that facilitates and enhances one’s performance,
driven by effective instruction. Training/instruction is used whenever learning must be shaped for specific purposes – to
support students’ acquisition of new skills, specific use of new knowledge, high level of proficiency – possibly within a set
time frame. Particularly at corporate level, for quite some time, traditional training was believed to yield learning. Current
research provides evidence that learning is much more complex process and is closely linked to students’ action, interaction
and construction of meaning.
We should now explore how a qualification and capacity-building proposal for Corporate Education may be designed
within the context of Digital or Cyber Culture. According to Lemos (2002), Digital Culture presupposes a new relationship
between technologies and sociability shaping contemporary culture. He discusses three laws or principles as the baseline
of contemporary cultural processes: “(1) unchaining the knowledge transmission agent, (2) connecting in networks, and
(3) reshaping social and cultural features as a result of new production and re-matching methods” (Lemos, 2002:39)
[free translation].
The first principle applies to a ‘post-massive culture’, in which individuals are able to produce and release information in
real time “in various formats and shapes”, to share and collaborate with others in networks so as to shape the (‘massive’)
culture industry (Lemos, 2002:38) [free translation]. The second principle applies to releasing information through a
network and connecting with other people so as to “produce synergies, exchange, release and disseminate information”
(Lemos, 2002:40) [free translation]. The third principle results from the first two, as knowledge transmission and network
connection “reshape practices and institutions of the massive culture industry and the social networks of industrial
society” (Lemos, 2002:41) [free translation]. Lemos believes that understanding these principles (information transmission,
network connection and reshaping culture) will lead to understanding what he calls “combining information territories”
[free translation] and the sociocultural transformations that occur within the context of current mobile communication
and information technologies. The principles of transmission, production and connection determine a growing process
of reshaping social relations mediated by digital technologies, thus affecting human action at all levels and continuously
reshaping practices and institutions.
In order to design people qualification and capacity-building actions within the digital culture context implies, then,
unchaining the transmission agent, connecting in networks and reshaping practices that emerge from the relationship
between the unchained transmission agent and the network connection. The challenge lies in how to reshape current
practices, institutions and social networks of massive industrial culture and society into practices, institutions and social
networks that feature a post-massive culture within a network society.

When we consider the context that has been referred to and reflect upon the individuals that now make up the workforce
of corporations, the technologies they use and the tensions and challenges discussed above, we enter a new realm of
discussion: games and gamification. We shall explore next what can be learnt from them.
3. GAMES AND GAMIFICATION
Games have been part of human beings’ lives since primitive times and according to Schlemmer (2014a), they have been
investigated a constituent of human development (Piaget, 1964) and of culture (Vygotsky, 1994). According to Huizinga
(1993:10, 16), games are “a function of life [...] a free activity individuals consciously engage in knowing it is ‘not-serious’
and extraneous to everyday life, but just as appealing and demanding full engagement from players”.
Veen and Vrakking (2009) believe that success achieved by players fosters a deep feeling of confidence and self-esteem, thus
boosting individuals’ confidence when they have to deal with complex problems. Once the problem is solved, individuals
experience a positive feeling which further motivates them to face the next challenge.
When playing online, players learn to play collaboratively as they set strategies and share tips about best moves. Games
become meaningful to players, particularly because they are experiential (they turn information into experience). As the
game starts, individuals are challenged to explore, carry out missions and lead the process. By acting and interacting
(with the game context, with NPCs1
(non-player characters) or other players in continuous activity, individuals cope with
problems, find ways and solutions, set strategies and make decisions – that is, they experience several situations while
having fun and being fully engaged and immersed. Games must take into account the level of immersion (state of flow), of
attention and of entertainment of the agent.
What appeals most to players is being challenged to solve a problem and move on to the next level, thus leveraging their
EXP - level of experience. We should wonder, then what Corporate Education can learn from that? How can we develop
teaching-learning strategies that will enable individuals to have such type of experiences?
In 2007 IBM published a study entitled Virtual Worlds, Real Leaders: Online games put the future of business leadership on
display2
, which discusses what business can learn from games, particularly regarding the development of leadership. As the
business world is going global, corporations are operating everywhere and working at a frantically and fiercely competitive
marketplace where work is increasingly performed in digital ways with various digital technologies. Within this context, IBM
investigates the new abilities and competencies that staff, namely leaders, should develop to succeed in an increasingly
1 Non-player character (NPC) is a videogame character that cannot be played/manipulated, that is, that cannot be controlled by a player but which,
somehow, engages in the plot of a game with the specific role of enhancing the player’s interactivity.
2 To learn more about this study go to <www.ibm.com/gio>.

more global, spread out and virtual market place. What kinds of qualification should companies sponsor so that the new
generation of workers, particularly leaders, can develop in such uncertain environment? Are there individuals who hold such
expertise, or places where these abilities are being developed and reshaped?
The study was motivated by the awareness that new staff understood, interacted with and exercised their leadership
differently. A more detailed investigation showed that new staff used a significant portion of their free time playing
massive multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG3
). The study sample comprised 200 IBM employees who were
game players. Half of them believed that playing MMORPG enhanced their leadership in the ‘real world’, and 4 out of 10
claimed to have used MMORPG leadership approaches and techniques to improve their leadership effectiveness at work.
When assessing the personal attributes of online game leaders, IBM found that understanding the role played by the
environment is critical to develop leaderships. In MMORPGs, players organize themselves, develop skills and take on various
roles. These games are now found to nurture leaders that are able to recruit, organize, motivate and lead big teams
towards a common goal. Decisions are made quickly and many times supported by little information. Online game leaders
rank collaboration as extraordinarily important, because they feel more supported to take risks and accept failure. As a
consequence, iterative improvement is noticeable, as many of these leaders are able to make sense even of disparate and
constantly changing data and to translate them into a coherent view. In short, the study points out that:
Online gaming environments facilitate leadership through: 1. Project-oriented organization; 2.
Multiple real-time sources of information upon which to make decisions; 3. Transparent skills and
competencies among co-players; 4. Transparent incentive systems; 5. Multiple and purpose-specific.
(IBM, 2007:17)
Games like MMORPGs allow us to understand how leaders develop and operate in highly competitive, virtual, global and
spread-out environments.
Although these games appeal to players of all ages, the first generation to be born into these environments is now joining
the workforce. So in order to be successful, organizations must understand who these workers are and how they develop,
in addition to clearly understanding the role these games are already playing in forming a new generation of professionals
and how to use this knowledge in their business activities.
Game-based learning (GBL), within the context of Corporate Education, can be understood from at least three approaches:
• corporate games – developed as business simulations in order to deal with specific content pertinent to
business situations;
3 MMORPGs are online games that may gather millions of different actors who taken on digital profiles known as characters. Players interact and enter
alliances in order to carry out complex missions that call for collaboration. World of Warcraft is one of the most popular MMORPGs.

• commercial games – developed not oriented towards learning, but may be used in various contexts, as it happens
with MMORPG;4
• types of software that allow individuals to develop their own games.
Linked to the GLB concept, but not limited to it, gamification emerged in 2008.
According to Schlemmer (2014a), gamification in education means using game thinking modes, styles and strategies
together with game design elements, like mechanics and dynamics (M&D), in non-game contexts as a way to engage
individuals in problem solving (Ziechermann; Linder, 2010; Zichermann; Cunningham, 2011; Deterding; 2011; Kapp, 2012) in
various areas and levels of education (Domínguez et al., 2013).
Gamification means taking those game design elements that make games fun and adapt them to applications not usually
viewed as games and thus, generate a game-based application, process or product. Although this concept was introduced
in 2002 by the British Nick Pelling, it became more popular after 2010 with its wide use in various contexts like marketing,
education, military strategy and business.
The emerging gamification phenomenon stems from the popularity of games and their intrinsic features of fostering
action, solving problems and enhancing learning in a number of fields of knowledge. Additionally, games are accepted as
second nature by the young generation who grew up interacting with this type of entertainment. Gamification, therefore,
is justified from a sociocultural perspective as it presupposes using traditional game elements like the narrative, feedback,
rewards, conflicts, cooperation, competition, clearly set targets and rules, levels, trial and error, fun, interaction and
interactivity, among others. These elements are interwoven into game activities that promote the same level of involvement
and motivation that players enjoy when interacting with well-designed games (Fardo, 2013).
Gamification does not mean designing a game to approach a problem and reproduce it in the digital world, but rather using
problem-solving strategies, methods and concepts of virtual worlds in real life (face-to-face) situations (Fardo, 2013).

This approach has also been embraced by Corporate Education and has enabled designing teaching and learning situations
that appeal to and engage individuals in setting and solving typical corporate problems – a new perspective to Corporate
Education. An example of gamification in Corporate Education is using game design elements to assign new meanings and
perspectives to staff qualification, capacity-building and instructional processes and practices.
Given their inherent experience-facilitating potential (transforming information into experience), games allow individuals
to experience information-based situations that empower them to construct new meanings and strategies that may be
4 According to the study Virtual Worlds, Real Leaders: Online games put the future of business leadership on display, released by IBM (2007).

applied to Corporate Education context. In the corporate world, experiences yield situated or applied learning and gamified
situations can significantly contribute to meaningful learning.
Zichermann & Cunningham (2011) advise always bearing in mind game mechanics (responsible for the workability of
game components that grant gamers total control over game levels, thus guiding their actions), as well as game dynamics
(gamers’ interaction with game mechanics, which determine what each gamer does as a response to the mechanics that
shape individual activities or when interacting with other gamers). In the gamification process, benefits are fundamental –
game components that make it challenging, fun, rewarding or any other feature that triggers other emotions, as expected
by game designers.
Thiebes et al.’s (2014) study presents a systematic literature review of game elements used in gamification, a summary of
game mechanics and dynamics divided into five categories: system design, challenges, rewards, social influences and user’s
particulars. Table 1 below presents these categories and their subcategories.
Table 1 – Game elements
GAME ELEMENTS
System Design: a gamified application should be designed and developed so as to motivate the user. A typical
example comprises feedback mechanisms.
Feedback
Immediate feedback aims to keep players aware of their progress or failure, in real time
(Passos et al., 2011).
Audible Feedback Soundtrack and/or background music (Li et al., 2012).
Reminder Reminder of user’s past behavior, for instance, history of actions (Liu et al., 2011).
Meaningfulness
“[...] for meaningful gamification, it is important to take into consideration the
background that the user brings to the activity and the organizational context into which
the specific activity is placed.. [...] …meaningful elements that are embedded within the
underlying non-game activity” (Nicholson, 2012: 2-5).
Interaction
Concepts
“This includes an attractive user interface with stimulating visuals and exciting interaction
concepts, as well as a high degree of usability” (Gnauk et al., 2012:105).
Visually similar to
existing games
Creating a visual design, which is very similar to existing games. (Korn, 2012: 315).
Fantasy
“Fantasy evokes images of objects or situations that are not actually in the game. These
may turn the experience more exciting and appealing to users” (Li et al., 2012:105).

Challenges: aim to engage users by setting clear targets.
Targets
The targets of the underlying activity must be adapted as challenges to the user (Passos
et al., 2011).
Time pressure Activities are timed, for instance, by a counter or an hourglass (Li et al., 2012).
Gradual disclosure
of progress
“A game helps players to continuously increase their skills by progressive disclosure of
both knowledge and challenge […]. This will help ensure that the challenges in the game
match the player’s skill levels [...]” (Li et al., 2012:105).
Rewards: aim to motive users by providing rewards (for example, scoring systems or achieving badges) to
successfully completed tasks.
Ownership
“The ownership dynamic represents a positive, sustained connection to an entity that
leads to a feeling of shared ownership” (Burke & Hiltbrand, 2011:14).
Achievement
(successfully
achieving the game
target)
Rewards for successfully achieving a clearly stated and aimed target (Liu et al., 2011).
Scoring system
Users score points as they complete tasks. Points add up to the user’s total score (Burke
&; Hiltbrand, 2011).
Badges
“Badges consist of optional rewards and goals whose fulfillment is stored outside the
scope of the core activities of a service” (Hamari, 2013:2).
Bonuses
Bonuses are rewards granted to users who have successfully met a series of challenges or
critical functions (Burke & Hiltbrand, 2011).
Loss Aversion
Loss aversion is one of game mechanics that affects users’ behavior not by means of a reward,
but because it does not stand as punishment when the target is not achieved (Liu et al., 2011).
Social Influences: aim to motivate individual users/a group of users by means of social dynamics and influences,
such as selflessness, competition, user’s status achieved performance scored.
Status
“Most humans have a need for status, recognition, fame, prestige, attention and,
ultimately, the esteem and respect of others” (Bunchball, Inc, 2010:10). “[...]Status can be
earned by the user in isolation, by performing certain actions” (Vassileva, 2012:183).
Cooperation
“The community collaboration game dynamic rallies an entire community to work together
to solve a riddle, resolve a problem, or overcome a challenge” (Burke & Hiltbrand, 2011:13).

Reputation
“Reputation is based on the opinion of other users about the user or her contribution”
(Vassileva, 2012:183).
Competition Competing leads users to challenge other users (Bunchball, Inc, 2010).
Envy This dynamics is based on the user’s desire to own what others own (Burke & Hiltbrand, 2011).
Observation
Observation describes the method employed by users to improve their past records (Korn
et al., 2012).
Social Facilitation
It describes an effect through which individual users achieve higher scores in simple tasks
when interacting with others or working in groups (Zajonc, 1965).
Behavior
Compliance
“Conforming behavior is the desire not to act against group consensus, colloquially known
as peer pressure” (Nakajima & Lehdonvirta, 2013:117).
Leaderboards
“[...] Leaderboards are used to track and display desired actions, using competition to
drive valuable behaviour” (Bunchball, Inc, 2010:10).
Selflessness
Within this context, selflessness refers to a virtual gift granted with the objective of
reinforcing user relationships (Nakajima & Lehdonvirta, 2013).
Virtual goods Non-physical, intangible objects that may be bought or negotiated (Bunchball, Inc, 2010).
User Specificities: is related to motivating users by acting directly upon their individual personality, for instance,
by promoting different forms of self-expression.
User Levels
“Levels indicate the proficiency of the player in the overall gaming experience over time
[...]” (Gnauk et al., 2012: pp. 104-105).
Ideological
Motivations
“[...] Ideological incentives is the notion of influencing user behavior through influencing
their attitudes and values, in other words, educating the user on a deeper level. The
ideological incentive makes it possible to motivate the user by himself” (Nakajima &
Lehdonvirta, 2013:11).
Virtual Character A virtual character (that is, an avatar) representing the user (Passos et al., 2011).
Self-expression
Self-expression means wishing to express one’s autonomy, identify or originality, or still, it
serves the purpose of highlighting a very original personality (Bunchball, Inc, 2010).
Source: Adapted from Thiebes et al. (2014) by Castro, Monticelli, Machado and Schlemmer (2015) – in print.

4. GAMIFICATION: BEYOND PBL
It is important to highlight that gamification is not limited to points, badges, and leaderboards (PBL) – this is the simplest
part of games, which is easily implemented, scalable and low cost, thus explaining games quick spread. Although PBL are
part of the design of many games because they motivate and guide individuals into specific actions, PBL are not able to
turn something boring into something more exciting, as they are not able to engage individuals. Many authors like Chou5
(2015) claim that points, just like badges and leaderboards, play an important role as bonuses, depending on the context.
According to Chou, there is a difference between extrinsic motivation (one engages because of a target or reward to be
achieved) and intrinsic motivation (the activity itself is fun and exciting, irrespective of granting a reward or not).
The PBL perspective is defined by Yu-kai Chou (2015) as “the shell of a game experience”, a reductionist approach to
gamification which many times is a disservice to it. People with little knowledge about the methodology and philosophy of
gamification end up believing that gamifying means simply designing a scoring and ranking system and granting badges,
and so reduce gamification to a passing fad with little innovation power.
When asked why they like playing so much, players do not say anything about PBL, but do refer to challenges, missions
and strategies, as assessed by Veen and Vrakking (1999). These elements may contribute significantly to an individual’s
level of immersion, agency and entertainment, as players must immerse themselves in a game so as to understand and
experience it. Chou (2015) clarifies this issue by explaining that rather than viewing gamification from the game mechanics
perspective, we should consider: (i) the aim of stirring feelings in players (inspired, proud, afraid, anxious...); (ii) the aims
held by the individual (or by the institution) regarding the experience. Only after carefully going through these issues should
we consider what types of elements and mechanics can aid individuals to feel one way or another and achieve the aimed
targets; (iii) game elements are just a means to an end, and not an end themselves.
Only by centering on the individual, on how one may feel as a consequence of the gamified process, can our understanding
of gamification entail understanding individuals, their expectations towards the environment, their own context and,
therefore, their extrinsic (extraneous) and intrinsic (self-motivated) expectations. Therefore, Chou (2015) views as the major
contribution of gamification to oppose the traditional Function-Focused Design and to move towards Human-Focused
Design, that is, shifting from a model oriented towards completing tasks within the shortest time possible towards a
model centered on individuals’ knowledge, feelings, uncertainties and opinions. This is a design process centered on human
motivation rather than on pure efficiency.
5 Yu-kai Chou is a pioneer in gamification, an International Keynote Speaker/Lecturer for entities such as Stanford University, TEDx, Accenture, etc. He is
rated a Top 3 Gamification Guru and is the President of Octalysis Group. Chou proposes the Octalysis framework to aid gamification considerations.

