eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

44
Personal learning envir onal Resources eracy Person ersonal learning environm ness and learning Open Educational Resource Digital Literacy nnovation and creativity Training and wor Digital L http:// Openness and changing world of learning Personal learning environments Openness and learning Open Educational Resources Digital Literacy Innovation and creativity Training and work eLearning Papers eLearning Papers Special edition 2009 www.elearningpapers.eu An initiative of the European Commission sonal learning environments Openness and learning Open Educational Resources gital Literacy Digital Literacy Innovation and creativity Training and wo Personal learning e

description

This publication has been originally published in paper. It's a collection of five selected articles published during 2008/09 in the digital eLearning Papers.

Transcript of eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Page 1: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Personal learning environmentsOpen Educational Resources

Digital Literacy

Personal learning environments

Personal learning environments

Openness and learning

Open Educational Resources

Digital Literacy

Innovation and creativityTraining and work

Digital Literacy

http://

Openness and changing world of learning

Personal learning environments

Openness and learning

Open Educational Resources

Digital Literacy

Innovation and creativity

Training and work

eLearning PaperseLearning PapersSpecial edition 2009

www.elearningpapers.euAn initiative of the European Commission

Personal learning environments

Openness and learning

Open Educational Resources

Digital Literacy

Digital LiteracyInnovation and creativity

Training and work

Personal learning environments

Page 2: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 20092

Editorial

Openness and changing world of learning Roberto Carneiro and Lluís Tarín ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Articles

Understanding the learning space Jean Underwood and Philip E. Banyard ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Universities and Web 2.0: Institutional challenges Juan Freire ..................................................................................................................................................................................................13

Virtual action learning: What’s going on? Mollie Dickenson, Mike Pedler and John Burgoyne ....................................................................................................................18

Reflections on sustaining Open Educational Resources: an institutional case study Andy Lane ..................................................................................................................................................................................................25

Didactic architectures and organization models: a process of mutual adaptation Laura Gonella and Eleonora Pantò ....................................................................................................................................................34

eLearning PaperseLearning Papers is a digital publication created as part of the elearningeuropa.info portal. The portal is an initiative of the European Commission to promote the use of multimedia technologies and Internet at the service of education and training.

Edition and production Name of the publication: eLearning Papers Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L. Postal address: P.A.U. Education, C/ Muntaner 262, 3º, 08021 Barcelona, Spain Telephone: +34 933 670 400 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu

Legal notice and copyrightBy elearningeuropa.info and eLearning Papers.

The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in the present publication. The European Commission is not responsible for the external web sites referred to in the present publication.

The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 2.5 licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted.

eLearning PaperseLearning Papers

Page 3: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 1

Editorial board Director: Roberto Carneiro, Dean, Institute for Distance Learning, Catholic University of Portugal, Portugal

Lluís Tarín, elearningeuropa.info, content manager, Spain

Wojciech Zielinski, President of the Board of MakoLab Ltd; Secretary of Association of Academic E-learning in Poland, Poland

Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, Director of the European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning; University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Richard Straub, Director of Development, European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD); Secretary General, European Learning Industry Group (ELIG), Austria

Claire Bélisle, Human and social sciences Research Engineer, CNRS (National Scientific Research Center), in the research unit LIRE (University Lumière Lyon 2), France

Nicolas Balacheff, Kaleidoscope Scientific Manager; Senior Scientist at CNRS (National Scientific Research Center), France

Jean Underwood, Professor of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, UK

Antonio Bartolomé, Audiovisual Communication Professor, University of Barcelona, Spain

Tapio Koskinen, Head of R&D, Lifelong Learning Institute Dipoli, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

Jos Beishuizen, Vrije Ujniversiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Submission of articlesWe publish articles provided by the members of the elearningeuropa.info. Researchers and e-learning practitioners on every level are invited to submit their work to eLearning Papers. Through these articles, the journal promotes the use of ICT for lifelong learning in Europe.

The articles will be peer-reviewed and the authors are informed about the reception and acceptance of their texts.

Article structure Language: Full text need to be presented in English.

Title: The title should be no longer than 15 words.

Executive summary: Every submission must include an executive summary of 250-300 words in English. The abstract shall present the main points of the paper and the author’s conclusions.

Keywords: 3-6 descriptive keywords need to be included.

Full texts: Full texts must be of 2,000-6,000 words divided into chapters with indicative subtitles. The text may be enriched with non-textual data, such as pictures, tables and figures.

References: All the references need to be cited clearly and listed in alphabetical order at the end of the article

Author profile: The authors must provide their full details and a short bio

Copyright policy and responsibilities: Authors remain responsible for the content of what they submit for publication. The editors reserve the right to edit the contents, to publish or reject the material submitted and to select the publication time.

Contact information Email: [email protected] Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu

Page 4: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 20092

Published issues and articles 2008-2009

April 2008 Openness and learning in today’s world (Nº 8)• Is the World Open?, by Richard Straub • Web 2.0 and New Learning Paradigms, by Antonio

Bartolomé• Universities and Web 2.0: Institutional challenges, by

Juan Freire • “Learning is for everyone. Innovating is for everyone”, interview with Anna Kirah

• Grandparents and Grandsons: poetics of an inter-generational learning experience, by Aina Chabert

Ramon and Monica Turrini

June 2008 Personal learning environments (Nº 9)Guest editor: Ulf Ehlers• Understanding the learning space, by Jean Under-

wood and Philip E. Banyard• On the way towards Personal Learning Environ-

ments: Seven crucial aspects, by Sandra Schaffert and Wolf Hilzensauer

• Designing for Change: Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments, by Fridolin Wild, Felix Mödritscher and Steinn E. Sigurdarson

• Didactic architectures and organization models: a process of mutual adaptation, by Eleonora Pantò and Laura Gonella

• Self-Regulated Personalized Learning (SRPL): Devel-oping iClass’s pedagogical model, by Roni (Aharon) Aviram, Yael Ronen, Smadar Somekh, Amir Winer and Ariel Sarid

• Formative Interfaces for Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning in PLEs, by Mustafa Ali Türker and Stefan

Zingel

September 2008

Open Educational Resources (Nº 10)Guest editors: Sandra Schaffert and Riina Vuorikari• Open Educational Resources for Management Edu-

cation: Lessons from experience, by Cécile Rébillard, Jean-Philippe Rennard and Marc Humbert

• Reflections on sustaining Open Educational Resourc-es: an institutional case study, by Andy Lane

• OER Models that Build a Culture of Collaboration: A Case Exemplified by Curriki, by Barbara (Bobbi) Kurshan

• Simplicity and design as key success factors of the OER repository LeMill, by Tarmo Toikkanen

• Applying Software Development Paradigms to Open

Educational Resources, by Seth Gurell

November 2008 Training & Work (Nº 11)Guest editor: Alain Nicolas• Microtraining as a support mechanism for informal

learning, by Pieter De Vries and Stefan Brall• Enhancing patients’ employability through informal

eLearning while at hospital, by Holger Bienzle• Virtual action learning: What’s going on? by Mollie

Dickenson, Mike Pedler and John Burgoyne• Informal learning and the use of Web 2.0 within SME

training strategies, by Ileana Hamburg and Timothy Hall

• Need for the qualification of IT competences - the computer and internet Certificates (C2i), by Francis