Such an understanding of gamification can yield significant changes in Corporate Education culture.
According to Schlemmer (2014a:77), gamification may be viewed from at least two perspectives:
as persuasion - encouraging competition through a score, reward and award system. This system, as
faraseducationisconcerned,reinforcesanempiricistepistemologicalapproach;andas collaborative
construction – encouraged by challenges, missions, discoveries and group empowerment. This
construction, as far as education is concerned, leads to the interactionist-constructivist-systemic
epistemological approach (inspired, for example, in elements found in Massive Multiplayer Online
Role Play Games – MMORPGs).
Therefore, the starting point of a gamification process presupposes understanding the problem and the context, the
individuals’ culture, environment, personal and business aims. Only after understanding these features can we consider
a set of M&Ds to be used in gamification and whether they will be used in a single gamification process or combining
more perspectives.
Linked to GBL and to gamification is the perspective embraced, for instance, by movements like Games for Change, whose
aim is to use electronic games for social development. According to McGonigal (2011) apud Schlemmer (2014a), people
prefer collaboration games. A closer look at what happens in games tells us that most people do not want to compete - they
want to work together with their friends to achieve a common objective. Within this context, it is worth considering three
essential criteria for a gamification project: (i) encouraging cooperation between individuals; (ii) encouraging information
sharing and exchange between individuals; (iii) promoting learn by doing.
According to McGonigal (2011), if players are willing to meet challenges that pose often times unnecessary obstacles,
games can be engaging and may be used as tools for social transformation. This author designed social projects such as
Evoke (2010), with innovative crowd-sourcing solutions for developing nations; Superstruct (2008), which simulates global
crises that result from hunger and disease; and World Without Oil (2007), to raise the awareness about alternative fuels.
Likewise, other games were designed regarding alternative energy sources, debt management and world nutrition.
It is evident, then, that games and gamification have become increasingly more important as research evidences their
contribution to:
1) higher effective individual involvement in teaching and learning processes, thus enhancing the
development of autonomy, authorship and collaboration as well as encouraging problem finding
and solving and critical thinking; 2) expanding possible construction of meanings – conceptual
meanings, in an enjoyable way; 3) enhancing cognitive and socio-cognitive development as
individuals experience various situations. (Schlemmer, 2014a:78) [free translation]

Both GBL and gamification aim to empower individuals and may be capitalized on when associated to mobile and wireless
devices, social media, ubiquitous web, geolocalization systems, Mixed Reality (MR)6
and Augmented Reality (AR)7
. This leads
us to the concept of blended, multi-mode and ubiquitous instruction and learning.
5. BLENDED LEARNING, MULTI-MODE INSTRUCTION AND UBIQUITY
Our living experiences are increasingly taking place in blended, multi-mode and ubiquitous environments where various
technologies, modes and cultures coexist. In order to construct their world of meanings in these environment, human
beings, in what could be termed as ‘nomadic moves’, weave their action, interaction and relationships with other agents –
human and non-human – at different times.
The term ‘blended’ is explained by Latour (1994) as made up of multiple matrices that wed nature and culture, human and
non-human elements. In this article, that translates into actions and interactions endeavored by human and non-human
agents in analogical and digital spaces, with an overlapping of different cultures (digital and pre-digital), thus building into
inseparably associated phenomena – networks that interconnect natures, techniques and cultures.
For Latour (1994), blended practices emerge as bridges between heterogeneous elements that may be both objective and
subjective, individual and collective, which “connect, at the same time, the nature of things and the social context without,
however, being limited to one or the other” (Latour, 1994:11) [free translation]. This mediation is possible, according to the
author, because these elements are not self-contained.
Therefore, blended practices are here understood in the light of the nature of spaces (analogical and digital), presence of
agents (face-to-face and digital), the technologies used (analogical and digital) and the culture (pre-digital and digital).
Regarding multi-mode practices, this article refers to overlapping and complementary modes, that is, face-to-face and online,
which allow wedding electronic learning (e-learning), mobile learning (m-learning), pervasive learning (p-learning), ubiquitous
learning (u-learning), immersive learning (i-learning), gamification learning (g-learning) and game based learning (GBL).
Saccol et al. (2011) define ubiquitous learning as learning that uses mobile devices connected to wireless communication
networks, sensors and geolocalization mechanisms that are able to collaboratively integrate learners and learning contexts
around them and build face-to-face and digital networks connecting people, objects, situations or events. Ubiquitous
6 According to Azuma (1997), MR presupposes the coexistence of three critical features: combining face-to-face and virtual digital elements/real time
interaction; and accurate line-up and synchronization of tridimensional virtual objects with the face-to-face physical environment.
7 AR consists of combining a face-to-face scene, as seen by an individual, and a virtual digital scene, thus adding information to the face-to-face scene,
that is, augmenting the scene (Caudell & Mizell, 1992).

learning goes beyond mobility, as digital technologies enhance situated learning and integrate a wide array of ‘individual-
sensitive’ information – sensitive to an individual’s profile, needs, environment and other elements comprised by the learning
context anywhere at any time. Localization technologies may also be linked to this type of learning (GPS, navigation
systems, people localization systems, mobile games), as well as identification technologies (RFID and QR Code) and sensors,
among others.
Also related to mobility and ubiquity are Mixed Reality (MR) and Augmented Reality (AR), which integrate a face-to-
face scene, as seen by an individual, to a virtual digital scene. However, in augmented learning, the digital component
adds information to the face-to-face component and ‘augments’ the scene, thus enhancing knowledge acquired about
objects, places or events. MR and AR are based on different concepts and types of set-up, however both basically rely on
acknowledging an object, termed as a ‘marker’, which is projected onto a face-to-face environment by a camera, and a
specific software that receives the information sent by the camera, interprets it and projects the virtual digital information
about the object onto a face-to-face physical environment.
It should be noted that blended learning and multi-mode learning are based on different forms of student attendance and
allow synchronous attendance in diverse environments. For instance, an individual may attend face-to-face instruction (at the
library, classroom, auditorium, etc.) and interact with various human and non-human agents that are also in the same space,
and simultaneously, through an avatar, attend a 3D virtual digital event, or even play an online game through a character, also
acting and interacting with other human and non-human agents in the virtual digital space. We should not forget the possibility
of attending a virtual event in social networks through a profile, or ‘tele-attending’ a videoconference or web conference.
Mobility, pervasiveness and ubiquity are, in some way, similar to blended and multi-mode learning, as the features of the
former lend a ‘blending’ character to learning spaces (analogical / digital), forms of attendance (face-to-face / digital), and
technologies (analogical / digital). Regarding gamification and game-based learning, they may or not evolve into blended
and multi-mode contexts, depending on how they are used.
We shall now discuss a gamification-related experience within the context of blended and multi-mode learning.
6. GAMIFICATION: THE METHODOLOGY IN PRACTICE
The experience described below pertains to the research Gamification em espaços de convivência blendeds e multimodais
[equivalent to’ Gamification in blended and multi-mode experience environments’], sponsored by Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq – National Council for Scientific and Technological Development), with the
Digital Education Research Group (GPe-du/Unisinos/CNPq).

Cognition in digital games - academic activity8
The aim of the academic activity was to enable individuals to take ownership of major cognition theory concepts and
to identify them along the gaming process so as to support the development of games that were designed within the
activity process.
The instructional proposal was inspired in the cartographic research method (Passos et al., 2009) as an interventionist
teaching practice, and in gamification. Both were associated to the learning project methodology and adapted to Higher
Education.9
The concepts of flipped classroom and BYOD10
were then added aiming to construct blended and multi-mode
experience spaces. The methodology also expert-delivered seminars on the theory being addressed, challenges and learning
projects. Evaluation of learning privileged comprehension and qualification. Every individual production was monitored and
evaluated according to the criterion of increasing quality.
The motivation to gamify this activity stemmed from the awareness of the gap between the teaching practices being used
in Higher Education and the way individuals learn by interacting with specific tools. The idea was to encourage students
to feel challenged, teased, curious, eager to learn in an enjoyable way. Once the problem and the context were clear, the
researcher assessed the students’ needs and expectations11
. Then, the aims of the activity were explained and discussed
with students. Only after going through these two initial phases were the types of elements and mechanics assessed so
as to ensure that students felt as aimed by the activity and achieved their and the institution’s learning objectives. One of
the elements that were set was that gamification would be implemented in a blended and multi-mode learning context,12
with the mechanics of QR Code hints, AR hints,13
live hints (online and face-to-face) and achieving powers (pieces of
knowledge). Another element that was set was that the project could develop any game or gamified situation, whether
analogical, digital or blended. Continuous evaluation was agreed upon to assess each student’s learning along every phase
of the process, thus enabling him/her to achieve powers (pieces of knowledge constructed). Achieving powers depended
on students (i) increasing the observables when playing (as meaning was assigned to the theory under study); (ii) searching
for and sharing relevant references (texts, audios, videos, games, applications, etc.); (iii) providing evidence of autonomous
8 Cognition in Digital Games - Academic Activity is a 60-hour optional activity that belongs to the curriculum of the Higher Program of Technology in
Digital Games at Unisinos. The activity was implemented in the first term of 2014 with 28 students, all male, between 18 and 37 years of age. Details of
the whole process are available at <www.revistas.uneb.br/index.php/faeeba/article/view/1029/709>.
9 Schlemmer, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005; Schlemmer & Trein, 2009.
10 Bring your own devices (BYOD) – a trend in the mobile world and in education which advocates openness so that students are able to bring their own
mobile devices to the educational environment.
11 A questionnaire was also released on Google Forms to learn more about the students.
12 Various analogical and digital technologies would be used beyond the face-to-face context – weekly face-to-face meetings to which everyone was invited
to bring their mobile devices (BYOD) for the online instructional mode through a community on Moodle and a group on Facebook.
13 Using Aurasma.

authorship during project interaction and development; (iv) establishing interaction within their team and with other
teams; (iv) suggest questions, share their reflections and develop critique; (v) share knowledge, cooperate and collaborate,
identify the interest and engagement of peers with the game of gamified situation. All this added up into another element:
achievements14 that would be granted as every student developed along the gamified activity. The following achievements
were considered: observer,15
explorer,16
actor,17
weaver,18
cartographer,19
problem raiser,20
collaborator21
and cooperator.22
The fundamental criteria for a gamification project were then defined: 1) to foster cooperation between individuals; 2)
to encourage information sharing and exchange; 3) to promote learn by doing, as discussed above. Gamification was
developed into nine phases as follows: Phase I – The Explorer – Theory Hunt; Phase II – The Observer – Searching for
game hints; Phase III – The Explorer – Solving education-related mysteries as related to games; Phase IV – The Weaver –
Interweaving observations; Phase V – The Actor – Building the concepts; Phase VI – The Cartographer – Mapping the way;
Phase VII – The Actor – Building the map and the game; Phase VIII – The Explorer – Solving theory-related mysteries; Phase
IX – The Weaver – Weaving the theory.
7. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Gamification must not be reduced to PBL, as the latter features the perspective of persuasion and function-oriented
design, that is, completing tasks within the shortest possible time. From the Corporate Education perspective, this only
reinforces the training concept. Gamification, however, goes much beyond - it must and should be viewed as collaborative
construction based on human-oriented design that is able to motivate individuals through challenges, missions, discoveries
and team empowerment. From a Corporate Education perspective, inducing to qualification and capacity-building.
14 In the language of games, achievements are targets that may be achieved throughout the game. They may be explicit or hidden, that is, they must be
unveiled during the game playing process.
15 Observe oneself, children, adolescents, young adults and adults, as well as one’s peers, during the game playing process, seeking to understand how actions
are taken, differences and similarities between actions. The aim was to learn what was observable and educational for students regarding game actions.
16 Solving the hints, games + theories + education – seeking references – autonomy.
17 Building the concept of the game and of the game evaluation model – creative authorship.
18 Finding connections – observer + explorer + actor, designing networks.
19 Mapping the way – process and self-evaluation – reflection.
20 Instigating, triggering questioning, reflection and criticism.
21 One that helps others by supplying some reference.
22 One who creates things together with others.

This instructional proposal – when linked to the cartographic research method as an interventionist teaching practice, to a
project-centered methodology, to the concepts of flipped classroom and BYOD and developed within a blended, multi-mode
and ubiquitous context – allows to follow-up on individuals’ progress, their peculiar qualification and capacity-building
process as facilitated by analogical and digital technologies, face-to-face and online instructional mode. This proposal
encourages them to develop their own missions and projects which, from a BYOD perspective, may extend beyond the
established time for their qualification and capacity-building precisely due to the emotional bond that individuals develop
with their mobile device. These individuals will then have sustained process engagement, irrespective of time and space
frames. It follows that the qualification and capacity building process may, at different points in time, become ‘situated’
and further connected (through hints) with the real workplace – something desirable when we consider immersion, agency
and engagement.
In the experiences discussed above, building a blended and multi-mode experience environment resulted from: (i)
integrating various analogical and digital technologies, thus fostering different forms of communication within a multi-
mode perspective (face-to-face blended with online mode, including mobile learning, ubiquitous learning and gamification
learning);(ii)communicationandinteractionpatternssharedbyindividualswithinthisblendedandmulti-modeenvironment;
and (iii) interaction patterns and the various media, that is, the very blended and multi-mode environment. Gamification
stirred a certain type of interaction actively engaged by students and teacher, who exchanged information and shared
experiences in a learn-by-doing process. Such process is fundamental for individuals to construct meanings and learn as
they experience the real situations. Such experience makes them see and feel things “inside out”, from their own learning
process perspective.
Thus, when speaking “inside out” about what is being experienced, individuals become an integral part of blended learning/
spaces/processes, are able to assign meanings and to become agents that connect with other human and non-human
agents in building up various networks within a multi-mode perspective.
We may add that the most recent research developed by GPe-du/Unisinos/CNPq have enabled us to reflect upon and
construct theory about the following issues: Where are the borderlines between the analogical and the digital world,
between the various technologies and instructional modes, between the various forms of attendance and the various
identities through used by individuals in several analogical or digital spaces? Are there borderlines between the various
contexts - workplaces, academic environments, personal and social environments? It seems that today’s paradigm
privileges convergence, coexistence, complementarities, so that these borderlines become permeable and tend to fade
away. Everything tends to become increasingly blended – the worlds, the various technologies, identities, experiences, so
that individuals, in nomadic processes, interweave their networks and integrate their many pieces of knowledge.
Although the many new technologies and theories that have emerged would be expected to generate innovative
methodologies, teaching practices and learning processes, they seem to be acquired by those in charge of developing
Corporate Education in a rather distinct time frame and “rushed need” and so, fail to become meaningful and effectively

relevant for working people – individuals who live in and interact with a blended world and for whom separating the
analogical world from the digital world no longer makes any sense, since these two worlds operate along a continuum
where different technologies coexist to foster interactions. “Where am I?”, someone might wonder. Answer: Well, that
depends... if you mean a geographic location, I say am in São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul state, and the GPS can tell my
exact current location. Nevertheless, we may be talking about other forms of being somewhere, like being on a digital
virtual environment. Therefore, I am also on Facebook, on 3D virtual world, on Hangout, on games, within increasingly
ubiquitous contexts where everything is on-going and increasingly overlapping. That means that living and experiencing
reality is taking place in increasingly blended and multi-mode contexts in which there are various analogical and digital
technologies integrating face-to-face and online spaces and thus, giving way to new spaces to be learnt about.
8. REFERENCES
Azuma, R. T. (1997).‘A survey of augmented reality’. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v. 6, n. 4, pp. 355-385.
Bunchball, Inc. (2010). Gamification 101: an introduction to the use of game dynamics to influence behavior. Retrieved from:
www.bunchball.com/sites/default/files/downloads/gamification101.pdf on Jan 2 2015.
Burke, M.; Hiltbrand, T. (2011). ‘How gamification will change business intelligence’. Business Intelligence Journal, v. 16, n. 2,
pp. 8-16.
Caudell,T.P.;Mizell,D.W.(1992).‘Augmentedreality:anapplicationofheads-updisplaytechnologytomanualmanufacturing
processes’. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Kauai, Hawaii, HI, USA,
Jan 7-10, 1992. v. 2, pp. 659-669.
Chou, Yu-kai. (2015). Octalysis: Complete Gamification Framework. Retrieved from <www.yukaichou.com> on Apr 1 2015.
Deterding, S; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. (2011). ‘From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”’.
MindTrek ‘11 Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments.
New York: ACM, pp. 9-15.
Domínguez, A.; Saenz-De-Navarrete, J.; De-Marcos, L.; Fernández-Sanz, L.; Pagés, C.; Martínez-Herrráiz, J. (2013). ‘Gamifying
learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes’. Computers & Education, v. 63, pp. 380-392.
Fardo, M. L. (2013). ‘A gamification aplicada em ambientes de aprendizagem: Novas Tecnologias na Educação. Cinted/
UFRGS, v. 11, n. 1, July 2013.

Gnauk, B.; Dannecker, L.; Hahmann, M. (2012). ‘Leveraging gamification in demand dispatch systems’. Proceedings of the
2012 Joint EDBT/ICDT Workshops. New York, USA: ACM.
Hamari, J. (2013). ‘Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: a field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian
peer-to-peer trading service’. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, v. 12, n. 4, pp. 236-245.
Huizinga, J. (1993). Homo ludens: o jogo como elemento da cultura. 4th ed. Traslated by João Paulo Monteiro. São
Paulo: Perspectiva.
IBM. (2007). ‘Virtual worlds, real leaders: online games put the future of business leadership on display’. A Global Innovation
Outlook 2.0 Report, Palo Alto. Retrieved from www.seriosity.com/downloads/GIO_PDF_web.pdf on Mar 1 2015.
Kapp, K. (2012). Thegamificationoflearningandinstruction: game-basedmethodsandstrategiesfortrainingandeducation.
San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Korn, O. (2012). ‘Industrial playgrounds: how gamification helps to enrich work for elderly or impaired persons in production’.
Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems. New York, USA: ACM.
Latour, B. (1994). Jamais fomos modernos. São Paulo: Editora 34.
Latour, B. (2012). Reagregando o social: uma introdução à teoria do ator-rede. São Paulo: EDUSC.
Lemos, A. (2012). Cibercultura: tecnologia e vida social na cultura contemporânea. Porto Alegre: Sulina.
Lemos, A. (2013). A comunicação das coisas: teoria ator-rede e cibercultura. São Paulo: Annablume.
Li, W.; Grossman, T.; Fitzmaurice, G. (2012). ‘GamiCAD: a gamified tutorial system for first time Autocad users’. Proceedings
of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User In-terface Software and Technology. New York, USA: ACM.
Liu, Y.; Alexandrova, T.; Nakajima, T. (2011). ‘Gamifying Intelligent Environments. Proceedings of the 2011 International ACM
Workshop on Ubiquitous Meta User Interfaces. New York, USA: ACM, p. 7.
Maturana, H.; Rezepka, S. N. (2000). Formação humana e capacitação. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
Mcgonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, USA:
Penguin Press.