Rogard and Gérard-Michel Cochard

February 2009 Digital literacy (Nº 12)Guest editor: Nikitas Kastis• Digital Literacy for the Third Age: Sustaining Identity

in an Uncertain World, by Allan Martin• Digital Literacy – A Key Competence in the 21st Cen-

tury, by Petra Newrly and Michelle Veugelers • T-learning for social inclusion, by Chiara Sancin,

Valentina Castello, Vittorio Dell’Aiuto and Daniela Di Genova

• A digital literacy proposal in online higher educa-tion: the UOC scenario, by Montse Guitert and Teresa Romeu

• Designing e-tivities to increase learning-to-learn abilities, by Maria Chiara Pettenati and Maria Elisa-

betta Cigognini

Page 5: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 3

EditorialOpenness and changing world of learning

In an open world, interactive communication technologies are generating an impact which affects learning processes, people who learn and organisations that intend to improve and become evermore competitive. We have seen that “openness” is readily associated with ideas and values such as individual freedom, intercultural cooperation, lifelong learning, tolerance and innovativeness. This printed issue of eLearning Papers is a showcase of all these aspects, highlighted in the publication during the past year.

With this special issue we also want to stress the ongoing European Year of Creativity and Innovation, which aims to raise awareness on the importance of creativity and innovation for personal, social and economic development; to disseminate good practices; to stimulate education and research; and to promote policy debate on relevant issues. There is no innovation without creativity, and the latter will not be fully exploited unless the fruits of creative activities are disseminated and taken into use through business and other societal interactions.

Readers will find in this printed issue articles that we have selected among the ones published in the digital publication; articles that we believe are the most representative in describing experiences and ideas present in the current debate about lifelong learning and technology.

Philip Banyard and Jean Underwood address an important question of how schools successfully support the personalisation of learning through the use of digital technologies. The article explores the relationship between digital technologies and current moves to provide a more personalised learning experience.

Juan Freire analyses in his article the changes at higher education institutions due to web 2.0. He describes a list of bottlenecks which constrain the institutional adoption of web 2.0 when universities and their managers assume an active role to adapt to the new reality. The article concludes pointing out a set of elements for an effective web 2.0 adoption in universities.

Mollie Dickenson, Mike Pedler and John Burgoyne present their approach to virtual action learning and propose a new practice of virtual 3D training using avatars, as in Second Life. The paper points out that the blended approach can benefit from the complementarity of the advantages of each method, but also remarks the need of a more complete research on the contribution of new technologies.

Andy Lane, in his article about Open Education Resources, shows how first gaining high level policy support within the institution for the initiative of OER was turned into a sustainable institutional practice.

Laura Gonella and Eleonora Pantò can help to understand whether eLearning 2.0, based on the tools and approaches typical of web 2.0, can be useful in different frameworks and organisations. The authors present four different organizational models and the corresponding evolution of didactic architectures.

Enjoy reading this selection of articles, and remember that you may find more online at www.elearningpapers.eu!

Roberto Carneiro,Director of the Editorial Board, eLearning Papers

Lluís Tarín, Content Manager, elearningeuropa.info

Page 6: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 20094

Understanding the learning space

Philip Banyard Senior Lecturer in PsychologyDivision of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, [email protected]

Jean UnderwoodProfessor of PsychologyDivision of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, [email protected]

Summary How do schools successfully support the personalising of learning though the use of digital technologies? The research reported here explores the relationship between digital technologies and current moves to provide a more personalised learning experience. Recommendations are made that will encourage a better understanding of the learning spaces and the better use of digital technologies.

We start by presenting a descriptive model of the relationship between learners, the educational spaces they operate in and digital technologies. We identify four key spaces (personal learning space, teaching space, school space and living space) that have an impact on the educational experience of learners. These spaces are currently not well understood and as a result much of the informal and formal learning of children is not acknowledged and not assessed.

We then test the validity of this model using evidence from several national research projects all of which used a mixed-method design collecting qualitative and quantitative data through focus groups, interviews, surveys and national data sets of learner performance. The data reported here comes from the case study reports and includes classroom observations along with first hand comments from teachers, managers and learners. We consider the implications of these data and this model for our understanding of how digital technologies can be used effectively in education.

In the traditional model of education the design of the learning space was mainly under the control of the institution and the teacher. The physical characteristics of the personal learning space can still be influenced by teachers and institutions, but the design of that space and the uses of the technology are under the control of the learners. To create effective learning it is necessary to understand the different spaces in the personalising of learning and to respond to the perceptions and behaviours of learners.

Keywords Digital literacy, Learning spaces, Learning, Pedagogy, Research, School, Teacher

1 IntroductionThe problem addressed in this report concerns our understanding and conceptualization of how digital technologies can best be used in education. We propose and test a model that describes these processes and allows identification of issues to be addressed in order to make best use of digital technologies. In doing so we conceptualise personalising learning, the foundation of a key policy objective of the UK government, and investigate how personalising learning interacts with the use of digital technologies.

The UK Department of Education and Skills (DfES, 2006) sees personalization of the learner’s educational experience as “the key to tackling the persistent achievement gaps between different social and ethnic groups. It means a tailored education for every child and young person, that gives them strength in the basics, stretches their aspirations, and builds their life chances.

It will create opportunity for every child, regardless of their background.” (slide 2)

There are many ways that digital technologies can support the learner to achieve a more personalised experience. In the Impact 2007 report (Underwood et al., 2008a) we found two trends: the rise of the learner as not only recipient but also shaper of the educational experience; this was coupled with growth in the range and availability of user-centred, mobile digital technologies. The synergy between these two developments has the potential to extend the range and access to learning experiences allowing the delivery of the curriculum in more imaginative and flexible ways. However, digital technologies do not lead to a more personalised learning experience. Indeed Impact 2007 showed a complex relationship between the e-Maturity (a measure of the level and effective use of digital resources in a school) and the degree to which a more personalised agenda was perceived by pupils to be operating in their schools.

Page 7: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 5

2 Developing a Model of the Ef-fective use of digital technologies for the personalising of learningThe model presented here was generated from a wide-ranging review of literature, as well as our own project research data. We have drawn on materials in the public domain as well as detailed classroom observations conducted under Impact 2007 (Underwood et al., 2008a) and earlier work from the Broadband Projects (Underwood et al., 2004 & 2005). The model is a description of the interrelationships between core actors (the institution, the staff and the learner) and the functional spaces which they inhabit (Figure 1).

A number of assumptions underpin this model:

1. The educational process is a dynamic system governed by a complex set of interrelationships.

2. Learning occurs both in informal as well as formal settings and, after a period in the Twentieth Century when formal education dominated, the rise of digital learning spaces has rebalanced the importance of informal versus formal learning. Learners increasingly acquire not only ‘street’ knowledge but also ‘academic’ knowledge from outside of the classroom. In particular their technological world is likely to be richer outside the school than it is inside the school. As a result they have access to a range of resources and functionalities that allow for new ways of learning. These technological skills and new ways of learning can then be brought into the school and formal learning.