Nakajima, T.; Lehdonvirta, V. (2013). ‘Designing motivation using persuasive ambient mirrors’. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, v. 17, n. 1, pp. 107-126.
Nicholson, S. (2012). ‘A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification’. Games + Learning + Society 8.0,
Pittsburgh, USA: ETC Press.
Passos, E.; Kastrup, V.; Escóssia, L. (2009). Pistas do método da cartografia: pesquisa-intervenção e produção de
subjetividades. Porto Alegre: Sulina.
Passos, E. B.; Medeiros, D. B.; Neto, P. A. S.; Clua, E. W. G. (2011). ‘Turning real-world software development into a game’.
2011 Brazilian Symposium on Games and Digital Entertainment. Los Alamitos, USA: IEEE.
Piaget, J. (1964). A formação do símbolo na criança: imitação, jogo e sonho imagem e representação. Rio de Janeiro: LTC.
Ramires, A.; Machado, L.; Trez, G.; Schlemmer, E. (2015). A gamification como estratégia de capacitação e o estado de flow:
um estudo de caso na Empresa SAP Labs Latin American. In print.
Rosemberg, M. (2002). ‘Aprendizado é muito mais que training’. In: ROSEMBERG, Marc. E-learning: estratégia para a
transmissão do conhecimento na era digital. 1st ed. São Paulo: Makron Books, pp. 3-16.
Saccol, A. Z.; Schlemmer, E.; Barbosa, J. L. V. (2011). M-learning e u-learning: novas perspectivas da aprendizagem móvel e
ubíqua. 1st ed. São Paulo: Pearson Education, v. 1. 192p.
Schlemmer, E. (1999). ‘O trabalho por projetos em educação a distância: uma parceria’. In: VI Congresso Internacional de
Educação a Distância. Rio de Janeiro: ABED.
Schlemmer, E. (2001). ‘Projetos de Aprendizagem Baseados em Problemas: uma metodologia interacionista/construtivista
para formação de comunidades em ambientes virtuais de aprendizagem’. In: CONGRESSO INTERNACIONAL DE
INFORMÁTICA EDUCATIVA 2001. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, 2001. Proceedings
available in CD-ROM.
Schlemmer, E. (2002). AVA: Um ambiente de convivência interacionista sistêmico para comunidades virtuais na cultura da
aprendizagem. Porto Alegre: URFGS. PhD Thesis in Educational Information Technology.
Schlemmer, E. (2005). ‘Metodologias para educação a distância no contexto da formação de comunidades virtuais de
aprendizagem. In: Barbosa, R. M. (Org.). Ambientes virtuais de aprendizagem. Porto Alegre: Artmed, pp. 29-49.

Schlemmer, E.; Trein, D. (2009). ‘Projetos de aprendizagem baseados em problema no contexto da web 2.0: possibilidades
para a prática pedagógica’. Revista e-Curriculum, PUCSP, São Paulo, v. 4, June 2 2009.
Schlemmer, E. (2014). Gamification em espaços de convivência blendeds e multimodais: design e cognição em discussão.
Revista Faeeba – Educação e Contemporaneidade, Salvador, v. 23, n. 42, pp. 73-89. July-Dec 2014.
Schlemmer, E. (2015). ‘Hibridismo, multi-modeidade e nomadismo: codeterminação e coexistência para uma educação
em contexto de ubiquidade’. In: Mill, D. R. Silva; Pimentel, N. M. (Org.). Qualidade na educação: convergências de sujeitos,
conhecimentos, práticas e tecnologias. 1st ed. São Carlos: EDUFCar. In print.
Thiebes, S.; Lins, S.; Basten, D. (2014). ‘Gamifying information systems: a synthesis of gamification mechanics and dynamics’.
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv.
Vassileva, J. (2012). ‘Motivating participation in social computing applications: a user modeling perspective’. User Modeling
and User-Adapted Interaction, v. 22, n. 1-2, pp. 177-201.
Veen, W.; Vrakking, B. (2009). Homo zappiens: educando na era digital. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Vygotsky, V. S. (1994). A formação social da mente: o desenvolvimento dos processos psicológicos superiores. São Paulo:
Martins Fontes.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). ‘Social facilitation: a solution suggested for an old unresolved social psycho-logical problem’. Science,
v. 149, n. 3681, pp. 269-274.
Zichermann, G.; Linder, J. (2010). Game-based marketing. Retrieved from http://pt.slideshare.net/nich_marketing/game-
based-marketing on June 3 2015.
Zichermann, G.; Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps.
Canada: O’ReillyMedia.

Educommunication and distance education tutoring:
managing communication oriented at education,
dialogue and critical thinking in distance education
Luci Ferraz holds a PhD in Communication and Education from the School of Communication and Arts, São Paulo University.
She is also a consultant for communication technology-mediated projects, including tutor and teacher qualification and
tutorship assessment.
Ismar de Oliveira Soares, Full Professor with São Paulo University, coordinates the Teacher Qualification MEd Programme
and is the author of Educommunication–theconcept,theprofessionalanditsapplication [free translation] (Paulinas, 2011).
Abstract
This article explores some assumptions that underlie the emerging field of Educommunication, particularly education-
oriented and technology-mediated communication management and the construction of communication ecosystems within
virtual learning environments for distance education programs. The discussion concerns e-teacher’s/e-tutor’s practices as a
means to foster reflective dialogue and develop critical thinking.
Keywords
Educommunication; managing communication for education; communication ecosystems; distance education; e-tutoring.
1. INTRODUCTION
Studies about Distance Education (DE) gained momentum in the second half of the 20th century as various forms of this
teaching mode emerged. However, mainly as a consequence of the quick development and spread of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs), several types of teaching syllabuses now merge converging uses of digital media.
Regarding the learning objectives set by institutions for their programs, on the learner profile or even on the available budget,
there is an array of instructional modes supplied in the education market. Each mode presents advantages and disadvantages
and uses one or more types of currently available media (Jenkins, 2009), instructional and communication practices.
Moore and Kearsley (2007) challenge the use of the term ‘distance’ nowadays. The changes in the space-time relationships
that result from the outreach of digital media in educational practices apply to synchronous and asynchronous, local and
remote, face-to-face (F2F) and distance activities. Their Transactional Distance Theory (TDT) is based on studies that highlight

‘the feeling of being there’ as perceived by learners when compared against physical distance. They define transactional
distance as “the psychological or communicative space that separates instructor from learner in the transaction between
them, occurring in the structured or planned learning situation (Moore, 1997:1).
We are thus challenged with reviewing and redefining the role of the educator in virtual spaces, who becomes a mediator
of learners’ emotional proximity by using various communicational procedures that promote learning.
Aware of this context features, researchers with the Communication and Education Center (NCE – original acronym in
Portuguese) of the School of Communication and Arts, São Paulo University (ECA/USP), have developed research and
academicexperimentsusingTDTasitreferstoEducommunication.Theyaimtoassesstheteachingpracticesthatcharacterize
an educommunicational approach for a DE model used by teacher-tutors – better still, in this case, educommunicators-
tutors – in virtual learning environments.
Such investigation should not expect simple answers. Contrary to what is believed, there are more than only a couple of
DE models available. Such models may unfold into various types of planning when we consider the number of context-
dependent variables and definitions assigned by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to serve this aim.
After nearly 20 years have passed after the emergence of this new field and the interconnections between communication
and education have been assessed, some research conducted by members of NCE (ECA/USP) highlight the importance of
managing education oriented and technology-mediated communication, particularly as it refers to DE.
For the sake of clarity, here is a brief history of the context upon which this article is based. Before ICTs emerged, educators
were the main agents of formal education. As ICTs were introduced to teaching practices, several engineers and information
and technology experts have been contracted to support educators in the practical use of ICTs. However, in recent years,
with the increasing addition of technological resources to education, possible constructive and meaningful uses of these
technologies have become apparent. These sources are only means - and must be viewed as such- to achieve educational
aims, but their use in educational processes is only possible when they foster proper communication that is oriented to
education (that fulfill educational aims).
This is one of the critical areas of social intervention that relates to Educommunication: managing education-oriented and
technology-mediated communication, particularly as it refers to DE, as discussed by this article.
2. EDUCOMMUNICATION AND MANAGING EDUCATION-ORIENTED AND TECHNOLOGY-
MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
The first uses of the term Educommunication date back to the 1980s in texts produced by educational institutions and
UNESCO to refer to practices oriented to critical reading of communication media (Aparici, 2010).

When researchers with NCE (ECA/USP) became familiar with this new field of study in the late 1990s, the term was
resemantized by Soares (1999) based on similarities between communication practices reported by communicators
and researchers:
"The set of actions oriented to designing open and creative communication ecosystems within
educational settings, favoring dialogue between people and groups of people as creative
empowerment of information resources in culture production and knowledge transmission
processes. The new field is featured as being interdiscoursive, interdisciplinary and mediated by
information technologies." (Soares, 2011:6). [free translation]
Soares adds that Educommunication may be viewed from a communication management perspective: “… organizing the
environment, making resources available, understanding the modus faciendi of all those involved and the set of actions
that characterize a specific type of communication-oriented education” (Soares, 2002) [free translation]. Additionally, the
locus of educommunication action comprises communication ecosystems that feature interwoven set ups developed by a
set of languages, representations and narratives that cross through our life complemented by communication technologies
(Martin-Barbero, 2000). The communication ecosystem “involves us all and we carry it along our attitudes, behaviors,
values and decisions” (Baccega, 2009).
The major goal of Educommunication is social transformation based on dialogue, interaction and facilitation of learners’
critical thinking and self-regulation. Educommunication argues for balanced and harmonious interpersonal relations along
the whole learning process. This goal lies on Paulo Freire’s theory, which preached social transformation fostered by
consistent and quality knowledge to be built upon an equal dialectical relationship between subjects.
Huergo (2000) acknowledges Educommunication and claims for a broader discussion of the theme, given its complexity.
This author highlights the throe of classroom practices in various (we might as well say in all) Latin America countries as a
result of the increased use of technology in learning environments affecting the structure of culture, now influenced by all
types of technology, including the so-called digital culture.
Huergo claims for a review of Célestin Freinet’s pedagogy of work and Paulo Freire’s freeing education based on the
interfaces between communication and education so as to develop, achieve and strengthen learners’ autonomy and self-
regulation. For him, increased use of communication technologies in educational environments merges the mediation
discourse with the learning discourse, and from this point of convergence stems the need to know how to best manage
communication oriented to technology-mediated education.
Martin-Barbero (2005) states that a computer should not be viewed or used as a mere machine, since it supplies a new
type of technology for data processing of raw materials that are made up of abstractions and symbols which, in turn, give
birth to a new relationship between the human brain and information. It thus, replaces the traditional relationship between

humans and machines. Changes in knowledge circulation have significantly affected society’s paradigms. Today, knowledge
is essentially fragmented and scattered, not bound to be controlled or reproduced according to traditional and - so far -
legitimate modes and spheres of circulation, such as family, school and churches.
Martin-Barbero (2005) also remarks the emergence of the so-called communication ecosystems, associated to a new
cognitive economy which defines what knowledge is and how knowledge is to be produced. He adds that the sense
of technicity is being built within culture-dominated spaces. Such spaces are shaped as the technological mediation of
communication no longer plays a merely instrumental role in the learning process.
‘Information society’ now means setting into motion a worldwide interconnection process that gathers everything that has
some information value – companies and institutions, nations and individuals – while it disconnects everything that is not
worth any information value. We are, thus, experiencing the most profound reorganization of power centers that assign
value to what we understand as the world.
The research that assessed the emergence of educommunication initially found four areas of intervention through which
this field may be investigated: (1) education-oriented and technology-mediated communication management (planning
and implementing processes designed upon the interconnection between communication, education and culture so as
to develop communication ecosystems); (2) education oriented to communication (media education – developing critical
reading of media); (3) technological mediations in education (reflecting on the increasing use of analogical and digital
media in education); (4) epistemological reflection on educommunication.
Researchoneducommunicationinthepast20yearshasidentifiedatleastthreenewareasofintervention:(5)communicative
expression through the arts (developing social process participants’ authorship); (6) pedagogy of communication (dialogue
between communicative practices and formal curriculum) and (7) media production (dialogue between communication
media -initiated projects and education agents or civil society). According to Pereira (2012), these areas of intervention tend
to expand and encompass all educommunication areas that are oriented to citizenship practices, since educommunication
is truly open to new contributions.
Developing educational environments that address the competencies established as their learning goals through
communication technology-mediated practices requires planning specific teaching practices that are able to sustain or
increase the level of quality found in the F2F model. In fact, hundreds of researchers now confirm that the introduction of
digital media in educational environments should not result from the mere desire to use a given medium. They should first
set learning goals which will, in turn, guide the choice, planning and use of specific media that are able to develop, along
the process, the aimed learner competencies (Hattie, 2009).
The emergence of this technology-mediated interaction and the resulting increased use of digital resources in education and in
learner closer relations and collaboration leads us to consider reviewing our knowledge about human, interpersonal and group

communication. As we take into account possible and closer interactions between two or more learners, we are in fact considering
possible forms of interpersonal communication that can promote authentic dialogue through peer-to-peer bonds (Primo, 2007).
A practical approach to Educommunication has been designed by various programs coordinated by NCE (ECA/USP) and
developed upon Project-based Instructional Models that foster learner responsibility for planning and implementing specific
theme-based actions.
One of such projects, EducomJt, was developed through a partnership with Jornal da Tarde newspaper (comprised by O
Estado de S.Paulo Group). It dealt directly with planning and carrying out specific educommunication activities as well as
issuing weekly suggestions for educommunication theme-based lessons (formal and non-formal education themes).
According to Mello et al. (2011), in every issue of the Sunday Column Parents and Teachers, the NCE (ECA/USP) research
team, coordinated by Professor Dr. Ismar de Oliveira Soares, presented a lesson plan to develop theme-based projects
using differentiated communicative resources – a chess-based Mathematics lesson, a comic-strip based History lesson, an
audio and video-based Environment lesson, a cooking-based French lesson, amongst many others. Over 75 suggestions
of theme-based practices were presented along 18 months and they gave birth to planning of several other theme-based
projects. The group of researchers designed their practical approach to Educommunication upon a pedagogy of projects
based on the following implementation steps:
• planning the teacher’s actions/interventions:
–– setting the project theme;
–– the converging disciplines;
–– goals and competencies to be developed by the project;
–– target learners;
–– describing teaching practices (step by step, including details of the communication process phases, evaluation
approach and rubrics);
–– describing interventions to be carried out by the educator in charge;
–– choosing technology(ies) to be used.
• planning the activities developed by learners (as subjects of the learning process):
–– dividing the class into smaller groups;
–– presenting the project themes and subthemes to be dealt with by every group;
–– presenting possible ways to develop projects /procedures to be followed;
–– technology(ies) to be used (every group chooses the one(s) they want amongst the technologies available);
–– choosing a virtual learning environment (support activities);
–– developing the activities;
–– presenting the groups’ work;
–– group reflection on the outcomes achieved;
–– learner self-evaluation.

As we recap on Huergo’s (2000) views about education-oriented communication management, we should notice that
the investigation responsible for assessing the emergence of Educommunication warned us about the importance of
technology mediation. That is, the mediating teacher who is responsible for a given activity must become a manager of the
communication processes. One of the core lessons to be learned by all participants – learners and teachers alike – concerns
the collaborative construction of a new world through its core persuasion tool - open and creative dialogue.
Communication management requires viewing communication as a process in which there is an agent responsible for
work development and relationship mediation through dialogue and pluralism within a specific environment (Costa & Lima,
2009), thus strengthening the communication ecosystem (Soares, 2002). Only communication management can ensure
appropriate use of technological resources and enhanced communication between members of a given community, relying
on everyone’s effort and creativity (Soares, 1999).
3. EDUCOMMUNICATION AND THE COMPETENCIES REQUIRED FOR CITIZENSHIP AND
SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION
Having competence means holding the ability that results from knowledge acquired about a given theme (Houaiss, 2009).
The term ‘competence’ has been more consistently used in corporate environments since the 1990s with the emergence
of the so-called corporate education, whose general and specific objectives for every company area and function are
established upon the company’s mid and long term strategic objectives. Within the workplace, ‘competence’ has been used
mainly to indicate technical, behavioral and specific knowledge inherent to one’s position or responsibility aiming at the
overall achievement of the company’s strategic objectives.
Perrenoud (2000; 2002) explains that ‘competence’ within the school environment requires more careful consideration.
Developing competencies in the classroom means not only guiding learners into acquiring conceptual and academic
knowledge, but also into learning how to think and best apply this knowledge in day-by-day practices, constructively and
efficiently. Above that, it means identifying and developing emotional and behavioral competencies that are inherent to
one’s education so that learners become ‘wholesome citizens’, in the very sense of the concept.
AsEducommunicationsharesPerrenoud’s(2000;2002)viewandembracingthisconceptmustundergocarefulconsideration
of the objectives of educommunication – social transformation enabling everyone to develop consistent abilities and
knowledge and thus be prepared for quality of living in today’s technological society. Developing these competencies
requires providing specific stimuli so that learners are able to reflectively and critically assess the environment we live in
and deal with an information overload so as to appropriately assess resources and make decisions, amongst other actions.
This explains the importance of providing communicative and learning activities that promote learning how to think,
thinking for action, and willing to act – to implement an action – upon well laid-off assumptions.