3. Technological advancements such as simulations, virtual reality and multi-agent systems have been not only a stimulus but also a driver of a more flexible and social conceptualisation of learning. This is captured in the moves towards just-in-time learning, constructivism, student-centered and collaborative learning.

4. A fourth assumption is that across the educational space there is the potential for children to take on multiple roles, which may include learner, mentor, tutor and in some cases assessor. Equally the teacher or tutor is also a learner in some contexts. While parents and guardians have their central role they are also tutors and learners. Each of these roles is important, as is evidenced from the Test Bed Project (Underwood, Dillon & Twining, 2007) where teachers’ skills development was shown to be an important positive correlate of school performance. In contrast, Lim, Lee, and Richards (2006) have reported reduced usage of technology by pupils in classes where the teacher was uncomfortable with technology.

There have been three iterations of the model to date. In the first iteration the nested model views the learners’ experience as being structured by the teachers who are themselves working with and contributing to the culture of the school. However, on reflection, it is more helpful to consider the personal learning space that the learner occupies rather than the learner himself or herself. Put simply, the personal learning space is the space in which learning takes place. This has some obvious physical characteristics (such as the technical facilities that are available) but crucially it also refers to the cognitive space in which the learner operates. This cognitive space includes the learners’ investment in learning, their sense of efficacy and their motivation to learn In the same way, it is helpful to consider the teaching space rather than the teacher. The teaching space includes the physical environment of the classroom and the cognitive structures that generate the learning environment. In the case of teachers the additional cognitive features include their awareness of the potential of digital technologies and their own level of e-Maturity.

In the third and current iteration of the Model (Figure 1) the space beyond the school also becomes significant. This living space provides a further input to the learning space and teaching space. Teachers create some of their teaching materials outside the school using resources that might not be available within the school. They might also belong to networks of teachers from other schools who are sharing good practice. Similarly the learners’ personal learning space is not limited to the school. They might have access to other technical and social resources outside the school.

The second level of description captures the characteristics of the participants and also of the technologies. In this sense the affordances of the technology introduce further enhancements, such as the capacity to support group dynamics.

The living space that most commonly provides support for learning is the home, but opportunities for learning go much further than this. With regard to the home, the affordances of digital technologies create a reciprocal traffic with the school so that just as the school can now be in the living room, the people in the living room can look into and affect the school. Digital technologies have helped blur distinctions between work and play and now with increasing links between school and home they are also blurring the distinctions between leisure and learning.

In the Model, the first level of description focuses on four educational spaces: the school environment including aspects such as culture and affluence of the institution; the teaching space; the personal learning space and the living space. While pupils as learners find a natural home in the personal learning space, the

Page 8: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 20096

Figure 1. Model of Personalising of Learning

ICT and the personalising of learning

research evidence shows they are becoming more active in the teaching space. Teachers necessarily occupy the teaching space but they also occupy the learning space as they seek to develop their pedagogic and out-of-school skills. The Model clearly underscores the importance of out-of-school spaces both for teaching and learning and for pupils and teachers, and indeed parents, as learners. Some teachers also contribute to the school space in their leadership or technology roles.

At first glance the nested model of educational spaces hides a discontinuity. Are the spaces closed or open? How permeable are the barriers between the spaces? How much of the infrastructure and strategy developed at school level is appropriate to the needs of teachers in the learning space? How much of the structure of the learning space maps onto the understandings and skills of learners in their learning space? In previous research (Underwood et al. 2008a) and the current research the responses of managers; teachers and learners do not share the same perspective on the personalising of learning, although all groups acknowledge technology has an important role in supporting the personalisation agenda. Aligning the perceptions from the different spaces is key to the delivery of the Harnessing Technology agenda.

The second level of description captures the characteristics of the participants and also of the technologies. In this sense, the affordances of such technologies - for example their capacity to support group dynamics - create new opportunities for influencing how learning takes place. At this level the model also captures the behavioural and psychological characteristics that are key to the delivery

of personalised learning. Space in this model is partly defined by its physical characteristics and technical specifications. It is only fully understood by considering how people behave in that space and how they think about that space. A paved square can be a piazza if people are sitting at tables drinking coffee or it can be a parade ground if soldiers are marching on it.

3 Validating the Model

MethodologyWe have endeavoured to test the validity of that model using evidence from several national research projects including the roll out of broadband into UK schools. Detailed methodological descriptions are published in the studies identified above. In summary, the studies have reported on work carried out with UK schools over the last five years. The studies on the roll-out of broadband (Underwood et al., 2004 & 2005) created case studies in 37 and 27 schools respectively. These case studies were derived from telephone and face-to-face interviews with school managers, ICT co-ordinators, and teachers and combined with classroom observations and review of learners’ work that allowed us to build a picture of the digital world of the school.

Most recently, Impact 2007 (Underwood et al., 2008a) and Personalising Learning (Underwood et al., 2008b)1 have explored the relationship between personalising learning and digital technologies. The first of these studies again used case studies with similar sources of data with the addition of online survey of learners (n > 3000) and teachers (n > 500). The data from these

Leadership, E-maturity, Expectation

Intranet, MIS, Learning platform

E-maturity, Aware of potentialities, CPD

Facilities, Connectivity, Accessibility

Self efficacy, Investment in learning, Motivation

Workstation, Learning platform, Accessories

Merge work and play, Communicating, Expectations

Availability, Accessories, Connectivity

Behavioural and psychological characteristics Technological characteristics

school

teaching space

personal learning

space

living space (home & beyond)

1 This series of projects was funded by Becta.

Page 9: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 7

surveys are reported elsewhere. The second project again developed case studies in 30 schools (primary and secondary) and used focus groups with teachers and learners in addition to the interviews with managers and ICT co-ordinators.

In addition to the field data these projects analysed demographic data and national academic performance data (reported elsewhere).

The findings below are drawn from the reports and illustrate the emerging themes that we observed. Examples are included from case study reports and from interviews and focus groups.

How might the technology help?Digital technology was seen as a central support for a more personalised learning experience but the nature of that support can differ greatly. For some schools the technology is being used to provide detailed feedback to pupils, staff and parents. Such feedback, not just on academic performance but also behaviour, supports pupils in their attempts to self-regulate their learning.

At one secondary school SAM Learning (a UK exam revision service for schoolchildren) and ‘P by P’ (personalisation by pieces) schemes foster group activities, independent learning and encourages pupils to present and discuss work in a positive way. The “P by P scheme” is fairly new but allows pupils to set their own goals, find evidence to build skill sets and are assessed by mentors and other peers (2 years above them) from other parts of the country

The motivational power of technology is clearly recognised by teachers.

ICT enthuses and excites children; electronic tasks seem more exciting and stimulating in many cases. Although a good mix of computer activities and practical activities works best!

The teachers all felt that much of the children’s work was better when a smartboard was used for teaching.They reported higher motivation and levels of interest. They gave examples of individual children such as L, who usually needed extension activities to stretch him, easily done on a computer. Using a computer gave the opportunity of presenting one idea in a wide variety of ways, this way the teachers were able to ensure practice without the children feeling that they were doing the same thing every time.

However, other schools use the technology in a more communal way as in this next example.

The school uses software called ‘question wall’ which is used outside of lessons to support understanding. For example, in a project on religion a question wall was set up on which pupils can pose questions, answer other

peoples’ questions, share resources etc. Teachers monitor it and also pose additional questions.

Many of our observations show the interplay of intra and internet use and confirms that there is a growing ICT skills base and a sophisticated etiquette of working among pupils in ICT rich environments.

A girl entered the classroom and logged onto the school intranet to continue working on a project which she began by reviewing her progress to date. She then logged onto the internet and, using a search engine, located a short list of useful sites. One particularly useful site contained some audio content and, not wishing to disturb other pupils she obtained a set of headphones from a technician. Having made notes from the audio files she then used these as a basis for her work, drafting and re-drafting appropriately, saving her work to her personal folder on the intranet. Adjacent to her sat a boy who had also entered the room carrying no work materials. He immediately logged onto the intranet, checked his in-box and located the comments and suggestions that his teacher had provided. Having accessed his previous work he now made a number of alterations, building upon the advice received. He saved the revised version to his folder. He then began work on the new task that he had received from his teacher. He too logged on to the internet and copy and pasted various items from a chosen range of web sites. He saved this as a rough draft in his personal folder and e-mailed his teacher to confirm that he had completed the work set.

This school, among a number of others in our samples, uses proprietal software (on the Digital Brain portal) to organise work. This software monitors students’ activity, sending an email from the student to the subject teacher, when new work has been submitted into the ‘folder’ from which the teacher can collect it. Feedback is then emailed back to the student.

The boundary between teaching space and personal learning spaceTeachers and learners engage with technology in different ways. While teachers see the value of technology they are not necessarily comfortable with the technology. For example, Sandford et al. (2006) found a significant majority of teachers (72%) do not play computer games for leisure, which they suggest highlights a generational gap between teacher and student. However, Taylor (2003) and the ESA (2005) suggest that this as more a life-style choice, that is many teachers choose not to play games, while peers in other occupations do. Equally teachers also appear to have a different understanding of personalised learning to the one held by learners. Preliminary data analyses confirm the fractured nature of the understanding of this core educational concept; while both staff and pupils may see personalisation of learning as good practice and a goal to be strived for, pupils often do not recognise

Page 10: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 20098

staff efforts to deliver on this concept. This perceptual discontinuity can in part be explained by pupils equating personalisation with ‘me time’ but we also have evidence that some teachers, while accepting the personalisation agenda, are still operating a controlling model of education.

That said many of our teachers equated personalisation with pupil voice and choice. They also linked this to the need for a curriculum that engaged pupils and for many this was not the National Curriculum.

− The teachers were particularly clear that personalisation was not individualisation – targeting every child’s individual needs because this is unrealistic. It’s a more rounded approach.

− Personalisation was seen as something that good teachers had been actively involved in for decades. The key issues are meeting individual needs and offering differentiated learning programmes. The problem with the rhetoric around Personalising Learning is that it implies that each child should have an individual learning programme and this is not possible in a class of 35 children.

− P-learning is a two way process (between student and teacher), not something you can just ‘do to kids’, they have to be involved in it too.

The boundary between school space and living spaceEffective home school links through digital technologies are seen as central to the implementation of the personalisation agenda. Indeed Green et al. (2005) argue that the challenges posed by the Personalising Learning agenda may prove difficult to meet without digital technologies as there will be a specific requirement for “the communication, archiving and multimedia affordances of digital resources” (Green et al., 2005 p. 5).

Schools are being encouraged to reach out into the home and, to a lesser extent, the home is reaching into the school. Many homes are rich in technology. Figure 2 is a visual representations of secondary school pupils’ active use of a variety of technologies at home and school. The data are taken from the Personalising Learning Project focus group interviews (Underwood et al., 2008b) and they clearly show the richness of the home as compared to the school digital world. This suggests that linking the school and home digitally is eminently doable. However, not all of homes will have the necessary facilities at an appropriate level, to link to the school.

Frustration is one outcome of the disparity between the quality of home and school connectivity, but heads were also concerned about disenfranchising their

Figure 2. Technology worlds at home and at school

pupils. In those cases where it was seen necessary, heads indicated that they were considering a number of solutions to ameliorate this problem. These included opening the school after hours to those who do not have quality access at home; targeting out of school internet skills lessons to those without home access; loaning laptops to pupils and providing laptops for teachers, often through the ‘laptops for teachers’ scheme. The case study reports suggest this has been a positive move.

In this large, well resourced primary school all staff have been provided with an email address which is also accessible from their homes. The school has placed all formal school documentation online and staff have a communal on-line diary and message board on the web site. Through the web site, schemes of work and lessons plans can be shared by all staff, whether at home or at school. Teachers report that it is easier to use the material in school, however, since few of them have broadband access at home, which is confirmation of the head teachers’ perceptions reported earlier. The availability of this resource has resulted in teachers at this school staying later and doing more preparation on site.

Teachers selecting to work in the school rather than at home is a finding contrary to that of the iSociety (Crabtree & Roberts, 2003). Their study found that teachers were downloading through a home broadband link because the school net was too slow, but with our schools the quality of the school provision outstripped many teachers’ homes (Underwood, et al., 2005). In contrast most learners appear to live in a technology rich world.

The digital links between school and home are not universally welcomed and some teachers expressed concern that the private space of the school was being eroded, threatening the development of the learners’ independence. The safety of the home was threatened

Page 11: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 9

by the school reaching into home. They were acutely aware of the threat of bullying going beyond the school and into the home leaving learners with no escape from tormentors.

This technologically advanced primary school has an in-house VLE system called Home School Learning (HSL). This is fully accessible from home and contains details of all of the children’s classwork as well as homework assignments. This is very popular with majority of parents who track of their child’s progress. However, some parents feel that this level of accessibility puts undue pressure on the children to work at home.

As identified elsewhere (Underwood, Dillon & Twining, 2007) the thorny issue of lack of home internet access for some 20% of pupils remains and is being met largely through after school access time for these pupils.

Technology inversion

The technology is developing from the bottom of the educational system upwards. Pupils of eleven years are engaged in tasks as a matter of routine while adults trail in their wake.

A year six literacy session involved pupils in parallel classes writing shared reports about the Antarctic on the interactive whiteboard. When each class had prepared their report there was a tick box on their half of the split screen for them to register they were ready to exchange files with the parallel class. They then received, marked and returned the other class’s report. The pupils commented that their teachers were beginning to let them use the whiteboards now, since the teachers had become more confident themselves.

Responses to focus group questions repeatedly found learners with the expectation that they had greater experience and expertise with ICT than their teachers and parents. They describe themselves as being immersed in digital technologies and perceive the adult groups as still sat on the side of the pool building up courage to jump in. In observations of class activities we collected numerous instances of learners as young as year 2 helping the teacher to manage the technology by correcting errors and troubleshooting gliches.

One rural middle school had turned the low level of specialist support into an educational opportunity.

Pupils are being used as mentors to less skilled pupils. They have to achieve five competency tests to become a webwizard, after which they are allowed to contribute to the general maintenance of the ICT facilities by, for example, ensuring that laptops are stored appropriately and are left on charge. One year eight child has a special position in this process and appears to fulfil the role of an onsite technician.