Study groups such as Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (ATC21S)1
, with Melbourne University, Australia, argue
that specific classroom dynamics should enable learners to develop specific competencies in their first school years. Such
competencies are divided into four broad categories:
• ways of thinking – focusing on creativity and innovation; critical thinking, problem solving and decision making;
and learning to learn (metacognition);
• ways of working – focusing on intensive communication and collaboration practices so as to develop team
communication and collaboration skills;
• tools for working – focusing on intensive communicative and collaborative exchanges, so ad to develop information
literacy and ICT literacy (the aim is not only teaching learners how to use ICTs, but how this use affects and
transforms their social practices);
• ways of living in the world – focusing on reviewing local and global citizenship values; life and career practices;
and personal and social responsibility – including cultural awareness and competence.
Itshouldbenotedthatwhenusingtheterm‘competencies’werefertoEducommunication,assumptionsofsocialtransformation
aimed at citizenship, as ‘ways of living in the world’ are built upon the wedding of the four broad ATC21S categories.
Researchers aiming to investigate the interfaces between communication and education – as those with NCE (ECA/USP),
who already implement technology-mediated classroom practices at various instructional levels – should firstly address the
issue of how to plan lessons based on activities that really set into motion consistent cognitive processes oriented towards
critical thinking and the construction of meaningful knowledge for learners.
However, several educators who attempt to add one or more technologies to classroom practices at several instructional
levels inquire about how to effectively merge (i) designing and implementing activities that promote the construction of
specific theoretical knowledge (formal curriculum) and (ii) developing the so-called 21st century competencies.
Authors like Martin-Barbero (2005), Jenkins (2009) and Castells (2003) have remarked that children and adolescents
seem to be more directly exposed to digital tools in their daily life. We must assess and design practices that
promote not only learners’ instrumental literacy but also their social awareness about such technologies, always
relying on teacher mediation. Learners should experience peer interaction in the form of intensive creative and
innovative discussion mediated by communication technologies and collaborative activities that result from
previous research aiming at a more consistent construction of new knowledge within the formal curriculum,2
as noted by Jenkins (2009) and Livingstone (2010).
1 ATC21S: to learn more, visit http://atc21s.org/. Retrieved in Sep 2015.
2 Henry Jenkins presently coordinates a research group with South Carolina University, USA, which develops a project about media-mediated collaborative
educational practices. Visit their website New Media Literacies at http://newmedialiteracies.org/. One of their latest research focuses on instrumental and
collaborative practices using tablets in the classroom. Retrieved in Oct 2011.

Relying on this assessed learner need to experience such practices, the researchers with NCE (ECA/USP) view
Educommunication in practice as stemming from protagonistic actions – ‘protagonism’ being one of its major assumptions
– carried out within a communication ecosystem, the locus of educommunication action, and guided by a highly dialectical
and interdiscoursive modus operandi.
4. EDUCOMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES GUIDED BY AUTHORSHIP: DIALOGUE AND
CRITICAL THINKING
As learners are placed at the heart of action, that is, as protagonists – the ones who produce (plan and carry out) the
communication process oriented at an overarching educational action, we facilitate their experiencing and, consequently,
strengthening critical learning competencies such as dialogue, autonomy and critical thinking. We eventually foster a deep
change in the way these individuals view the society they live in. As stated by Soares (2011)
"Children’s, adolescents’ and youngsters’ active participation and media production has shown
interesting outcomes. Young project participants express their desire to make their dreams come
true and transform local reality by producing culture using communication and information. They
are open to critical assessment of their social reality and eager to play an active role in building
a fairer society, thus affirming their vocation for democratic life in society. These features are
promoted by clearer understanding and broader interest in their local community, which inspires
educommunication collective actions." (Soares, 2011:31) [free translation]
It becomes evident that learners are encouraged to experience active, responsible and conscious citizenship. These
protagonistic practices are implemented by learners through their converging efforts, methodologies, resources and actions
so as to promote actual dialectical communication that leads to implementing expression environments (Soares, 2011):
"The word ‘protagonism’ comes from two Greek words: protos, the leading or first, and agonistes,
actor, combatant. Young protagonists are young learners taking on a core role in efforts aimed at
social change." (Costa, 2006:150) [free translation]
Without going into a lengthy discussion about the term, it is worth noticing that protagonistic actions aim particularly at
social transformation of the context in which they unfold by challenging young learners with more complex, adult-world
issues and catalyzing their “young energy to the greater world causes so as to prevent them from getting distracted by
activities that conflict with or diverge from existing moral or legal social norms.” (Costa, 2006:162).
"Youth union, political and religious movements, as well as student, university, institutional
associations (like YMCA or the Boy and Girl Scouts) and the pioneering movements in socialist

countries are examples of a trend that has gained momentum since the 19th century, triggered by
the adult world, to organize and mobilize the youth towards structured actions that aim at a broader
social environment." (Costa, 2006:163) [free translation]
In the realm of protagonistic actions, Célestin Freinet (1896-1966) is viewed as one of the pioneers of Educommunication
particularly because he was one of the first educators to claim for educational practices based on a ‘learning printing
technique’ applied to various journalism projects. His approach, which he called ‘education as expression of ideas’, claims
that education unfolds through a process of communicative interactions between two or more interlocutors who take on
both the role of message sender and recipient.
In the 1920s and 1930s, Freinet’s students were asked to publish texts that compiled their intensive exchange of ideas about
specific themes dealt with in the classroom. Aiming at fostering their critical eye about communication media, these social
protagonists wrote, discussed with their peers in small groups, drafted a final edition of their arguments and then published
them in the school newsletters. Later, the texts developed from these reflective exchanges were replaced with traditional
textbooks. These activities, however, remarked the importance of learners experimenting with and taking ownership of the
communication process as subjects who produced meanings based on critical thinking (Freinet, 1985).
Paulo Freire (1921-1997) is also considered one of the main references of Educommunication, as he acknowledged the
importance of the interconnection between communication and education when he claimed for emancipation through
education. He said that “Education is dialogue, education is communication” (2002:69), [… not the transfer of knowledge,
but rather the meeting of two protagonist interlocutors who seek to negotiate and make meaning” (ibid.) [free translation].
Freire (2002) argued for an egalitarian and dialectical relationship between educators and learners, since authentic dialogue
features the necessary adjustment of signs that enable the subjects involved to build bridges and develop reflective and
collaborativeexchangesaboutagiventhemeaimingatconstructingnewmeanings.Healsoarguedforsettinganddevelopinga
legitimate classroom dialectical process which can only occur when honest contributions come from both parties – oppressor
and oppressed, or more specifically, educator and learners. Both parties should agree on a clearly-set objective - exchanging
viewpoints and collaboratively reflecting on the theme under study - and brush aside any intended manipulation of either
party, aiming at an interaction of equals for real collaborative construction of knowledge. It should be noticed that Freire
(2002) called for discipline and organization to develop this dialectical process – without which the process is not feasible.
The mediator– although not necessarily the educator – is an essential agent to set flexible interaction rules that will ensure
a respectful and constructive process. S/he should clearly explain that dialogue requires mediation and discipline, and that
communicative interactions should have and sustain the focus on the discussion theme. This approach is found in many
ongoing processes. This mediator is the educommunicator we will discuss below.

David Bohm (1917-1992), American philosopher, is another reference upon whose ideas Educommunication lies. From the
praxis perspective, she suggests a more pragmatic dialectical process. ‘Dialogue’ comes from the Greek dialogos, in which
dia means through and logos means word or word meaning. The dialectical process allows word senses and meanings to
flow through all those involved in the dialogue (Bohm, 2008).
Like Freire (2006), he highlights how difficult it is for people to entertain dialectical practices, since in direct exchanges
people tend to develop what is defined as trade-offs, a negotiation between parties rather than dialogue. People tend
to impose their own ideas and tend to criate communication blocks against building up new meanings. In this type of
relationship, the other is always viewed as ‘deaf’. Bohm (2008) argues that what bonds people and society groups together
is precisely the process of sharing meaning, as dialoguing means ‘thinking together’, creating and innovating through
reflective collaborative exchanges and actions. Dialogue opposes fragmented, immediate and automatic ‘agree-disagree’.
One of his major contributions is the claim that dialectical practice does not start off from ‘thinking together’, but rather
from negotiation – the phase he calls ’trade-off’. In this phase, the mediator is a critical figure to change the negotiation into
‘thinking together’ practices by helping participants to listen and review their assumptions. For Bohm (2008), dialoguing
means primarily learning to listen, watch, observe, be aware of one’s own and the group’s ideas and thoughts, and the
sequence in which dialogue unfolds. When we are aware of everything that happens, we can identify issues, conflict and
inconsistencies expressed by others. We thus become more aware of what goes on in our own and in other people’s mind
without jumping into conclusions or judgment. As assumptions are spoken out, it is important to avoid our instinctive
reaction of getting irritated if any assumption sounds offensive.
The next phase requires the mediating teacher – or educommunicator - to become familiar with how communication
evolves into dialogue so as to aid the group to arrive at ‘thinking together’ by sharing opinions devoid of any hostility and
actively listening to each other to understand what the ideas expressed really mean for everyone and for the whole group.
The last phase poses what may be considered the greatest challenge to the mediator – guiding learners into questioning
their own previously held beliefs and references. This phase of the dialogue is known as reflective and critical dialogue, the
instance to which Educommunication social practice endeavors its efforts.
One last particularly important reference for Educommunication is Jürgen Habermas, second generation of the Frankfurt
School thinkers and Critical Theory. Let us analyze the dialectical feature proposed by his Communicative Reason Theory.
Although Habermas’ original focus was not education but a critical view of society, its interests and ideologies, as well
as of social relationships and knowledge integration issues, these ideas also permeate education as they shape learning
processes. Habermas sought to explain the reasons for the social world to be as it is from a holistic, relational perspective,
considering the exchanges between individuals and society, rather than from a strategic view guided by domination and
manipulation assumptions.

Habermas (2003) argued that although man has achieved great technological control over nature, individuals are not able to
deal with the living world, ethics and social justice issues. He proposed a shift in the model of rationality based on the inter-
subjective relationship between individuals for negotiating over a given theme. That would be a farther reaching theory to
address what he calls practical-moral and aesthetic-expressive elements that are beyond the cognitive-instrumental sphere.
His model of Communicative Action argues that people use language for the sake of social organization, having interaction
as the starting point to reach consensus and to eliminate all external or internal form of coercion or domination. People
communicate with each other through speech acts that refer to three worlds: (i) the subjective world of feelings and
experiences, (ii) the objective world of day-by-day routine things, and (iii) the world of social norms. Although people
engage in social interaction in these three spheres, they do not engage with the same level of intensity. In the objective
world, they seek successful collaborative action and validation of the truth inherent to statements. They interact guided
by previously set social norms – or norms that derive from the latter – and engage in some negotiations aiming to correct
or adapt such norms. This interaction additionally leads to disclosing, to different extents, their experiences, intentions,
emotions and needs, amongst other internal issues, in their search to access the truth held by other people’s honest feelings.
Communicative Action contends that interaction aims at mutual understanding fostered by the freely-occurring
communication process, as propositional validity or norm legitimacy can only result from exchanges that promote agreement
between the parties through dialectical argumentation, that is, through discourse.
As we assess the bases of social organization and the evolution of experience conceptualization, we notice that Habermas’
Critical Theory aims at better understanding how each individual constructs and validates meaning and knowledge. He
contends that humans develop their argumentation along their discourse; thus, discourse evolves alongside rational
processes. This approach leads several educators to apply this hypothesis to education.
By claiming that every individual uses language to communicate, Habermas adds that communication validation is based
on four aspects: (i) the symbols used by every participant of a given group are shared by all participants, that is, everyone
has a clear understanding of the terms used and the discussion content; (ii) the content being discussed is necessarily true;
(iii) the sender shows how sincere and transparent s/he is towards the recipient – there is no hidden agenda or distortion
of the message s/he intends to send; (iv) human beings take on the role of sender based on certain norms and social rights
previously-set by all participants. Distortions can only be assessed when one of these 4 aspects is disregarded.
Morrow and Torres (2002) elaborated on the possible overlap between Habermas’ and Freire’s ideas by identifying two
important common aspects that apply to the field of Educommunication: human beings are not born with a critical mind,
neither with the ability to dialogue. These are two competencies that must be learned.
Soares(1999:40)arguesthatconceptslike‘communicativeaction’,‘communicationlanguageappropriationandmanagement’,
‘use of information resources for cultural production’ are relevant for the discussion of the educommunication approach.

5. EDUCOMMUNICATION, COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL
COMMUNICATION PRACTICES
Educommunication considers education-oriented and technology-mediated communication management one of its areas
of intervention, as it is the binding element between planning and implementing educational communication policies in
technology-mediated environments through participative and democratic communication (Soares, 1999).
A key concept related to this area is the ‘communication ecosystem’, the environment where people will develop
communicative actions - instructional and learning practices - to achieve learning goals through the relationship network
they have built (Soares, 2011).
Therefore, a communication ecosystem is built as every subject that is involved commits to its construction through
intensive exchanges – the protagonists’ dialectical practices. This construction requires clear management of communication
processes that unfold. Communication management will guide all the relationships within this ecosystem to ensure dialogue
and pluralism (Costa & Lima, 2009), enforcing a democratic and creative communication management approach that allows
free expression and participation of all interlocutors through positive provocations (Mello, 2010).
Educommunication – as an ecosystem network of inclusive, democratic, mediatic and creative
relations – does not emerge spontaneously. It must be intentionally built and overcome some
obstacles. The greatest obstacle found in most educational environments is, in fact, resistance to
changes in relationship processes. Resilience is additionally reinforced by the existing communication
model that prioritizes the hegemonic vertical relationship between the message sender and the
recipient. (Soares, 2011:37)
Soares adds that:
The construction of this new [educational] ‘ecosystem’ requires, therefore, a structuring rationality
– clearly-set conceptual baseline, planning, follow-up and evaluation. For wider adoption, it
requires, above all, a specific supporting pedagogy - a project-based pedagogy oriented towards
educommunication dialogicity that is able to predict the theoretical and practical formative
development of new generations, so that these learners become able to assess communication
media critically as well as to practice their own forms of expression, based on their Latin American
tradition. This pedagogy should also allow them to build citizenship spaces through communal and
participative use of communication and information resources. (Soares, 2011:37)
Regarding education-oriented and technology-mediated communication, which necessarily relies on ICTs, we should be
aware of the key role communication will take on so as to allow the achievement of the whole set of learning objectives
through a series of well-planned instructional practices.

Mello (2010) has developed research on with the NCE (ECA/USP), under Professor Dr. Ismar de Oliveira Soares’ supervision. He
has found that noise in the communication process may significantly affect the quality of learning outcomes, irrespectively
of how thoughtfully instructional practices have been planned.
In order to avoid ruining the implementation of thoughtfully planned instructional communication practices or having
to resort to ‘improvised, on the spot’, it is mandatory that we address education-oriented and technology-mediated
communication management as seriously as instructional planning is addressed.
Although we all believe we know how to communicate, when we start using ICTs that record educators’ and learners’
practices, we notice that an apparently ordinary message may yield different interpretations of meaning as it reaches
different people, depending on how it is mediated – cultural or technological mediations along the.
Mello (2010) ponders that in the current highly technological context, the mediating teacher – F2F or distance – of this process
that implements protagonistic actions sustained by dialectical and collaborative practices should have an absolutely ethical and
democratic conduct, seeking primarily to safeguard individuals’ right to information, free expression and access to knowledge.
6. EDUCOMMUNICATION AND DE TUTORING
As discussed above, Educommunication does not mean the mere adoption of one or more communication media along the
educational process. Therefore, not every DE program may be regarded as relying on an educommunication approach. What
competencies should, then, an educommunication tutor or an e-educommunicator have so as to also be able to deal with
educommunication competencies?3
Mello (2010) reminds us that we should first examine the possible overlapping between Educommunication and some
specific e-tutoring practices that focus on developing reflective dialogue and critical thinking in the virtual learning
environments of DE programs.
Improved internet connection infrastructure all over Brazil, wedded to the development of ‘all communication resources’
platforms – also known as bidirectional cross platforms (allowing subjects to send and receive messages simultaneously) –
have promoted more elaborated and collaborative instructional communication practices that are very similar to those used
in F2F environments, thus fostering significantly improved learning processes.
3 For the purposes of this article, we are using the terms e-tutor, e-educator, e-teacher, online tutor, online educator and online teacher as synonymous
to e-educommunicator.

The concern about educommunicators’ mediations and the factors that influence these communication processes have
been investigated for many years in the United States (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; 2002; 2006; 2015) and in the United Kingdom
(Salmon, 2002; 2004). In France, for instance, Genevieve Jacquinot, with Sorbonne University, in Paris, remarks the treatment
given to tutors as ‘the poorest relations’ by several DE approaches (Jacquinot, 2008). She has found that HEIs management
prefer to invest in technology, which presupposes their belief that digital media available in DE environments would be
sufficiently able to deal with most of the teaching and learning process issues by themselves (Jacquinot, 2008).
Her use of the term poorestrelations aims to draw attention firstly, to the issue of the low salaries paid to these professionals,
which she argues are considerably lower than wages paid to F2F teachers or even to the so-called teacher-authors,
irrespective of the former having similar or even higher qualification. She highlights the prejudice expressed by teacher-
authors against their poorest relations, as if they performed functions of lesser or no importance. Her research actually
sends out a warning light to HEIs management in France with reference to high investment in technologies not necessarily
meaning the use of best teaching and learning approaches to DE programs, especially because online or e-tutors are the
pillar of quality DE education, and as such, deserve respect and consideration.
Although research carried out in the US, Canada and several countries in Europe and Asia indicates that the use of technologies
per se does not add to the learning process and may even hinder it, a number of HEIs still value them higher than human
resources. Some HEIs even show thoughtless consideration of instructional communication planning through inappropriate
use of technological resources in these new virtual learning environments, despite their high investment cost (Hattie, 2009).
This research reinforce what other authors like Jacquinot (2008), Salmon (2002; 2004), and Palloff & Pratt (2015) have
remarked: the importance of treating tutors as online educators. Mello (2010) and Soares (2011) go even further: they claim
that strengthening the dialogue through reflective and collaborative exchanges as a means to foster planned instructional
practices and achieve learning objectives is only made possible through the e-educommunicator’s skillful mediation to
structure and implement manage communication oriented to education in these technology-mediated environments.
The e-educommunicator or educommunicator-tutor is the facilitator of the communication process, not the one who owns
knowledge, as it happens in one-all or banking education F2F instructional modes. This role of this professional is more
oriented towards catalyzing instructional communication processes in DE programs, aiming to promote deeper reflection
about themes of study, encourage learner inquisitiveness and motivation to conduct autonomous search about themes,
help learners to develop their autonomy, and instill discussion and peer collaboration.
Irrespective of the education mode, successful communication processes in virtual learning environments seem to require
a shift in educators’ attitude into reviewing their role and willing to learn how to learn, as highlighted by Rogers (1994).
Educators must leave behind old paradigms about knowledge being immutable or teachers being the only holders of
knowledge. They should use communication strategies and take on a more facilitating role to deal with uncertainties
or the unexpected within a more complex, creative, dynamic and open environment. Both distance tutors and learners

should grasp the importance of daily transformation by reviewing and reconstructing meaning and knowledge. HEIs should
likewise understand that they should provide more consistent qualification to this new type of DE so that education agents
are able to validate and integrate new assumptions and promote reflection and transformation of their practices.
With reference to reflective dialogue that can build into communication ecosystems, Salmon (2002; 2004) and Garrison et al.
(2000) state that online tutors are responsible for humanizing e-learning programs and for changing these virtual environments
into virtual learning communities. Building truly virtual learning communities requires e-educators to continuously plan for
reflective collaborative dynamics to be implemented in a challenging way. The success of this endeavor depends on specific
and thoughtful qualification and consideration of the role and activities performed by these educators (Salmon, 2002; 2004).
The challenges inherent to humanizing these environments and implementing what Garrison et al. (2000) and Palloff &
Pratt (2006) call social presence require from e-educators encouraging close interaction between all course participants,
construction of new meanings and reviewing precious knowledge by experimenting with, exploring and manipulating the
ideas presented by their peers. E-educators must know how to challenge learners to think reflectively by posing questions,
provocative statements and problems that are relevant to the theme under study. Another requirement is providing
continuous feedback on team work so as to facilitate the achievement of shared objectives and collaboration. These authors
warn us that learners must be provided with full and easy access to all the relevant areas of social presence, as social
presence oriented practices aiming to create bonds is one of the most significant approaches for DE as they generate a
feeling of belonging to a community.
It is worth remembering that although posts in which learners introduce themselves might seem to be an obvious and
low-impact activity on the whole process, this technique lays the foundation for social presence (Palloff & Pratt, 2006;
Garrison et al., 2000). Lehman & Conceição (2010) add that social presence strengthening strategies aim to narrow the
emotional distance between e-tutors and learners, so e-tutors should get the ball rolling by being the first ones to post their
introduction. In case participants do not start interacting after this stimulus, ice-breaking activities must be used.
Palloff & Pratt (2006)’s practices show that people are more open to talk about themselves in a virtual learning environment
as it is apparently more impersonal than doing so in F2F environments. As they start sharing personal information, bonds
get stronger and humanization starts. All of us need to feel welcome and belonging to a group – this is the baseline of social
presence. Emotional proximity will make all participants, even unconsciously, commit to participate. We should bear in mind
that adult learners want to have their knowledge validated by a social group, and will share only if they feel they belong.
Knowles’ (2009) principles of Andragogy highlight that one of the most appealing discussion features to an adult learner
is being able to exchange views about themes under study from their real-life-applicability perspective, in addition to
work-life applicability, even when such applicability is simulated. These learners feel the need to validate and update old
knowledge as new meanings are learned. Therefore, e-teachers may use data supplied in introduction messages to propose
analyses that encourage learners to reflect on theory that is based on their own professional and personal life experiences.