The Savvy Students and Empowered Citizens

The argument that the younger generation must be rescued from the clutches of digital technologies is loudly voiced and while there are worrying examples of abuse and misuse of technology, are pupils really in need of being rescued? For many working in the field there is a growing acceptance that, as Southwell and Doyle (2004) have argued the answer cannot be a simple yes or no. While there is evidence of the net generation being overly cavalier with personal data, there are savvy pupils with a full understanding of the importance of protecting data. This was evident in discussions with a mixed group of year 9 pupils.

These pupils had a good understanding of some of the issues relating to Internet use, citing for example, inherent dangers in using social networking sites like Facebook in comparison to using MSN messenger, which they all seemed to use regularly. They were fully aware that such sites were not private and their details could be accessed by unfamiliar adults, which they found threatening. They also recognised the potential for cyber bullying and the possibility of their identity being compromised now and in the future. MSN messenger was a preferred method of contact outside school as it is a direct and exclusive link between you and the person you had invited to chat with you. Whilst there were no gender differences in pupils’ overt response to Facebook, both boys and girls were aware of the issues hence chose not to use Facebook; however it was the girls who were most concerned and who felt most vulnerable.

This awareness raises pupils to the level of discerning consumers rather than naïve victims; this was also apparent in some pupils’ attitudes toward their data files. Across the focus groups a number of pupils identified their data stick as a ‘must have’ tool. Their reasons for this were generally pragmatic; the stick allowed ease of transfer between home and school, so was great for homework, and file sharing between friends.

However, one Year 9 pupil pointed out that he favoured the data stick because ‘school can’t steal it’ –‘ it’ in this case being his data. He could bring material to and from school without it being tracked, thus maintaining his privacy and independence. This made the data stick preferable to the VLE, which had echoes of ‘big brother’ in this young man’s eyes.

The boundary between school space and teaching space

Personalising of Learning and the UK National Curriculum

One of the misalignments between the school space and the teaching space concerns the need of the school for measurable outputs in the form of results from high

Page 12: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200910

stakes tests such as SATs and GCSEs and the ambition of teachers to personalise learning for their learners. For some schools the National Curriculum is antithetical to the personalising of learning agenda.

The National Curriculum needs to be more flexible and engaging in order to achieve p-learning. The national curriculum causes problems with this (individualised learning and differentiation) however – personalisation needs pupils to be engaged and this not always happening with the curriculum as it is presently. Further, the National Curriculum is very prescriptive in its outline and does not always allow teachers to be creative. Needs to be more flexible.

The allocation of children to classes in schools can create groups who are less focused on SATs and therefore able to work beyond the National Curriculum.

The unusual mix of years 4 and 5 in this rural primary school provided an opportunity to be more bold with the curriculum. The teacher chose to design her lessons using the ‘Mantle of the Expert’. This is a particular style of teaching where pupils and teacher use drama and role play to learn together. They learn for a reason, undertaking shared research to become ‘experts’ in their own right. The class at the time of the visit was focused on saving orangutans in Borneo. KORC (Kingabantan Orangutan Rescue Centre) was led by Anna, played by the teacher, and the children were scientists and volunteers.

In the previous lesson it had been discovered that KORC impoverished and needed to develop some fundraising activities to keep the operation going. Different groups of children were working mainly in pairs to tackle this issue in a wide variety of ways including cooking banana buns, which appear to be an essential part of the diet of orangutans and small children.

Inculcating Discerning Consumers

Many pupils, it emerges from our learner data, may be described as digitally savvy. Are these savvy pupils simply street wise, collecting their knowledge from the world beyond the classroom or is there evidence of schools aiding the development of the critical analysis exhibited here? In the descriptive model (Figure1) it was argued that the culture, ethos or vision of a school would be an important predictor of educational outcomes. Is there evidence to support this argument? In the case of the student rejecting the VLE because of its ’big brother’ connotations, it seems unlikely that the school has impacted on him in a positive way. The school operates a full digital monitoring programme with lesson-by-lesson registration and rapid feedback to parents. This pupil sought to reduce the school’s data collection on his activities and in this sense we might call him street wise. However, there are schools whose vision and practice have a clear focus on the

development of not only the discerning consumer but also the discerning citizen.

− The pupils who so ably articulated their rejection of Facebook are drawn from a school (secondary: socially disadvantaged) whose policy is one of openness, particularly in regard to the Internet and digital technologies in general. In the focus group, teachers at this school expressed the need for pupils to be exposed to both the ills as well as the joys of surfing the net while, they the staff, could provide a positive context in which to debate issues.

− In a second school (secondary: socially advantaged) which operated a similar monitoring system, the pupils viewed this surveillance with equanimity and not as an infringement of liberty. However, in this school pupils were allowed considerable freedom in their use of digital tools, as exemplified by the school by-passing the local RBC controls to give pupils exposure to the wider Internet.

− A third school (primary: socially advantaged) has extended this sense of openness in that it declares itself as a school without rules. Pupils here choose their own learning pathways and modes of working. The pupils have learnt to take responsibility from a very young age. The school is successful on all objective measures and the children here are empowered and empowering.

Other schools however, operated a policy of containment where social networking software was concerned. These schools are in the majority here, a finding mirrored in the Harnessing Technology 2008 Survey, which showed that “software was not overly encouraged by teachers in supporting pupils with their learning” (Smith & Rudd, 2008, p.30).

4 ReflectionsThe data collected here provides a partial validation of the Personalising of Learning Model. By capturing space, behaviour and opportunity we have been able to describe the ebb and flow of activity between the school and home, and teaching and learning. In particular we have highlighted the boundaries between different digital worlds and shown the potential barriers to effective teaching and learning.

Underwood and Banyard (2008) have reported that managers, teachers and learners understand personalising learning in different ways. Our analyses confirm the fractured nature of different stakeholders’ understanding of this core educational concept: while both staff and pupils may see the personalising of learning as good practice and a goal to be strived for, pupils often do not recognise staff efforts to deliver on this concept. Pupils equating personalisation with ‘me time’ can in part explain this perceptual

Page 13: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 11

discontinuity but we also have evidence that some teachers, while accepting the personalisation agenda, are still operating a controlling model of education. Many teachers, however, equate personalising learning with pupil voice and choice. They also link this to the need for a curriculum that engages pupils and for many teachers this is not the UK National Curriculum. ICT can provide opportunities for developing the personalising agenda but it can also provide the illusion of individual learning while actually restricting innovative work.

The people who predominantly occupy the learning, teaching and institutional spaces have very different experiences and expectations of digital technologies. The digital world is the norm for pupils, even those of a very young age, and this is not always recognised by teachers. It is aspirational and functional, and is an important way of defining and expressing an individual’s identity. However, learners engage with digital technologies in ways that are only partially recognised and explored by schools. Schools have very different responses to this digital world. Some schools have policies of containment while others seek to engage with pupils and through these burgeoning technologies.

The digital divide between teachers and pupils remains a reality. It can be argued that this is a transient problem that will disappear as a new, more e-mature generation of teachers takes its place in the classroom. However, new technologies continue to evolve and change rapidly and early adopters and innovators will continue to be over-represented in children and young people and under-represented in adults. There are also further digital divides between parents and children and it is clear that children are claiming part of this digital world as their own and using it as a vehicle for personal independence.

As in previous studies there are concerns about home school links that can be encapsulated first under work-life balance (when do the youngest children get to play?) and secondly equity issues. Although, in this sample of schools, pupils in socially disadvantaged areas who, it was anticipated, would be technologically disadvantaged, still had high access to technology. The model presented here draws attention to the overlap of these spaces and challenges schools to respond to these new ways of learning.

There is a need to create greater alignment between curriculum, assessment and pedagogy for the digital school. Wood (2006) has argued that the misalignment of assessment and an ICT rich educational experience requires radical rethinking. Many schools do not grasp the importance of ICT for assessment and therefore holistic change (McClusky, 2005). However, the e-Mature schools within this sample demonstrated

that teachers had a very real awareness of what the technology could deliver but were frustrated by the current curricula and assessments.

Assessment is still largely conducted in the UK using traditional (i.e. pre-digital technologies) techniques, and focuses on traditional (i.e. pre-digital technologies) academic skills. The origin of these techniques in UK education can be traced back through the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) to 1858, when a group of academics were invited by some Durham schools to develop assessment techniques for their pupils. The schools were observed to capture how the pupils were being taught. Tests were devised to match the teaching and learning that was taking place. The techniques for external examination are largely the same today even though the style of teaching and learning has moved on dramatically. There is a clear need to create assessments that better measure the shifts in learning activities that accompany effective use of digital technology. For example what form of assessment best captures the move from essay to story boarding or the rise in visual as opposed to verbal presentational skill.

In the traditional model of education the design of the learning space was mainly under the control of the institution and the teacher. The physical characteristics of the personal learning space can still be influenced by teachers and institutions, but the design of that space and the uses of the technology are under the control of the learners. At our university our library information services provides academic search facilities and e-learning support but the students choose to Google. To create effective learning it is necessary to understand the different spaces in the personalising of learning and to respond to the perceptions and behaviours of learners.

5 Recommendations1. The various stakeholders (managers, teachers,

learners, parents) should develop better understandings of each others’ experience and use of digital technologies.

2. Curricula need to be adapted to take account of the digital technologies to allow for the personalising of learning.

3. Assessment of learners needs to be reviewed to better capture the learning, both formal and informal, that is taking place.

4. Policy makes and managers need to respond to the digital divides that exist by age, professional status and economic disadvantage.

Page 14: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200912

References➜ Crabtree, J. & Roberts, S. (2003). Fat Pipes, Connected People Rethinking Broadband Britain. London: iSociety.

http://www.theworkfoundation.com/pdf/fat_pipes.pdf

➜ DfES (2006). The Primary National Strategy: Personalisation. London: DFES. http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/local/ePDs/leading_on_intervention/site/u1/s3/index.htm

➜ ESA (2005). Essential Facts about the computer and video game industry http://www.theesa.com/files/2005EssentialFacts.pdf

➜ Green, H., Facer, K. & Rudd, T (2005). Personalisation and Digital Technologies. Bristol: Futurelab.

➜ Lim, C.P., Lee, S.L. & Richards, C. (2006). Developing interactive learning objects for a computing mathematics models. International Journal on E-Learning, 5, 221-244.

➜ McClusky, A. (2005). Policy Peer reviews: ICT in Schools in Northern Ireland. Brussels EUN Schoolnet. http://insight.eun.org/ww/en/pub/insight/policy/peer_reviews/

➜ Pollard A & James, M. (2004). Personalised Learning A Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme, London: TLRP.

➜ Smith, P. & Rudd, P. (2008). Harnessing Technology: School Survey 2008: Draft Preliminary Report. NFER.

➜ Southwell, B.G. & Doyle, K.O. (2004). The Good, the Bad, or the Ugly? A Multilevel Perspective on Electronic Game Effects. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 391-401.

➜ Taylor, L. (2003). When seams fall apart: Video game space and the player. Game Studies 3 (2). http://www. gamestudies. org/0302/taylor/ (accessed March 31, 2006).

➜ Underwood, J., Ault, A., Banyard, P., Bird, K. Dillon, G., Hayes, M., Selwood, I., Somekh, B. & Twining, P. (2005). The Impact of Broadband in Schools. Final project report for Becta Coventry.

➜ Underwood, J., Ault, A., Banyard, P., Durbin, C., Hayes, M., Selwood, I., et al. (2004a). Connecting with Broadband: Evidence from the Field. Coventry: Final project report for Becta.

➜ Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P. Dillon, G., Farrington Flint, L., Hayes, M., Hick, P., Le Geyt, G., Murphy, J., Selwood, I. & Wright, M. (2008b). Personalising of Learning. Unpublished Final Report submitted to BECTA.

➜ Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard,P., Coyne, E., Farrington-Flint, L., & Selwood, I. (2008a). Impact 2007: Personalising Learning with Technology: Final Report. Coventry: Becta. http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/impact_July2007.doc

➜ Underwood, J.D.M. & Banyard (2008). Self-regulated learning in a digital world. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, in press.

➜ Underwood, J., Dillon, G. & Twining, P. (2007), Evaluation of the ICT Test Bed Project Questionnaire Data: Summary of Findings - Year 4, 2006,Coventry: Becta. http://www.evaluation.icttestbed.org.uk/reports

➜ Wood, D.W. (2006). The Think Report. SchoolNet http://eminent.eun.org/THINK_FULL_DRAFT_2pp.doc

Page 15: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 13

Universities and Web 2.0: Institutional challenges

Juan Freire Associate ProfessorUniversity of A Coruña, Spainhttp://juanfreire.net/

Summary The irruption of the web 2.0 internet in universities does not modify only learning models - organizative models are also challenged, creating important fears among the managers of the institutions. Teachers, researchers and students started some years ago to use social software tools, but in few cases these experiences have allowed any scaling from the individual to the institutional level.

The promises and potential of web 2.0 in universities need an adequate strategy for their development, which has to confront the bottlenecks and fears common in these institutions that could explain the lack of adaptation. Some of the bottlenecks highlighted in this paper are: a) the rejection by the users, personnel and students, b) the lack of an incentive system, c) the available pre-web 2.0 technology, and d) universities show in some cases a culture of aversion to innovation and entrepreneurship.

The adoption of a web 2.0 approach to learning in universities is a complex process confronting important technological, managerial and human barriers. For these reasons, the design of a set of objectives and a strategy accepted and promoted by the managers, especially those in charge of knowledge management, is absolutely needed. This first step requires in many cases radical cultural changes for people used to work and make decisions in a different scenario. The introduction for the web 2.0 approach to learning in universities must be done through an adaptive strategy, one that may be designed integrating previous experiences of educational, research and business organizations.

Keywords Web 2.0, universities, openness, knowledge, managers, establishment, bottlenecks

1 The promises and reality of web 2.0Web 2.0 could facilitate a change of paradigm in learning; from a top-down system focused in teachers and established knowledge to a networked approach where teachers should change their roles to become coaches and facilitators of the learning process (Anderson 2007, Brown & Adler 2008, O’Reilly 2005). The objectives of the new European Space for Higher Education and the needs of our contemporary societies both pay special attention to innovation and entrepreneurship as basic abilities for the future of our graduates. Learning by doing and applying methods for collaborative and active learning are essential approaches to attain these objectives, and the web 2.0 could be an instrumental and strategic tool in their development (Anderson 2006).