After pondering over e-tutors’ mediations, assuming that the design of a DE program should take into account learners’
autonomous study, Holmberg (1989) offers guidelines about instructional aspects of e-tutors’ daily practices regarding
argumentative exchanges in the virtual environment that still save learners’ study autonomy regarding sources and
schedule. He advises remembering that learners are people and emotional proximity is advised to sustain their motivation
and pleasure of studying by establishing emotional bonds.
Holmberg (1989) adds that quality study content – supplied in print or through digital media – can enhance this bond
as it requires constant communication. Such a model of program, he argues, demands clearly set learning objectives,
detailed communication and methodology planning. However, the outcomes greatly depend on the intellectual pleasure
and motivation enjoyed by learners. Therefore, e-tutors should be attentive to the learning climate by setting clear
interaction standards and rules, explanations about the language that everyone is expected to use, as well as about font
colors and emoticons.
The e-educator is responsible for following up on the validation and positive critique of ideas, intervening whenever
clarification or encouragement to further analysis is required, in order to ensure a logical sequence of content presentation
and discussion. Autonomous study should be encouraged through advice regarding continuous reading of course materials,
group dialogue and additional search for information. Mediation also includes e-tutor/student power shifts in order to
allow learners to develop self-confidence and take control of discussion so as to validate course content and practical and
realistic problem solving – that is, encouragement to learners’ protagonistic action, as contended by Educommunication.
Barker (2002) argues that e-tutors should undergo specific and continued qualification oriented to developing new skills
and knowledge so as to generate new attitudes and behaviors, to transform standards about what it is to be an e-educator
and to learn about new communication approaches that will enhance the success of this virtual learning environment. As
mentioned above, there is no consensus yet about the basic requisites for e-educators’ education. However, a major feature
of e-educators’ self-regulation is assessing how comfortable they feel in this context of equal educator-learner power, as
collaborative work relies mostly on empowering learners about their learning process.
E-educators’ responsibility towards course participants’ collaboration aims at generating broader knowledge about the
theme under study by shifting between learner autonomy and learner interdependence. As all communication is technology-
mediated, e-educators should bear in mind the need to rethink their approaches and particularly, how their messages can
be interpreted by every participant. Pallof & Pratt (2006) highlight how critical interdependency-oriented practices are for
instilling the feeling of belonging and the sense of community amongst all participants, thus fostering individual alignment
and coordinated joint efforts towards completing the various individual and team-work course assignments.
Although apparently complex, collaboration also leads to developing new learner skills such as new learning styles, team-
work competencies, self-organization, discipline and leadership, among others.

As argued by Freire and Habermas (Morow & Torres, 2002), neither dialogue nor critical thinking are inborn skills. Human
beings must learn how to develop them. To motivate learners to identify with and engage in the virtual community that is
being built, and thus implement intensive and participative collaboration, e-tutors must carefully plan and implement every
step towards strengthening the communication ecosystem within this virtual community. Such steps are: setting the aimed
scenario, planning, implementing and evaluating this process.
There is a discussion today about what have been termed as ‘active methodologies, such as Project-basedlearning, Problem-
based learning, Design thinking and Gamification, amongst others. Each one of these methodologies proposes a series of
learner protagonistic actions oriented towards developing critical thinking upon a given theme and structured upon a
reflective dialectical process. Several of them have proven to be very effective, as they have yielded high-level learning, also
when adopted by DE programs. They all share the feature of having a mediator who implements the actions mentioned just
above. It is worth remembering how the learning process unfolds, especially regarding the construction and validation of
internal references that apply to all types of learning.
Thefirsttasktobeperformedbydistanceeducatorsshouldbeexplainingcoursedynamicsandactivities,rolesandresponsibilities
– particularly regarding individual and team work assignments. E-tutors should rely on a coherent and consistent evaluation
approach and process and provide all participants with clear explanations about the whole process and the criteria and rubrics
upon which learners’ work and contributions will be evaluated. It should be made clear that agreeing or disagreeing with their
peers’ ideas is not enough - every learner is expected to contribute to consistent construction of collective knowledge.
While she was with Open University, in the UK, Salmon (2002; 2004) developed a series of research about e-tutors’
instructional communication management in virtual learning environments. Her research led her to propose a model for
e-tutors’ practices (i) implementing reflective dialogue and argumentative exchanges between all participants; (ii) ensuring
that contributions resulted from autonomous study (reading course materials and searching for complementary material
from other sources) and individual reflection; (iii) establishing on-going dialogue in the learning virtual environment.
Her Five-stage Model[1] lies on a sequence of e-tutor facilitated activities to promote achieving the learning objectives
described herein.
Still concerning the activities to be implemented by distance educommunicators, Salmon’s (2002; 2004) research
corroborates that establishing reflective dialogue and argumentative exchanges between all participants is critical for
knowledge construction in said environments. This requires thoughtful planning from e-tutors in order to set closer and
more intense interactions. This does not mean a list of activities and controls to be developed along the course, but rather
the type of interventions to be carried out by e-educators (when, why, how) so that reflective dialogue permeates the
whole course and all participants are involved.
Salmon (2002; 2004) recommends that these interactions be based on five specific stages that are supported by clearly-set
objectives, as shown below in Figure 1. These stages are: (i) access and motivation; (ii) online socialization; (iii) information

Exchange; (iv) collaborative knowledge construction; and (v) developing learning. This author emphasizes not only the role played
by distance tutors, but also the key role played by technical support. She warns us that consistent learning outcomes, upon course
completion, relies on dedication and engagement from both e-tutors and technical support staff throughout the process phases.
Figure 1: Illustrative chart of the Five-stage Model for e-moderation in tutoring practices
DEVELOPMENT
KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION
AMOUNTANDINTERACTION
LEARNING
INFORMATION EXCHANGE
SOCIALIZATION
ACCESS AND MOTIVATION
Support
Tutoring
Technical Support
Process
Facilitation
Task Facilitation
Getting acquainted and
building bridges
Welcome and
encouragement
Enternal Links
Conferencing
Software search and customization
Sending and receiving messages
System design and access
Source: Salmon, 2002:29.
In the first stage, the e-tutor (e-moderator) is responsible for encouraging participant welcome and introduction.
Building on the first stage, the educator should next promote community building - getting familiar with peers and the
environment, establishing connections between the cultural, social and learning environment, so that learners develop
a feeling of belonging to the group and feel more comfortable to start interacting. After building group identify, the
e-mediator should assist learners by dealing with course-related issues - providing guidance about the tasks to be
conducted, support and answers to questions about instructional materials and content of study. The following phase
will require the e-tutor to focus on knowledge construction and on both individual and group reflection on specific
content-related themes, aiming to instill discussion between participants. Once a discussion and interaction-inducing
environment is established, learners become responsible for their own learning and the e-moderator should concentrate
on following up on the discussion.

However, as remarked by Salmon (2002; 2003), an important ongoing component that is complementary to an e-tutor’s
activity planning is technical support, as it has a direct impact on the outcomes of tutor mediations. Inappropriate planning
of this support may hinder the full achievement of the e-tutor’s functions.
Therefore, technical support should initially release access to course participants and ensure that the virtual environment
works efficiently enough to grant learners easy access and navigation through the virtual learning environment and quick
familiarity with this mode of education. Next, technical support should ensure that message exchange tools work properly
so as to enable communication. Operational care of communication media should permeate all the following phases,
however complemented by environment customization as a third step. As the following step aims to provide more active
interaction between participants, continued support to the tools that enable such interaction as well as to participants is
critical to enhance tool use.
Finally, as the ultimate goal of all this process is also developing autonomous study skills, technical support should provide
participants with technical guidance for general navigation to allow participants to browse through websites that may
support course activities.
As we compare the key features of Salmon’s (2002; 2004) model against DE models proposed by Garrison and Anderson
(2003; 2004) and the main features of Educommunication – protagonistic action, dialogue, critical thinking –, several points
of convergence and complementary aspects can be noticed, particularly with reference to setting into motion dialectical
processes aimed at knowledge construction, which can only occur if participants interact collaboratively and continuously
mediated by an active e-tutor.
7. COMMUNICATION ECOSYSTEMS IN VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
It is worth exploring now some examples of good e-educommunicator practices - an ever-increasing array of tools available
in most of the recent virtual learning environments.
Educommunicatorsshoulduseemoticons,color,imagesandwordstoexpresshis/heremotions,ideas,reflectionprovocations
and explanations in online forums. Therefore, knowing how to use several languages to serve various learning purposes at
different points along the process is a must to impact and motivate learners to participate more actively and to deepen
their reflection on specific themes. Every world, emoticon or even photo chosen, the way a text is structured should aim
to encourage learners’ critical thinking and inquisitiveness so as to approximate theory from real-world practices through
problem solving that is not limited to ‘yes-no’ question answering.
In order to encourage this reflective dialogue, Salmon (2002; 2004) warns about the need for more e-educator interventions,
particularly during the first phase of the process, so as to bring participants closer, encourage their participation, guide
them how to make comments and present ideas that are contrary to those presented by their peers in a respectful and

constructive manner. Once participants grasp the way the dynamics unfold, they get more relaxed and ‘converse’ with their
peers, and e-tutors consequently make fewer interventions – more like fine-tuning along the course of reflections about
study themes.
Another resource that has been increasingly used is podcasts, which allow e-tutors to present voice-recorded feedback.
Salmon (2008) argues for the use of podcasts for more humanized and closer tutor-learner and peer interaction – one of
its many benefits. Educommunicators may also use differentiated tones of voice, depending on the type of message and
the target addressee.
Videos may also be recorded by e-tutors and made available through D2L’s Brightspace, taking the necessary operational
care concerning limited internet connection in Brazil. E-tutors must be thoughtfully concerned about how they are dressed
and the body language they will use during video recording.
It should be noticed that the discussion here does not focus on course content, but on specific content-related e-tutor
interventions. Content is previously made available through several languages. E-tutors must be familiar with and make use
of these resources to effectively communicate with learners and encourage reflective dialogue and critical thinking.
Therefore, a video will not request learners to interact more, but rather to pose questions using proper intonation and facial
expressions that reach learners as if they were talking F2F. It should be remembered that most learners’ responses will be
posted on forums. E-tutors should, therefore, become more and more proficient in managing communication for education
using different but converging media – this is the meaning of building and strengthening a communication ecosystem through
intensive dialectical exchanges that leads participants to think together and develop critical thinking about a given theme.
Salmon (2014) argues that learning innovation challenges us to take risks when adopting new approaches, designing new
activities and using more advanced technologies to meet the needs of new learners that come to HEIs for both F2F and
distance courses. The risks must be assessed and dealt with by involving all the applicable sectors.

Figure 2: Transformation aimed at innovative learning chart
1
2
3
4
Estabilished learning programs
Responses and trans fer to new
technologies
New
New
Current /
Existing
Current /
Existing
Missions
Markets
Contexts
Learning Design
and Technology
Well-estabilished pedagogies
University owned and invested
technologies
New approaches, new ideas,
new activities, newer, riskier
technologies, new types of
students
Responding to challenges
and opportunities
University owned and invested
technologies
Source: Salmon, 2014:6.
Regarding transformation aimed at innovative learning, innovative and leading practices require thoughtful investigation
about the use of technologies in education. The real educational potential of new technologies must be assessed so
that new ideas may come up and be explored. This type of investigation can be carried out by universities to evaluate
which instructional communication strategies are recommended for each technology, depending on the intended learning
outcomes. Although learning outcomes and investment justify the investigation, this type of research may be funded by
partnerships (Salmon, 2014).
Regarding the findings of the first HorizonReport for Higher Education in Brazil, when compared to the findings of research
in the US and in Latin American universities, the following tracks were identified in 2014:

Figure 3: Comparison between the 12 top tracked topics in three NMC Horizon Report Surveys
NMC HORIZON REPORT:
2014 HIGHER EDUCATION EDITION
NMC 2014:
TECHNOLOGICAL OUTLOOK FOR
BRAZILIAN UNIVERSITIES
NMC 2013:
TECHNOLOGICAL OUTLOOK FOR
LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES
Time-to-Adoption Horizon: 1 year or less
BYOD Flipped classroom Collaborative environments
Flipped classroom Games and gamification Online learning
Learning analytics Mobile Apps Open content
MOOCs Online learning Social networks
Time-to-Adoption Horizon: 2-3 years
3D Printing Learning analytics Augmented reality
Games and gamification Mobile learning Learning analytics
The Internet of things Open content Mobile Learning
Wearable technology Virtual and remote laboratories Personal learning
Time-to-Adoption Horizon: 4-5 years
Affective computing Augmented reality 3D Printing
Flexible displays The Internet of things The Internet of things
Quantified self Location intelligence Machine learning
Virtual assistants Virtual assistants Virtual and remote laboratories
Source: NMC, 2014:5.
Investigation on the use of about 12 technologies continues. Researchers have not only explored their use but have also
mapped out some of the major challenges to their adoption. One of such challenges is the ability to communicate through
converging use of such tools and their respective language.

This article aimed to explore possible ways for managing education-oriented and technology-mediated communication
that results from the construction of communication ecosystems in virtual learning environments used in DE programs.
Our main aim was to build the case for Educommunication as the approach that is able to meet some of the challenges
of developing learners’ critical thinking competencies through protagonistic practices of intensive dialectical exchange, as
well as to discuss some of the theoretical assumptions that support this field. We have also interwoven the discussion with
emerging instructional methodologies so as to aid understanding that dealing with ICTs in education demands knowing
how to conscientiously deal with the communication processes that unfold in these environments.
We believe that the features of Educommunication herein discussed help us to identify DE learning approaches that
are increasingly effective and innovative once the interfaces with instructional communication dynamics are also
taken into account.
9. REFERENCES
Aparici, R. (Org.). (2010). Educomunicación: más allá Del 2.0. Barcelona: Gedisa.
BACCEGA, M. A. (2009). Gestão da comunicação: epistemologia e pesquisa teórica. São Paulo: Paulinas.
Barker, P. (2002). ‘On being an online tutor’. In Innovations in education, v. 39, n. 1, pp. 3-13.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahnwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bohm, D. (2008). Diálogo: comunicação e redes de convivência. São Paulo: Palas Athena.
Castells, M. (2003). O poder da comunicação. Lisboa: Fundação.
Castells, M.; Freire, P et al. (Orgs.). (1994). Critical education in the new information age (critical perspectives series: a book
series dedicated to Paulo Freire). Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Citelli, A.; Costa, M. C. C. (Orgs.). (2011). Educomunicação: construindoumanovaáreadeconhecimento. São Paulo: Paulinas.
Costa, M. C. C.; Lima, C. C. N. (2009). ‘Novos paradigmas para a comunicação’. In: COSTA, M. C. C. (Org.). Gestão da
comunicação: projects de intervenção. São Paulo: Paulinas, pp. 67-102.

Costa, A. C. G. (2006). Protagonismo juvenil: ensino médio integrado. São Paulo: FTD.
Freinet, C. (1985). Pedagogia do bom senso. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Freire, P. (2002). Extensão ou comunicação. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Freire, P. (2006). Pedagogia do oprimido. (45th Ed.) Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Jacquinot, G. (2008). ‘Acompagner lês apprentissages: le tutorat pièce maitresse et parent pauvre des dispositifs de formation
médiatisés’. In: L’Université Et lês TIC, chronique dune innovation annoncée, Paris, Groupe de Boeck, pp. 179-221.
Jenkins, H. (2009) Cultura da convergência. São Paulo: Aleph.
Garrison, R.; Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice. Great Britain,
Routledge-Farmer.
Garrison, R.; Anderson, T. Archer, W. (2004). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance
education. Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_CogPres_Final.pdf
on Sep. 09, 2015.
Garrison, R. (2000). ‘Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: a shift from structural to transactional
issues’. In International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, v. 1, n. 1, June 2000.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). ‘Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer
conferences’. In International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, v. 1, n. 2, pp. 147-1665.
Habermas, J. (2003). Consciência moral e agir comunicativo. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Holmberg, B. (2007). ‘A theory of teaching-learning conversations’. In: MOORE, M. Handbook of distance education. (2nd
Ed.) London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Houaiss, A. (2009). Dicionário Eletrônico Houaiss de Língua Portuguesa. São Paulo: Objetiva.
Huergo, Jorge. (2000). ‘Comunicación/Educación: itinerários transversales’. In: Valderrama, C. Comunicación y educación.
Bogotá: Universidad Central, pp. 3-25.