However, the irruption of the new internet in universities does not modify only learning models. Organizative models are also challenged causing some acute crisis in institutions (Brown & Adler 2008). Web 2.0 has already entered the university walls in a bottom-up process. Teachers, researchers and students, in most cases without any institutional stimulus, started some years ago to use social software tools (Anderson 2007,

OECD 2007). Some of these experiences are successful, but in few cases have allowed any scaling from the individual to the institutional level. Institutional, top-down, adaptations have been considerably slower or absent, widening in many cases the “digital divide” between universities and some of their personnel and among teachers using or not web 2.0 in their work.

2 What is web 2.0? Beyond technology; open knowledge and network collaborationWeb 2.0 could be defined from a technological point of view as a loosely-coupled system of Internet applications (Fumero & Roca 2007), but it also represents a “Troyan horse” for a new social and cultural paradigm (Shirky 2008, Weinberger 2007). In this sense it could be defined as technologies for the social creation of knowledge, comprising three main characteristics:

a) Technology: Internet moves from “push” to “pull”; from an era 1.0 associated to the old hierarchical portals and a restricted group of content creators to searching engines, aggregators and user-based content typical of the era 2.0.

Page 16: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200914

b) Knowledge: web 2.0 is challenging copyright (the strict protection of intellectual property) because the open source paradigm (open access and creative remix of contents) has demonstrated important competitive advantages, allowing for more creativity and productivity (Lessig 2004). This new open knowledge paradigm is grounded in the success of free software and the old tradition of scientific communities (Benkler 2006, Weber 2005), and is characterized by four properties: independent (“free speech”), cost of distribution is zero or very low (“free beer”), modularity and generative capacity. In this sense, the modularity or granularity of open content shared in networks allows for the development of the complete creative potential of remix (Baldwin & Clark 2000, Zittrain 2006).

c) Users: the shift from consumers to active users participating as curators and creators that characterize web 2.0 has been sometimes defined as the “revenge of amateurs” and modifies the traditional roles of the agents of the chain value of knowledge creation and consumption.

The promises and potential of web 2.0 in universities need an adequate strategy for their development that have to confront different bottlenecks and fears common in these institutions. In the following sections these topics will be analyzed.

3 Bottlenecks for institutional adoption of web 2.0 Universities and their managers, when they assume an active role for the adaptation to the new paradigm described above, discover a series of internal bottlenecks:

a) Rejection by the users, personnel and students. Many of the users of the tools available in the Internet 1.0 are reluctant and fearful of learning the abilities needed to use new software and change their attitudes about education and knowledge. Also, in most cases, change is a matter of personal interest and work without any specific incentive system adapted to these objectives.

The journal and editorial group Nature is an excellent example of the users’ bottleneck. This group has developed in the last years an extremely innovative and experimental strategy for web publishing (Hannay 2007). However, some of its projects have been restrained by users (scientists in this case). For example, the experiment about “open peer review” failed due to the lack of interest of the scientific community (Nature 2006).

Learning from these experiences, it seems clear that, in parallel to the deployment of new technologies, it

is critical to introduce and expand a new knowledge culture based in active users able to create, modify, search, communicate and share information and knowledge. This new role model differs from the conventional students and, in many cases, teachers found nowadays at our universities. In any case, the imminent arrival of the digital natives (Palfrey & Gasser 2008, Prensky 2001a,b) to university could revolutionize this situation, probably making easier the introduction of web 2.0 approaches but increasing the cultural gap between students and teachers.

b) Lack of an incentive system or perverse effects. This topic has been discussed above in relation to user changes. For instance, sometimes institutional strategies are designed with the goal of a global change, conducting to the adaptation of the complete university community in the short term. These approaches fail due to the institution inertia that impedes to develop adequate incentives with the required timing and/or to the excessive support to the reluctant users, giving a perverse example to the lead users.

c) Available pre-web 2.0 technology. Universities have made large investments during 1980 and the 90s to develop in-house or buy software platforms. This infrastructure could become a barrier more than an active. Most of this technology is starting a phase of accelerated obsolescence and has to be changed by tools available in the market (and in most cases at a very low cost), that have to be configured, integrated and remixed to create new applications or mashups adapted to the needs of local users. Low cost is in many cases a matter of distrust in the decision-makers, due to the misunderstandings that the concepts of free software and open source continue to generate. In many cases the best scenario to introduce web 2.0 could be the lack of technology, and we could paraphrase the classical question of Nicholas Carr (2004), IT doesn’t matter?, at least the traditional concept of IT.

d) Universities show in some cases a culture of aversion to innovation and entrepreneurship. Bureaucracy, governance, procedures for decision-making and inertia in large institutions are in many cases the worst environment for inside innovation and entrepreneurship. However, the adoption of technology and working methods associated with web 2.0 requires a high dose of experimentation and creativity.

4 Institutional fears of web 2.0Besides bottlenecks, web 2.0 challenges the core structure of universities creating important fears among the managers of the institutions. Probably, the ultimate

Page 17: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 15

causes of these fears are both 1) the implicit criticism to the traditional model of university respect to knowledge production and education and 2) the need for control and power of the IT departments that, as discussed above, are sometimes considered irrelevant in a “world 2.0”.

A recent report of Forrester Research (Koplowitz & Young 2007) identifies risks that an organization (the original report refers to enterprises) perceives associated to web 2.0: reliability, security, governance, compliance and privacy. These risks are associated to the uncontrolled entry of web 2.0 in institutions giving rise to a growing trend of “unsanctioned employee usage” and to some unintended consequences as violations of intellectual property and/or contracts (i.e., client, or student, data located outside of institutional firewalls). The response of some companies, establishing web 2.0 policies and usage guidelines could kill the opportunities provided by web 2.0, mainly its openness, producing a perverse effect of the reduction of users’ innovation.

Strategically the fears of web 2.0 illustrate the confrontation between trust and openness. Organizations have two competing needs: 1) visibility that obligates to be open to the exterior (and important efforts are made in marketing, communication and collaboration with external clients and partners) and 2) security and trust that obligates to restrict most of management and activities to the interior of the enterprise. Probably, new developments in social networks based in web 2.0 tools, i.e. Facebook, could be a potential useful solution to this compromise, because they provide the combination of web 2.0 tools used in a controlled environment (allowing a flexible system of restricting users and content).

Finally, web 2.0 posses some important infrastructural challenges to organizations; another side of the security vs. openness debate. How to provide a trusted system for key administrative and managerial processes allowing, at the same time, the exploratory and risky use that provides the most rewards with web 2.0? (Havenstein 2007). There are different proposals to solve this paradox with the deployment of a double physical network: one closed and designed for Internet 1.0 (for critical processes) and other open for web 2.0 allowing the development of social networks and a considerable dose of experimentation.