Knowles, M. S.; Holtom Iii, E.F.; Swanson, R. A. (2009). Aprendizagem de resultados: uma abordagem prática para aumentar
a efetividade da educação corporativa. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Lehmamn, R. M.; Conceição, S. C. O. (2006). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: how to “be there” for distance
learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Livingstone, Sonia. (2009). Children and the internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Martin-Barbero, J. (2005). ‘Cultura y nuevas mediaciones tecnológicas. In: Martin-Barbero, J. América Latina: otras visiones
de la cultura. Bogotá: CAB, 2005. (Handout of the course “Novas sensibilidades – urbanias e cidadanias”, Text no. 4).
Martin-Barbero, J. (2000). ‘Dislocaciones nel tiempo y nuevas topografias de la memória’. In: Buerque, E. (Edit.). Arte latina.
Rio de Janeiro, Aeroplano.
Mello, L, F. (2010). Educomunicação na educação a distância: o diálogo a partir das mediações do tutor. MA Dissertation
Thesis in Communication Sciences, Research in Communication and Education, School of Communication and Arts, São
Paulo University.
Mello, L, F. et al. (2011). ‘EducomJT: Practices educomunicativas em salas de aula presencial com uso de technologies
diversas’. Anais do I Congresso Mundial de Communication Ibero-americana (Confibercom), Educommunication Group
Work, ECA/USP, São Paulo/SP. Aug 2011.
Moore, M.; Kearsley, G. (2007). Educação a distância: uma visão integrada. “1st Ed.) São Paulo: Thomson Learning.
Morrow, R. A.; Torres, C. (2002). Reading Freire and Habermas: critical pedagogy and transformative social change. New
Your: Teachers College, Columbia University.
NEW MEDIA CONSORTIUM GROUP. Horizon Report.
Palloff, R, M.; Pratt, K. (2013). O instrutor online: estratégias para a excelência profissional. Porto Alegre: Penso.
Palloff, R, M.; Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the online learner. (1st Ed.) São Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R, M.; Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: effective strategies for the virtual classroom. (2nd Ed.)
São Francisco, CA: Wiley Imprint.
Palloff, R, M.; Pratt, K. (2006). Building online learning communities: effective strategies for the virtual classroom. (2nd Ed.)
São Francisco, CA: Wiley Imprint.

Palloff, R, M.; Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: learning together in community. (1st Ed.) São Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R, M.; Pratt, K. (2004). O aluno virtual: um guia para trabalhar com estudantes on-line.
Pereira, A, A. (2012) A Educomunicação e a cultura escolar salesiana: a trajetória da construção de um referencial
educomunicativo para as redes salesianas de educação em nível mundial, continental e brasileiro. São Paulo, 2012. 292p.
MA Dissertation Thesis in Communication and Education, School of Communication and Arts, São Paulo University.
Perrenoud, P. (2000). Dez novas competências para ensinar. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Perrenoud, P; Thurler, M. G. et al. (2002). As competências para ensinar no século XXI: a formação dos teachers e o desafio
da avaliação. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Primo, A. (2007). Interação mediada por computador. Porto Alegre: Sulina.
Salmon, G. (2014). ‘Learning innovation: a framework for transformation’. In European Journal for Open, Distance and
E-learning (EDEN), v. 7, no. 12. Retrieved from www.gillysalmon.com/uploads/1/6/0/5/16055858/learning_innovation-_a_
framework_for_transformation-_salmon_2015.pdf in April 2015.
Salmon, G.; Edirisingha, P. (2008). Podcasting for learning in universities. London: Open University.
Salmon, G. (2002). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. (2nd
Ed.) London: Routledge.
Salmon, G. (2004). E-tivities: the key to active online learning. London: Routledge.
Silva, M. (2002). Sala de aula interativa. (3rd
Ed.) Rio de Janeiro: Quartet.
Soares, I. O. (2014). ‘Educomunicação e a formação de professores no século XXI’. In FGV Online Magazine, v. 7, pp. 18-37.
Soares, I. (2011). Educomunicação: o conceito, o profissional, a aplicação – contribuições para a reforma do ensino médio.
São Paulo: Paulinas, .
Soares, I. (2002). ‘Educação a distância como prática educomunicativa: emoção e envolvimento na formação continuada
de professores da rede pública’. In Revista USP, São Paulo, Editora USP, no. 55.
Soares, I. (1999). ‘Comunicaçãon/educação, a emergência de um novo campo e o perfil de seus profissionais’. In Revista
Brasileira de Comunication, Arte e Educação, Brasília, Year 1, no. 2, pp. 19-74, Jan/Mar. 1999.

From MOOC to personal learning
Stephen Downes leads the Learning and Performance Support Systems program at the National Research Council, a multi-
year effort to develop personal learning technology and learning analytics. He is one of the originators of the Massive
Open Online Course, is a leading voice in online and networked learning, has authored learning management and content
syndication software, and is the author of the widely read e-learning newsletter OLDaily.
Abstract
The cMOOC, is based on connection rather than content, looks more like an online community than a course, and doesn’t
have a defined curriculum or formal assignments. What makes a person able to function in such an environment? What
constitutes the literacy that is missing in such a case? What type of learning design or learning technology is best suited to
support learning in a free-form community-based environment? These are the questions intended to be addressed in this
paper. It describes the basis for a personal learning architecture and outlines the elements of the ‘learning and Performance
Support System’ project being developed to implement this architecture.
Keywords
MOOC, e-learning, personal learning, web, pedagogy, sharing, learning resources, open educational resources, networks
The first Massive Open Online Course (MOOCs) was created in 2008 by George Siemens and myself. The course, titled
Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, was implemented as part of the University of Manitoba’s Certificante in
Adult Education and simultaneously offered at no charge to approximately 2200 people worldwide. In the years that
followed CCK would be offered three more times. Additionally, the same platform was used to deliver a course called
Personal Learning Environments, Networks and Knowledge (PLENK) in 2010, as well as the 30-week course on Change.
In 2011 Stanford University offered its first MOOC, the Artificial Intelligence MOOC authored by Norvig and Thrun. It differs
from the network-based connectivist MOOCC (cMOOC), though, by being centred on a single platform and focusing on
content like a traditional course. The xMOOC, as this model came to be known, is characterized by limiting autonomy and
diversity - all students followed the same lessons at the same pace. Although it was open, interaction flowed one-way,
from professor to student.
Since that time the field has seen experiments, articles and publications in the field with varying attention paid to each
of the four terms in the original definition. Research and reports have questioned the sustainability of the MOOC model,
questioned variables like learning outcomes and completion rates, and questioned whether the needs of non-traditional
and less independent students are being met. Some have questioned whether MOOCs should be massive at all. Others have
questioned whether it should be free.

These questions need to be asked differently of the two types of MOOCs. The xMOOC has received most of the attention
in recent years and have generally shaped people’s impressions. But the other type type of MOOC, called the cMOOC,
based on connection rather than content, looks more like an online community than a course and doesn’t have a defined
curriculum or formal assignments. These were the original MOOCs, and since they posed a much greater challenge to both
the educational institutions that offered them and the participants who studied in them, they must be assessed differently.
One major criticism of the cMOOC is based on the free-form nature of the course. Students have to manage their own time,
find their own resources, and structure their own learning. For this reason, it is argued, students must already have a high
degree of skill and internet savvy in order to be successful. A student who cannot navigate complex websites, search for and
assess resources, or make new friends through a social network may have difficulty navigating through a cMOOC. As Keith
Brennan writes, “Not everyone knows how to be a node. Not everyone is comfortable with the type of chaos Connectivism
asserts. Not everyone is a part of the network. Not everyone is a self-directed learner with advanced metacognition. Not
everyone is already sufficiently an expert to thrive in a free-form environment. Not everyone thinks well enough of their
ability to thrive in an environment where you need to think well of your ability to thrive.” (Brennan, 2013)
But what makes a person able to function in such an environment? What constitutes the literacy that is missing in such a
case? What type of learning design or learning technology is best suited to support learning in a free-form community-
based environment? These are the questions intended to be addressed in this paper.
Brennan himself suggests that proficiency is based in learner efficacy. “Self-efficacy is our belief that a task is achievable by
us, and that the environment in which we are working will allow us to achieve that task. It’s that ticking heart that measures
out the motivation in us,” he writes. And in order to preserve and promote self-efficacy, design is important. Tasks must
be challenging, in order to be satisfying, but not so frustrating as to create confusion. Whether a particular task satisfies
these criteria, he writes, depends on cognitive load and prior knowledge. That’s why “why we tend to teach absolute novices
using techniques and contexts that are different to the ones we deploy for absolute experts, and why we avoid exposing
novices to too much chaos.” Other writers refer to these criteria under the heading of flow, and trace its origin to game
design. (Baron, 2012)
But cognitive load theory assumes that there is some specific outcome to learning such that supporting experiences can
be divided into those supporting the learning outcome (aka ‘signal’) and those that constitute part of the background (aka
‘noise’). This is especially the case if the purpose of the learning experience is to remember some specific body of content,
or to accomplish some particular task. However, in a cMOOC, neither is the case. Indeed, navigating the chaos and making
learning decisions is the lesson in a cMOOC. The cMOOC is in this way similar to constructivism. As George Siemens writes,
“Learners often select and pursue their own learning. Constructivist principles acknowledge that real-life learning is messy
and complex. Classrooms which emulate the ‘fuzziness’ of this learning will be more effective in preparing learners for life-
long learning.” (Siemens, 2004)

What, then, would promote learner efficacy even in chaotic or noisy environments? A second, more robust, proposal takes
the idea of literacy literally. A language might appear chaotic at first. Even if someone has learned how to spell the words,
and even if they know what they mean, the nuances of using them in a sentence are many, and a language supports an
infinite number of new sentence combinations. Each new experience with a language will be different, there are tens of
thousands of words to choose from when forming a sentence, and only the barest of grammatical rules to aid construction.
Imagine the language learner given a new text to read and criticize, picture them in front of a blank page they have to fill
with words, and you have created an experience very similar to participating in a cMOOC.
What sort of literacy would be appropriate in a cMOOC? Two major types of literacies suggest themselves: 21st century
literacies, and digital literacies.
21st century literacies are those literacies appropriate for living and working in the 21st century. This is an environment which
changes at a much greater pace than in previous years, where there is a constant flow of information, where connectivity
with people worldwide is part of our everyday reality, and where jobs that existed ten years ago have disappeared, and
new ones have taken their place. A good example of this is the Framework for 21st Century Learning, which addresses
several dimensions of this new type of learning, including core skills of collaboration, creativity, communication and critical
thinking, and supporting skills such as workplace skills, information media skills, and the traditional core types of literacy
and numeracy. (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills , 2011)
Alternatively, we can focus on literacies specific to the digital medium itself. For example, the Mozilla Foundation has
developed and promoted a Web Literacy Map which describes in greater detail how to engage with digital media (as opposed
to merely consuming it). (Belshaw, 2015) Three major types of skills are identified: exploring, building and connecting. The
first describes how to find your way about the chaotic environment and even to make sense of it for yourself. The second
examines traditional and new forms of content creation, including authoring and art, in a digital media environment. And
the third addresses the previously under-represented function of sociality and connection. Taken together, these three
literacies can be seen as a way for individuals to manage cognitive load for themselves, to adapt the task of making sense
of the web to their own skill level, and therefore to manage even in an environment that is not well designed.
Belshaw writes, “In its current form, the Web Literacy Map comprises a collection of competencies and skills that Mozilla
and our community of stakeholders believe are important to pay attention to when getting better at reading, writing
and participating on the web. Web literacy is about more than just coding. The web literacy standard covers every part
of web literacy-from learning basic coding skills to taking action around privacy and security.” In this sense, the modern
understanding is about more than communication and meaning in a language or symbol system. It is about operating and
interacting in a complex and multi-dimensional environment. This makes it particularly relevant to an understanding of
the difference between literacies required in traditional courses and the contemporary literacies required in a much less
structure learning environment such as a MOOC.

These types of literacies can be combined into an overarching set of literacies that may be described under the heading
of ‘critical literacies’. These literacies encompass not only the skills related to comprehension and sense-making, but also
the creative abilities that support criticism, construction and communication. And they go beyond this in addressing the
dynamics of today’s world. They include, at a minimum, the following: the ability to detect and define syntax, structure,
patterns and similarities; the ability to identify and generate meaning, purpose and goal; the ability to sense and create
context or environment; the ability to apply or use language, literacy and communication to accomplish tasks; the ability
to support a conclusion, criticize an argument, offer an explanation or define a term; and an understanding of how to
recognize, manage and create change. Or, in brief: syntax, semantics, context, use, cognition and change. (Downes, 2009)
These literacies may be necessary for success in a MOOC, but they are more widely applicable as well. The theory of
knowledge underlying the creation of the cMOOC suggests that learning is not based on the idea of remembering content,
nor even the acquisition of specific skills or dispositions, but rather, in engaging in experiences that support and aid in
recognition of phenomena and possibilities in the world. When we reason using our brains, we are reasoning using complex
neural nets that shape and reshape themselves the more we are exposed to different phenomena. Choice, chance, diversity
and interactivity are what support learning in neural nets, not simple and static content. Cognitive dissonance is what
creates learning experiences. To learn is to be able to learn for oneself, not to learn what one is told; it is to be able to work
despite cognitive overload, not to remain vulnerable to it. So the cMOOC is harder, requiring a greater degree of literacy, but
in developing these literacies, promotes a deeper learning experience.
Finally, an understanding of the literacies required also helps us understand the difference between traditional courses,
including the xMOOC, and the less structured cMOOC. It also offers ground for criticism of the former. Traditional literacies
are rooted in our comprehension of, and ability to work within, abstract symbol systems (and in particular, language
and mathematics). It is no coincidence that PISA, for example, measures student performance in language, science and
mathematics. These are be languages of learning, as well as the content of learning. But from the perspective of the
cMOOC, these traditional literacies are inadequate. They form only a part of the learning environment, and not even the
most interesting part, as we engage in environments that cannot be described through timeless abstractions or static facts
and figures. But this is exactly what we face when we attempt to extend our learning from the eternal present and into the
vanishing past or future. We need to learn to engage with, interact with, and recognize form and change in the environment
for ourselves, rather than attempt a static and distanced description.
Learning in a MOOC and literacy in a MOOC become synonymous. We are not acquiring content or using language and
literacy, we are becoming literate, becoming MOOC. Each bit of experience, each frustrated facing of a new chaos, changes
you, shapes you. Participating in a MOOC is like walking through a forest, trying to see where animals have walked in the
past, trying to determine whether that flash of orange is a tiger. There are no easy successes, and often no sense of flow.
But you feel the flush of success every time you recognize a form you defined, achieve a skill you needed, and gradually ou
become a skilled inhabitant of the forest, or of 21st century human society.

These literacies form the design architecture for a learning technology that supports personal agency in a learning
community. They form the basis of the a personal learning architecture being developed in the National Research Council’s
Learning and Performance Support Systems program. This program was developed and approved to address the issue of
skills shortages in technical and professional industries in Canada. It is an issue that costs Canadian industry billions of
dollars a year while thousands of Canadians remain unemployed. Our solution is to provide each person with a single point
of access to all their skills development and training needs, individualizing their learning path, providing learning support,
and supporting learning tailored to industry needs and individual performance support.
This program builds on the National Research Council’s deep connection to the e-learning industry, including collaboration and
commercializationacrossthesector.TheprogramdrawsonNRC’sresearchinotherfields,suchasmachinelearningandanalytics.
And NRC is free to take risks on technology that might daunt commercial providers. NRC’s track record in this sector includes
the leadership role it played in the eduSource network of learning object repositories, the Sifter/Filter content recommender later
commercialized as Racofi, sentiment analysis in learning, the Synergic3 collaborative workflow system, and more.
NRC’s Learning and Performance Support Systems program touches on all parts of Canada’s learning technology, but has
the most direct impact on the learning management system (LMS) sector. This is an area that includes content management
systems, talent management systems, and the LMS. It also impacts content developers and e-learning distributors, including
MOOC distributors and educational institutions. It also impacts end users themselves: not only students and individual
learners, but also their employers.
In recent years NRC has become widely known for developing and refining the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC),
including the creation of the technology behind the original Connectivism and Connected Knowledge (CCK08) MOOC
offered in 2008, creating a dynamic connected application to support learning. The MOOC combined several themes which
were in themselves becoming increasingly important: the idea of massively multi-user environments, the idea of using open
and distributed content, the idea of fully online delivery, and the packaging of these as an online course.
The NRC-designed MOOC differs significantly from traditional courses. The most obvious difference is that the course is
not located on a single platform, but is instead a web created by linking multiple sites together. The architecture of this
web is intended to optimize four design principles: each member of the web operates autonomously, the web links diverse
services and resources together, the web is open and supports open engagement, and the web encourages cooperative
learning. Engagement is at the core of cMOOC learning. Participants aggregate resources from multiple sources, remix
these in various ways, adapt and repurpose them to their own needs, and then share them. If we look at the structure of
the course from this perspective, we see a network of individual learners interacting with each other and exchanging, and
working with, diverse resources obtained from a variety of internet sources.
Looked at more deeply we can describe specific support requirements for each student. A student creates a resource, and
makes this available to the course where it is accessed by a second student, who via this resource finds a third student’s

resources. From the course provider perspective, students contribute content metadata and the learning provider may
create additional content, all of which is accessed and shared by course participants, who may also attend live online events
or access event recordings. From the student’s perspective, by contrast, the view is to a set of other students or course
instructors, and via interactions with these course participants, to a wide range of resources and services across the wider
internet, everything from blog posts to YouTube videos.
To support a student’s involvement, therefore, technology design is based on the idea of putting at the centre of a learning
network, connecting via a single environment to other participants, course resources, and myriad online services. This
in turn suggests a simplified design that supports this student-centered approach with connections to learning support
applications, and in particular, to resource repositories, to external cloud media storage, to learning applications and APIs,
and to external graph-based analytics. These components form the core of the Learning and Performance Support Systems
(LPSS) technology development proposal, which incorporates these connective elements with a personal learning record
to support lifetime management of credentials, training records, and learning activities, and a personal learning assistant
to manage the system.
The NRC LPSS program is a 5-year $20 million effort designed to develop these core technologies and bind them with a
common platform. The program applies this technology through a series of implementation projects with commercial and
technical partners, including other NRC and Government of Canada (GoC) branches. These projects are managed through
a program organization that maps the technology effort to client demands and the employment outcomes described at
the beginning of this paper. Program deliverables include not only the technology development, which will be implemented
in corporate, institutional and government environments, but also a series of publications and white papers describing the
LPSS learning network, how and why it works, and how to connect to it.
Also LPSS can be viewed as a stand-alone system, it is designed in a distributed and modular fashion in order to enable it
to be inserted, for example, directly into work environments and corporate contexts, directly addressing human resources
and training requirements. This interoperability is achieved through the personal learning assistant (PLA). Like an LMS, the
PLA displays learning resources and plays interoperable learning technology (using standards such as ADL’s SCORM or IMS’s
LTI). But it also the leading edge to much more. As mentioned above, the LPSS program is developing five core technologies,
linked by the Common Framework (CF). These are the aforementioned PLA, the Resource Repository Network (RRN), Personal
Cloud (PC), Competency Development and Recognition Algorithms (ACDR), and the Personal Learning Record (PLR).
Let us examine these in more detail. The first of these is the Resource Repository Network (RRN), needed to provide
connectivity with external resources. This package of applications enables a user to manage and discover lists off sources
and resources. In a sense, it functions like the syndicated content (RSS) readers of old, but is designed to access and
manage many different forms of content, including calendar information and modern Javascript-based (JSON) descriptions
of courses and programs.

A second aspect of LPSS is the Personal Cloud (PC) set of applications. These applications manage personal cloud storage
services. Some of these are familiar, such as Dropbox and Google Drive, and some of these are innovative, such as personal
home-hosted cloud storage using OwnCloud. But more is involved than merely storing data; resources must be secured,
backed up, authenticated and synchronized. This enables LPSS to support genuine data portability, and eliminate reliance
on a single provider.
As mentioned above, interoperability is achieved through the Personal Learning Assistant (PLA). In addition to displaying
learning resources and running e-learning applications, the PLA is designed to ‘project’ LPSS capacities into multiple
platforms. These include not only desktop and mobile devices, but productivity applications such as Word and PowerPoint,
interactive environments such as conferencing systems and synchronous communications platforms, simulations and
games, as well as tools and devices. The PLA exchanges information with these environment, enabling them to interact
intelligently with the user. One example of this kind of integration is LPSS’s integration with another NRC product called
2Sim, which provides virtual haptic training simulations in medical environments. By exchanging activity data (using the
Experience API, or xAPI data exchange format) LPSS supports a continuous learning path using these systems.
This points to an additional set of services that can be integrated into a distributed learning application, Automated
Competency Development and Recognition (ACDR). This is a set of intelligent algoritms designed to import or create
competency definitions matching employment positions, to support the development of learning plans based on these
competencies, to provide resource and service recommendations, and to tackle the seriously challenging task of assessing
performance based on system and network interactions. It is worth noting that while LMSs and xMOOCs tout learning
analytics, only a distributed personal learning network application can apply analytics using a person’s complete learning
and development profile, and not only the specific LMS or cMOOC.
This functionality is enabled by the Personal Learning Record (PLR), which collects learning records and credentials obtained
through a lifetime and stores them in a secure locker owned by the individual and shared only with explicit permission.
The PLR collects three major forms of records: learning activity and interactivity records, such as xAPI records; a person’s
personal portfolio of learning artifacts and evidence; and the person’s full set of credentials and certifications, these
verified by the issuer.
It should be noted that LPSS recognizes, and is designed to cooperate with, existing personal learning environment and
personal learning records, including Europe’s Responsive Open Learning Environments (ROLE) project and start-ups such
as Known, Learning Locker and Mahara. Additionally, LPSS is designed to work with MOOC providers - not only NRC’s
gRSShopper but also Coursera and EdX. We’ve integrated badges in a Moodle and Mahara environment for the Privy
Council Office, we’re doing xAPI application profile development, and are engaged in collaborative workplace training and
development. These implementation projects (as we call them) reinforce LPSS’s mandate to be more than just a theoretical
exercise, but to apply the technology in authentic environments, supporting individuals in a learning network and feeding
this experience back into product improvement.

It may be suggested that there are any number of companies engaged in aspects of learning analytics, personal learning
records, learning technologies integration, and the like. But the LPSS approach is different - by creating many small things
linked together instead of one large centralized application, many tasks that were formally simple - like data storage,
content distribution, authentication and analytics - become that much more difficult. Take analytics, for example - how do
you do big data analysis across thousands of separate systems each with its own unique data structure? These are the hard
problems NRC is trying to solve.
LPSS launched in an initial pre-alpha version October 1, 2014. Invitations may be obtained by going to http://lpss.me and
filling in the short form. Users will also be asked whether they would like to participate in LPSS development research (this
is not required and all personal research is subject to strict Government of Canada research ethics protocols). Functionality
in this early system is limited; the first release focused on content aggregation, competency import and definition, and
simple recommendation.
The next release will feature the ‘connectivist’ social interaction architecture being designed through an implementation
project with the Industrial Research Assistanceship program (IRAP) supporting small and medium sized enterprise. The
roadmap projects two other major releases, at 6-month intervals, coupled with ongoing client-specific and industry-
specific learning solutions. Technology will be transferred to partner companies beginning in 2017.
REFERENCES
Baron, S. (2012, March 22). Cognitive Flow: The Psychology of Great Game Design. Retrieved from Gamasutra:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/166972/cognitive_flow_the_psychology_of_.php
Belshaw,D.(2015,January13).WebLiteracyMap.RetrievedfromMozilla:https://wiki.mozilla.org/Webmaker/WebLiteracyMap
Brennan, K. (2013, July 24). In Connectivism, No One Can Hear You Scream: a Guide to Understanding the MOOC Novice.
Retrieved from Hybrid Pedagogy: http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/journal/in-connectivism-no-one-can-hear-you-
scream-a-guide-to-understanding-the-mooc-novice/
Downes, S. (2009, November 12). Speaking in LOLCats: what literacy means in teh digital era. Retrieved from Stephen’s Web:
http://www.downes.ca/presentation/232
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from elearnspace:
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills . (2011, March). 21st Century Student Outcomes and Support Systems. Retrieved
from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager.pdf

Portions of this paper appeared as a blog post, Becoming MOOC, February 11, 2015 (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com)
and portions were presented as a keynote address, Design Elements in a Personal Learning Environment, March 04, 2015,
delivered to 4th International Conference e-Learning and Distance Education, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (http://www.downes.
ca/presentation/356)

Potentialities and challenges of blended learning in
secondary education
Adriana Barroso de Azevedo holds a post-PhD in Education from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, a PhD
in Social Communication from São Paulo Methodist University (2002), an MA in Education from the Federal University
of Mato Grosso (1997) and a BEd from the Federal University of Mato Grosso (1993). She is a researcher and a full
permanent professor with the Post-Graduate Program of São Paulo Methodist University, the coordinator of the Distance
Learning School and of the Teacher Qualification School with the same institution. Her domains of study are education and
technology, education-oriented technologies, distance education and teacher qualification.
Lucivânia Antônia da Silva Perico holds an MA in Education from São Paulo Methodist University (2015), three post-
graduate degrees - one in Portuguese Language, from Campinas State University (2013); one in Distance Learning
Methodology and Management (2013) and another in Higher Education Instruction and Methodology from Uniderp
University (2010), and a BA in Languages from Centro Universitário Fundação Santo André (2004). She has a wide teaching
experience in Secondary, Technical and Higher Education, Young Learners and Adult Learners, Distance Education Tutorship
and in digital literacy for both teachers and students.
Abstract
Online learning environments may promote blended learning, that is, integrated face-to-face (F2F) and distance learning
opportunities of longer periods of study and more peer interaction. Therefore, online learning may set new teaching-learning
paradigms as it fosters greater autonomy, more teacher-student and student-student interaction and better management
of learning processes. More student autonomous study and research, on its turn, may result in clearer understanding of
all the teaching-learning process. After setting the context of Brazilian secondary education, this article discusses the use
of Digital Information and Communication Technologies (DICTs) as new options to shattered traditional teacher-centered
instruction modes. The potentialities and challenges of DICTs are reflectively explored by this article as an array of enriching
possibilities for secondary school that emerged from the bibliographic and descriptive research that was conducted about
blended learning in secondary school.
Keywords
Digital Information and Communication Technologies (DICTs), teaching-learning process, blended learning.

1. INTRODUCTION
Article no. 205 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of October 5 1988 sets forth that: “Education, one of every citizen’s
right, is a responsibility of both the State and the family; therefore, it shall be collaboratively encouraged and provided for
by the government and civil society aiming at every citizen’s full development and qualification for citizenship and work.”
[free translation]. This Article specifically assigns the responsibility for education to both the State and the family, urges
civil society to encourage and collaborate in the educational process and states as the overarching objectives of education
to aim at “every citizen’s full development and qualification for citizenship and work.” It should be noted that the same
provision is set forth by Article no. 53 of Brazil’s Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA, Law no. 8.069 of July 13 1990) and by
Article no. 2 of the Law on Brazilian Education Guidelines (LDB, Law no. 9.394 of December 20 1996).
The focus on individual development for full citizenship and work qualification calls for thoughtful consideration of the
work performed by those who are directly involved in the teaching-learning process and makes us wonder whether (i) all
the teachers are aware of the learning objectives to be attained and (ii) the learners are able to bridge what they study in
the classroom to effective application in real life. Another question emerges: What role should be played by technology so
as to enable the achievement of the goals of education for the 21st century?
2. THE CURRENT SCENARIO OF BRAZILIAN SECONDARY EDUCATION
When assessing Brazilian secondary education, Carneiro (2012:17) highlights that:
[...] our greatest problem is not that we have bad schools, but that our schools are not adequate
to reach the aims of secondary education. We have a whole set of people and responsibilities, and
everyone tries, within their possibilities, to be a teacher and to make the school function. [...]
Inadequacy has deeply rooted causes. For years, state schools have functioned as laboratories of
education aimed at the higher classes. Mass education emerged with the purpose to reinforce and
to ‘grant’ the economic and social privileges of the regional elite to the poorer population of the
outskirts. Therefore, providing efficient education is not the goal – the goal is providing education,
whatever it is like! So “granting” does not mean responsibility, it means liberality! [free translation]
Carneiro’s (ibid) words make us reflect upon what actually happens in secondary school, since ‘providing’ does not stand
as a synonym to quality and ‘attendance’ does not mean learning. Making opportunities available does not mean achieving
learning objectives. Secondary education has long been assessed as a ‘white elephant’1
within the broader Brazilian
educational system, as many educators view it as a mere step between primary and higher education.
1 ‘White elephant’ is a term used to refer to something that is costly but unwanted or difficult to dispose of, such as the soccer stadiums built for the World
Cup by host countries which did not even have a national soccer team.

Looking briefly back on history, the early days of secondary school date back to the 16th century when the Jesuits came to
Brazil and implemented a nine-year (on average) secondary program. Five or six of these years were devoted to studying
Latin syntax, grammar and prose and three to the study of philosophy (logics, metaphysics, moral, mathematics and the
physical and natural sciences).
According to Piletti (1999:21), “Between 1759, when the Jesuits were expelled from Portugal by Pombal’s reformist moves,
and 1996, when the Law on Brazilian Education Guidelines was passed...there have been no less than 21 reforms in secondary
school” [free translation] – thus indicating how frail secondary curriculum and syllabus is and how far it is from attaining
the learning objectives that have been set forth.
The first educational reform, promoted by the Marquis of Pombal, was driven by the political aim to enable Brazil to
compete against foreign nations by wiping off the colonial Jesuit methods. Bunzen (2011:891):
Pombal’s reform, strongly influenced by European Illuminism and modern Rationalism, ended
up reinforcing colonial approaches, as it led to wider spread and implementation of the ‘Prince’s
language’ in the ‘conquered’ lands driven by a mercantile and absolutist policy. [free translation]
The Jesuit secondary program was followed by the Royal Lessons followed. Although few records are available, they are
known to have not had an organized curriculum, as they aimed at autonomous and individual instruction. “Students were
allowed to attend as many ‘lessons’ as they wished for all the disciplines offered” (Piletti, 1999:22) [free translation]. The
few organized secondary programs then were delivered by Episcopal Seminars founded prior to and after Jesuit teaching
in Brazil. It should be noted that traditional Jesuit methods were still used after the Jesuits were expelled, as the teachers
who delivered the secondary program had been trained in the Jesuit teaching method.
The main reason for the disorderly context of colonial secondary teaching in Brazil was the settling down of Royal Portuguese
Court in Rio de Janeiro in 1808, which implemented a number of public services which needed local workforce, and the
latter had to be educated by higher educational professional programs.
The Royal Lessons and the Episcopal Seminars were kept by the Portuguese monarchy, and their focus of study was then
directed towards the political issues between liberal and conservative ideas. Secondary education was not a priority and
therefore, still had a rather disorderly curriculum.
It was only in the second half of the 19th century that the idea of organizing secondary public education gained momentum.
LyceumswerefoundedinthestatesofRioGrandedoSul(1835),BahiaandParaíba(1836).PedroIISchool(1837)implemented
seven-year graded secondary education as of 1841, focusing primarily on humanistic and literary studies (Piletti, 1999) and
on preparation for higher education. Teacher qualification schools were founded then - in 1875, two separate-gender

teacher qualification schools were created and when they merged into one single school in 1880, they set the hallmark of
teacher qualification in Brazil.
According to Piletti (1999), the Republic brought about several reforms in secondary education, as described in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 – Major secondary education reforms during the republican period in Brazil
LEGAL DOCUMENTS LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT
MAIN AIMS OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION [FREE TRANSLATION]
1. Benjamin Constant Reforms
Decrees no. 981, of 11/8/1890,
and no. 1.075, of 11/22/1890.
As they were introduced before
the Constitution was enacted
and Congress was inaugurated,
these reforms did not undergo
legislative enactment.
“Providing young people with the
necessary primary and secondary
education, [...] aiming at full citizenship
and life in society”
2. Epitácio Pessoa Code
Decree no.3.890, of 1/1/1901.
Enacted by Budget Law no. 746,
of 12/31/1900.
“Providing the required intellection
education [...] for a BSc and a BA”
3. Rivadávia Correa Reform
Decree no.8.659, of 4/5/1911.
Enacted by Budget Law no.
2.356, of 12/31/1910.
“Providing general culture of an eminently
practical nature, applicable to all the
requirements of life [...]”
4. Carlos Maximiliano Reform
Decree no.11.530, of 3/18/1915
2.924, of 1/5/1915
“Providing students with solid basic
instruction [...]”
5. João Luís Alves ou Rocha
Vaz Reform
Decree no.16.782-A, of
1/13/1925
4.911, de 1/12/1925, integrated
to Budget Law no. 4.793, of
1/7/1924
“Basic and overarching preparation for
life” and “Providing a general average
Brazilian cultural life basis”
6. Francisco Campos Reform
Decree no.19.890, of 4/18/1931,
providing for secondary
education framework
Not liable to legislative
enactment, imposed by the
temporary government given the
inexistence of a Constitution.
“[...] preparing young Brazilians for
the major Brazilian industrial activities
by instilling a whole system of habits,
attitudes and behaviors that enable
students to become autonomous and make
appropriate and sensible decisions in any
life situation”

7. Gustavo Capanema Reform
Decree-law no. 4.244, of
4/9/1942: Secondary Education
Organic Law
Enacted by Estado Novo,
administration in which the
Executive Branch also performed
legislative functions.
“Developing [...] young learner’
wholesome personality”
8. Law on Brazilian Education
Guidelines
Law no. 4.024, of 12/20/1961.
Enacted by the National Congress. “[...] Young learners’ wholesome
development”
9. Brazilian Primary and
Secondary Education
Guidelines
Law no. 5.692, of 8/11/1971.
Enacted by the National Congress
by lapse of time decision.
“[...]Young learners’ wholesome
development”
10. Law no. 7.044, of
10/18/1982,
revoking compulsory
professional education.
Enacted by the National Congress. “[...]Young learners’ wholesome
development”
11. Law no. 9.390, of
12/20/1996 – Brazilian
Education Guidelines (LDB).
Enacted by the National Congress. “I – consolidating and deepening basic
education knowledge and preparing for
pursuing further studies;
II – basic work life and full citizenship
preparation, enabling students to easily
adapt to new work conditions and improve
their competencies;
III – improve student’s abilities as a
social being and developing intellectual
autonomy and critical thinking;
IV – fully understanding technological
and scientific premises of production
process, bridging theory of every
discipline to practice.
Source: Piletti, 1999: 30, 31, 45 (Adapted), in Perico, 2015: 25.
It becomes evident that the learning goals of secondary education underwent changes along the 11 major reforms enacted
during the Republic. However, “it may be noted that reforms focused primarily on young learners’ development rather than
on preparing them for higher education” (Piletti, 1999, p. 46) [free transaltion]. This detachment from higher education

allows young adults to decide whether or not to pursue higher studies and shows commitment towards cultivating their
wholesome education.
According to Aur and Castro (2012), a closer examination of Law no. 9.394/1996 (LDB), however, brings to our attention that
secondary education is the last phase of and therefore, an integral component of Basic Education. Thus, its responsibility
relies on continuous preparation for higher studies, for work life and for full citizenship.
With reference to preparation for work life, Law no. 11.741, of July 16 2008, changes Law no. 9.394/1996 as it systematizes,
institutionalizes and integrates traditional secondary education and secondary level young adult and adult technical and
professional education by embracing the provisions of Decree no.5.154 of July 23 2004.
So as to serve this aim, a number of federal initiatives have been taken aiming at reorganizing, integrating and expanding
secondary education: (i) the Federal Professional and Technological Network (inaugurated in 2003); (ii) Professionalized
Brazil Program (and integrating it to the Education Development Plan [PDE – acronym in Portuguese]); (iii) the National
Program for Access to Technical Education and Employment (Pronatec - – acronym in Portuguese]), inaugurated in 2011,
and the National Program for Integration of Professional Education to the Basic Education in the Youngsters and Adults
Education (Proeja – acronym in Portuguese]).
In the state of São Paulo, several initiatives at Centro Paula Souza schools have aimed at integrating secondary and
technical education, such as the Win Program [Programa Vence], which can be taken at either a blended or a parallel mode;
and the Fast Lane Program [Programa Via Rápida], which focuses on professionalizing people with little literacy and low
schooling rates.
It is a fact that “the paths taken by Brazilian secondary education have shifted along our education history. As reforms
are implemented, secondary education takes unsteady steps towards an uncertain destination” (Carneiro, 2012:8) [free
translation]. Many are the problems and adverse variables to be faced – lack of qualified teachers, low and de-motivating
teacher salaries, parents that are aloof to what happens at their children’s school, conservative and prescriptive curricula, the
so-called banking education, insufficient resources, focus on entrance exam preparation, and a myopic view of education
for citizenship and work life. As stated by Carneiro (2012:139):
Our secondary school is deluded in divorcing Basic Education. None of its framework, curriculum
and faculty aim to educate for autonomy, but rather to educate for molded identities. Additionally, it
lacks qualifying means and resources and a permanent faculty, since most teachers are temporarily
employed. [free translation]
Secondary education has been at the heart of educators’, researchers’ and students’ concerns. Movements like the Secondary
Education Observatory and the National Pact for Enhancing Secondary Education have been acknowledged as they oppose

the enactment of PL [draft law] no. 6.840/2013, a much-debated reform proposition for full-time secondary education. This
legislative proposition not only calls for reframing the whole curriculum but also challenges education opportunities for
most 15-17 year-old students who work during the day and go to school at night. This scenario is further complicated by the
urgent need to add technology to teaching and learning process so as to promote teachers’ and learners’ digital inclusion.
3. THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN SECONDARY EDUCATION CURRICULUM
With reference to digital inclusion, it should be noted that secondary education has been divided into areas:
• Languages, Codes and their Technologies – Portuguese language, literature, foreign languages (English and
Spanish), Physical Education and Art.
• Human Sciences and their Technologies – Philosophy, Sociology, History and Geography.
• Mathematics and its Technologies.
Each one of the above curriculum areas has ’technology’ embedded in it.
As remarked by Carneiro (2012), the use of Digital Information and Communication Technologies (DICTs) in education has
a tripartite nature. Technologies have become highly relevant in wholesome education and young learners are expected to
use them in all the possible contexts of all the curriculum areas and disciplines. Additionally, technology enables using the
knowledge and skills one has constructed throughout Basic Education. Thirdly, through technology, learners build up the
scaffold for work life, one of the tenets of São Paulo State Curriculum (2010), as provided for by the LDB.
It is worth acknowledging that DICTs open up new learning horizons, as they to mediate and add up to the construction of
knowledge and the attainment of the aimed learning objectives. Today’s educational needs lead us to wonder how learning
will be at all possible in the future without DICTs. Using DICTs in the classroom does not necessarily imply in Distance
Education (DE); however, DICTs can not be overlooked as a study alternative beyond the school walls and hours.
This is the underlying thesis of this article – how can blended learning, viewed as complementary time for study and peer
interaction within online learning environments, aid the attainment of secondary education final aims?
4. CONTRIBUTIONS OF BLENDED LEARNING TO SECONDARY EDUCATION
Traditional teacher-centered methodologies are challenged every time learning through digital technology and the internet
is discussed. In these environments, learners are more at ease with digital tools than their teachers, and thus, have limitless
access to information without having to rely on the teacher as the sole source of knowledge.

Unfortunately, a large number of Brazilian schools find it hard to shift from traditional teaching modes into educating
students and teachers into the 21st century new dimension of learning. Most schools still have as their primary resources
textbooks, a blackboard and chalk. Knowledge is still basically ‘transferred’ from the textbook or the teacher’s manual onto
the blackboard, the only ‘technological’ support for students to copy content onto their (paper) notebooks.
However, if we for one moment out aside the poor reality of many state schools and consider only those schools that
offer digital technology as a complement to their lessons – schools that have a data processing laboratory and whose
teachers and students have a computer and internet available at home –, within this context, blended learning emerges as
a powerful tool to attain overarching educational purposes: wholesome development of individuals into full citizenship and
work qualification.
In blended learning, online DE may add study and interaction time to F2F classroom instruction. By wedding both F2F
and DE environments, blended learning can expand the physical boundaries of the F2F classroom into a virtual learning
environment that fosters shared learning, as “in the classroom, students will be able to further explore what they have
learned autonomously in virtual environments with their teacher and peers – collaborative and hands-on work is therefore,
advised. The classroom becomes, then, an environment that fosters relationships.” (Lencastre & Chaves, 2005:3) [free
translation]. Integrating F2F and distance instruction becomes an effective way for enhancing the teaching and learning
process as a whole and especially, F2F learning. Rodrigues (2010:5) claims that:
[...] blended learning is not a cohesive or integrating environment as it is said to be, but rather
a mediation process of learner empowerment. To achieve this purpose, all knowledge organizing
initiatives, particularly those driven by technologies, must fundamentally interact as organizing
forces of academic knowledge – scientific, technological, and epistemological – so as to empower
learners about their knowledge acquisition.
From a sociological, anthropological and socio-cultural perspective, 21st century life requires from learners much more
than academic knowledge or high achievement standards in higher education admission exams. Learners are additionally
required to develop individual skills that go beyond reading and writing – they are required to use reading as a social
practice and a facilitator of full citizenship and work life preparation.
According to Sartori (2014:76), “the language generally used in blog posting is not informal or spontaneous, it is proofread.”
[free translation]. He adds that “Quite the contrary, posts are well-formatted promotional texts that aim at marketing and
publishing, meeting the expected marketing and publishing purposes. Even a private blog will be read.” (Primo, 2008:124
in Sartori, 2014:76) [free translation]. Therefore, the claim that the internet harms the development of a learner’s writing
competence is countered by the fact that either when using internet language or the educated norm, learners are practicing
digital literacy, they are being multilingual and adaptive to every specific communication act. They are able to choose the
language to be used according to each situation within each context, taking their interlocutors into account.

When we consider the various reading and writing practices that students engage in on a daily outside school, they must
be able to communicate effective and efficiently in all contexts. The internet and DICTs are two of the several forms of
social interaction.
It is worth noticing that digital technologies have impacted our living in society, as “digital technologies have ‘taken over’
the use of writing and our society seems to have become more ‘textualized’, that is, to have consistently adhered to
communicating on a writing plane” (Marcuschi, 2005:15) [free translation]. Text genres have become a social, historical and
cultural phenomenon, and computer-mediated writing has developed a particular discourse in emerging virtual genres such
as e-mails, chats, blogs, travelling logs and other media.
As school must comply with its educational responsibilities towards the full and wholesome development of individuals,
it must promote digital inclusion by providing students with experiences in VLEs – Virtual Learning Environments. “Digital
technologies also serve the purpose of digital literacy – fundamental for developing citizens of the world” (Oliveira, 2003:37)
[free translation]. Therefore, providing students with blended opportunities through blended learning may aid students’
digital inclusion and enhance their development as people, citizens and professionals.
Personal development is directly linked to one’s ability to deal with differences and to respect others’ opinions, and thus,
to take on new information and reconstruct their own way of thinking and doing. In VLEs, the proposed activities aim to
promote the exchange of ideas, discussion and knowledge (re)construction. Respect to others’ opinions and tolerance to
differences - the possibility of learning from people who live in a different context from ours - is another way to develop
a human being.
In order to exercise full citizenship, learners must develop as human beings through interaction with others. The teacher’s
role in digital environments is critical. “Instructional practices, in this new reality, should privilege collective knowledge
construction mediated by technology, and teachers become active participants in mediating and guiding this construction.”
(Faria, 2004:57). Along the same lines, it is worth remembering Vigotsky’s Theory of Social Development and its tenet of
learning as a social process:
Any function of a child’s cultural development emerges twice: firstly, on a social plane and then,
on an individual level; firstly, amongst people (inter-psychological level) and then, internally
(intra- psychological level). The same principle applies to focused attention, logical memory and
concept development. All the higher functions result from real-life interactions between individuals.
(Vygotsky, 1978:57, in Souza, 2005:109) [free translation]
Therefore, social development for full citizenship presupposes interacting with other people. This interaction can be
enhanced by blended learning activities. Sharing learning values and others’ previous knowledge assigns new meanings to
exchanged knowledge, thus promoting a person’s and a citizen’s development – as we are not able to acquire knowledge

only by ourselves, but rather through interactions with others, with the environment and with resources. Kenski (2012:102)
states that:
Connection is established when two people interact, converse or collaborate at a mental level. Aided
by the telegraph, radio, telephone or communication digital networks, people can communicate
asynchronously. Technological advances and the advent of the World Wide Web (WWW) have
transformed the possibilities of people connecting to one another, not in small groups any longer,
but a ‘collection’ of people connected at the same time by shared interests, objectives, ideas and
ideals. [free translation]
Learning experiences facilitated by online interaction prepare students for life, for citizenship and for work as they mediate
students’ perception of their own place in the world and teach them how to deal with differences.
Digital tools and interaction with peers may change students’ way of thinking, personality and attitude as a new perspective
of facts and actions is unveiled to them and catalyzes reflection and action. Additionally, these tools and interaction may
give way to new interpersonal relations, as affective bonds and collaboratively shared experiences in virtual communities
will positively affect their socializing skills and later, their workplace relations.
Within this perspective, knowledge is constructed collaboratively, that is:
There is no longer a fixed axis or a single author, but a multitude of authors and references that
come together, challenge and complement each other, dialog and interact. In fact, one of the
most relevant facets of this new mode of collective learning is that within the group discussion,
each participant achieves a wider understanding of a given object of study. Collaborative learning
dialogue allows students to produce new meanings and thus, to go beyond their current individual
perspective. Students’ macro-view is then enlarged and reaches new frontiers that were never
reached in previous years of study. People begin to ‘see’ the world through the eyes of others.
(Burnham et al, 2012:147)
In our age of knowledge and information sharing and of virtual reality, teachers are faced with a new threshold in
education. Old models are no longer able to adequately achieve educational aims and goals, since the world and the
students have changed. Blended learning, as suggested in this article for the Brazilian secondary school context, may
enhance and encourage learners’ autonomy by providing additional opportunities for teacher-student and student-
student interaction. It may also allow teachers and learners to better manage the teaching and learning process as they
can develop more autonomous research and study. Reading and writing skills may be equally enhanced once teachers

are provided with resources and tools to guide students into adapting their discourse to the target context and to the
register that fits all the interlocutors.
Given the multiple contributions offered by blended learning to secondary education, it becomes evident what an enriching
tool it may become to the teaching and learning process of both learners and teachers, as it allows the introduction of more
varied teaching practices and enhances the acquisition, construction and exchange of knowledge.
Students’ and teachers’ preparation, commitment and motivation for this innovative instructional practice are fundamental,
just as investing in new physical resources is. No new teaching mode can be implemented without previous planning. In
order to prevent future problems, it is necessary to assess the specific scenarios before gradually introducing blended
learning; otherwise, a negative impact and experience may result for both teachers and students. Every initiative that aims
at success must be well-planned and organized.
6. REFERENCES
Aur, B. A. & CASTRO, J. M. (2012) Ensino secundário: proposições para inclusão e diversidade. Brasília/DF: UNESCO, 2012.
(Série Debates ED). Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002155/215571por.pdf on July 25 2014.
Brasil. Ministério da Educação e do Desporto (MEC). Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional. Law no. 9.394, of
December 1996. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, Dec 1996. Retrieved from www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9394.htm
on May 15 2015.
______. Ministério da Educação (MEC). Law no. 11.741, of July 16 2008. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, July 17 2008.
Retrieved from www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2008/Lei/L11741.htm on May 15 2015.
______. Ministério da Justiça. Estatuto da criança e do adolescente. Law no. 8.069, de of July 13 1990. Diário Oficial da
União, Brasília, DF, July 16 1990. Retrieved from www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/l8069.htm on May 15 2015.
______. Ministério da Educação (MEC). Decree no.5.154, of July 23 2004. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, July 26 2004.
Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2004/decreto/d5154.htm on May 15 2015.
Bunzen, C (2011). A fabricação da disciplina escolar Português. Revista Diálogo Educacional, Paraná, v. 11, n. 34, p. 885-911,
Sept./Dec. 2011. ISSN 1518-3483. Retrieved from www.redalyc.org/pdf/1891/189121361013.pdf on July 21 2014.
Burnham, T. F. et al. (2012) Ambientes virtuais de aprendizagem: o Moodle como espaço mutirreferencial de aprendizagem.
In: SILVA, Marco (Org.). Formação de professores para docência online. São Paulo: Edições Loyola.

Carneiro, M. A. (2012) O nó do ensino secundário. 3rd. ed. Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro: Vozes.
Faria, E. T. (2004) ‘O professor e as novas tecnologias’. In: Enricone, D. (Org.). Ser professor. 4th. ed. Porto Alegre: Edipucrs.
Kenski, V. M. (2012) Tecnologias e ensino presencial e a distância. 9th. ed. Campinas: Papirus. (Série Prática Pedagógica).
Lencastre, J. A.; Chaves, J. H. (2005) O b-learning como metodologia de aprendizagem: um estudo para a sua utilização na
disciplina de Tecnologia Educativa. Actas do Congresso Galaico-Português de Psicopedagogia. Braga: Universidade do Minho.
Marcuschi, L. A.; Xavier, A. C. (Orgs.). (2005) Hipertexto e gêneros digitais: novas formas de construção do sentido. 2nd. ed.
Rio de Janeiro: Lucerna.
Oliveira, E. G.(2003) Educação a distância na transição paradigmática. 2nd. ed. Campinas: Papirus.
Perico, L. A. S. (2015) Ensino secundário, língua portuguesa e portal educacional: percepções emergentes das narrativas de
alunos inseridos em práticas de letramento digital. 2015. 227 f. Dissertation Thesis (MA in Education) – Methodist University
of São Paulo.
Piletti, N. (1999) Estrutura e funcionamento do ensino secundário. 5th. ed. São Paulo: Ática.
Rodrigues, L. A. (2010) ‘Uma nova proposta para o conceito de blended learning’. Revista Interfaces da Educação, v. 1, n. 3,
2010. Retrieved from http://periodicos.uems.br/novo/index.php/interfaces/article/view/72/52 on May 5 2015.
São Paulo (Estado) Secretaria da Educação. (2010) CurrículodoEstadodeSãoPaulo: Linguagens, códigos e suas tecnologias.
Secretaria da Educação; coordenação geral, Maria Inês Fini; coordenação de área, Alice Vieira. São Paulo: SEE.
Sartori, A. S. (Org.). (2014) Educomunicação e a criação de ecossistemas comunicativos: diálogos sem fronteiras. 1st. ed.
Florianópolis: Dioesc.
Senado Federal (2008). ConstituiçãodaRepúblicaFederativadoBrasil. Retrieved from www.senado.gov.br/legislacao/const/
con1988/CON1988_05.10.1988/art_205_.shtm on August 10 2014.
Souza, R. R. (2005) ‘Contribuições das teorias pedagógicas de aprendizagem na transição do presencial para o digital’. In:
______. Letramento digital: aspectos sociais e possibilidades pedagógicas. Belo Horizonte: Ceale; Autêntica.

Teaching crowds and crowds that can teach:
learning as a social process
Teaching crowds: learning and social media
(By Jon Dron and Terry Anderson)
Review by Cristina Massari
In Teaching crowds, authors Jon Dron and Terry Anderson, with Athabasca University (Alberta, Canada), argue for learning
as a social process in which people learn from and together with other people in web-based environments.
“This book is about how that vast cluster of connected individuals can learn together, within the context of institutions and
beyond, and can begin to make sense of the torrent of useful and useless information that surrounds us all. In the pages
to come, we will describe the theoretical foundations of the use of social software for learning and, building on those
foundations, explore ways that such software can be used to support and enable learners to learn”, say the authors in the
Preface of the book.
When discussing network software and its applications, as well as the approach to theories that evaluate such practices,
the authors take on Clark Shriky’ (2003) definition of social software as “software that supports group interaction“. They
argue that this is a broad-ranging term that may encompass from an e-mail to virtual reality platforms.
When exploring learning-oriented network engagement forms, the authors introduce the notion of collectives – “…
emergent entities that result from social engagement in one or more of the three basic social forms” which underlies their
model of social forms. The model categorizes three broad and overlapping modes of social engagement used for learning:
groups, networks (or nets), and sets. They also analyze closed groups - the social form characteristic of classrooms and
tutorial groups, in schools and colleges the world over – against considerably easier ways to engage with people, notably
through social networks (formed from direct connections between individuals) and social sets (loose communities defined
by a particular interest, or by place, or by some other shared trait). “The role of collective intelligence has become far more
prominent than it was in pre-Internet times. Today, it is possible to learn not only from individuals but also from their
collective behaviour and interactions”, they argue
Dron and Anderson acknowledge the “dark side” of social software and the potential dangers associated with the use of
social media for learning - from loss of organizational control through threatens to security and privacy, as well as cross-
cultural dissonances. Nevertheless, the authors also suggest alternatives to mitigate such pitfalls and risks.

Throughout their work, they highlight the potential value of social software for both formal and informal learning and warn
us that “a poorly considered strategy for using social media in learning may have calamitous consequences”.
When analyzing trends that shape the increasing use of social media in distance learning, they offer a broad vision of a
future by considering the implications of using social networks in learning and the various shifts that may or should occur
across educational systems as a result.
Teaching crowds: learning and social media, by Jon Dron and Terry Anderson (Au Press, Athabasca University, 2014, Edmonton,
Alberta. Canada), is available on paper back, as an e-book or in a free pdf version for download from <www.aupress.ca/index.
php/books/120235>.

Revista_Completa_ing-1

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Revista_Completa_ing-1

More from Alan Bruce

Revista_Completa_ing-1