5 Elements for a strategy of web 2.0 adoption in universitiesThe adoption of a web 2.0 approach to learning in universities is a complex process confronting important technological, managerial and human barriers. For these reasons the design of a set of objectives and a strategy accepted and promoted by the managers,

especially those in charge of knowledge management, is absolutely needed. This first step requires in many cases radical cultural changes for people used to work and make decisions in a different scenario. The strategy should be supported for at least some of these elements:

a) Learning from previous and on-going experiences. Successful uses of web 2.0 are yet an experimental field where trial-and-error is the basic approach. A considerable base of experience is being developed (and shared) by lead users and organizations that could be mined by other interested parties to gain efficiency in their processes of adoption. Basically, we could find two sources of experience:

• Lead (or passionate) users inside the organization (Young 2007, Von Hippel 2005,). Instead of developing a learning platform with functionalities defined a priori, universities could let the community (teachers and students) explore, test and adapt tools. The institution should focus in the monitoring of this activity and the integration of the successful experiences, and associated tools and practices, in their platforms and procedures.

• Other organizations involved in the adoption of web 2.0 tools and open paradigms, especially other universities and research institutions and enterprises. Universities provide some excellent experiences. To cite only a few: MIT Open Course Ware; Stanford on iTunes U; the web 2.0 experiences of the Harvard Law School or the University of Warwick; the web 2.0 strategy and action plan developed in the University of Edinburgh, or the recent proposal of a Harvard Open Access Policy. In Spain, some universities are starting to explore the utility web 2.0 tools, but probably the most complete experiences are those of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya and of some business schools (for instance the communities of blogs and the master programs based in a blended model using intensively eLearning and web 2.0 tools of the Instituto de Empresa).

Institutions involved in research provide other interesting examples with cases as InnoCentive or Nature Web Publishing. As explained previously, in the case of Nature, the world’s most prestigious scientific journal (pertaining to a strong editorial group) is at the forefront of the innovative experiences in the use of web 2.0 for scientific communication and development of communities of interest.

b) Open access and use of contents. Web 2.0 is especially useful and creative when knowledge is digitized, modular and allowed to be used and distributed in a flexible way. New models of licences, as Creative Commons or ColorIuris, introduce this

Page 18: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200916

needed flexibility respect to the absolute restriction of uses and distribution that characterized copyright. The use of technological and social standards (i.e., formats of databases or the use of tagging to allow the discovery of pieces of information) is also especially relevant to make the information available in search engines and aggregators (basic tools to navigate the overabundance of information) and to allow its reuse in the different web 2.0 tools (Weinberger 2007).

c) Design the organization as an open platform for knowledge creation and sharing, both among members of the internal community and with the participation of external users. This proposal is a consequence of the experience of evolving organizations, academic, focused on research and companies (Chesbrough 2003, Tapscott & Williams 2006). The experiences with the management of business moving to an open model for innovation (similar to the uses proposed here for web 2.0 in universities) allow identifying three main benefits:

• Lowering costs using crowdsourcing (Freire 2008, Howe 2006), i.e., the external development of web 2.0 tools would reduce considerably the costs of IT infrastructure and software.

• Accelerating innovation and knowledge creation. The Internet has produced an exponential growth of available information, where the main cost for users is the searching and filtering of sources. In parallel, cycles of creation of new products and services, marketing and obsolescence are becoming shorter. An open approach is in many cases the only opportunity to keep both the user of information and knowledge and the enterprises in the course (The Economist 2006).

• Increasing creativity. The generation of new ideas, one of the main objectives of universities, benefits from open collaboration. Many enterprises have discovered in the last years that this process is more creative than the traditional developed inside de R+D departments.

Similarly to the evolutionary path followed by enterprises transforming in open platforms, universities approach web 2.0 in the first phase to reduce costs. However, successful enterprises enter a second phase where they transform in an open platform to increase innovation rate and creativity. This trend opens new threats: how to manage intellectual property?, how to compete being open? or how to manage human resources?

6 ConclusionsWeb 2.0 is an emergent key driver changing learning and organizative paradigms at universities. Besides technology, web 2.0 challenges intellectual property and transforms consumers into active users creating and curating knowledge. However, until now, universities have not made the needed efforts to adapt to the new needs of the network society and digital natives and immigrants studying and working there.

Different bottlenecks and fears could explain this lack of adaptation. Among the bottlenecks facing the universities for the integration of web 2.0 are: a) the rejection by the users, personnel and students, b) the lack of an incentive system, c) the available pre-web 2.0 technology, and d) universities show in some cases a culture of aversion to innovation and entrepreneurship. Complimentarily, universities show two main kinds of fears about the changes needed for web 2.0 adoption: 1) the implicit criticism that web 2.0 includes to the traditional model of university respect to knowledge production and education and 2) the need for control and power of the IT departments that are sometimes considered irrelevant in a “world 2.0”.

Due to those barriers, the adoption of a web 2.0 approach to learning in universities is a complex process confronting important technological, managerial and human barriers, and an adaptive strategy is needed that could be designed from previous experiences of educational, research and business organizations. This strategy could include the following lines:

a) Learning from previous and on-going experiences, before developing a priori technology and protocols inside the institutions. Both lead users inside the organization and other organizations adopting web 2.0 tools and paradigms should be especially useful.

b) Opening the access and use of contents. Web 2.0 is especially useful and creative when knowledge is digitized, modular and allowed to be used and distributed in a flexible way.

c) Designing organizations as open platforms for knowledge creation and sharing, both among members of the internal community and with the participation of external users.

Page 19: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 17

References

➜ Alexander B (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE Review41(2):32–44. http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm06/erm0621.asp

➜ Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, February 2007. Bristol: JISC. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

➜ Benkler Y (2006). The Wealth of Networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press. http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Main_Page

➜ Brown, J. S. & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. Educause Review 43(1):16–32. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf

➜ Baldwin CY & Clark KB (2000). Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press.

➜ Carr N (2004). Does IT Matter? Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business School Press.

➜ Chesbrough HW (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.

➜ Freire J (2008). El crowdsourcing y los modelos abiertos en la era digital. In, El futuro es tuyo. La revolución social de las personas. Red.es. http://www.blogbook.es/

➜ Fumero A & G Roca (2007). Web 2.0. Madrid: Fundación Orange. http://www.fundacionorange.es/areas/25_publicaciones/WEB_DEF_COMPLETO.pdf

➜ Hannay T (2007). The Web Opportunity. STM News. June’07. http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent/2007/06/post.html

➜ Havenstein H (2007). IT is a key barrier to corporate Web 2.0 adoption, users say. ComputerWorld. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9034898

➜ Howe J (2006). The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired 14-06. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html

➜ Koplowitz R & GO Young (2007). Web 2.0 Social Computing Dresses Up For Business. Forrester Research. http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,41867,00.html

➜ Lessig L (2004). Free Culture. Penguin Press.

➜ Nature (2006). Editorial: Peer review and fraud. Nature 444:971-972. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/full/444971b.html

➜ OECD (2007). Participative Web and User-Created Content. Web 2.0, Wikis, and Social Networking. Paris: OECD. http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9307031E.pdf

➜ O’Reilly T (2005). What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://www.oreillynet.com/go/web2

➜ Palfrey J & U Gasser (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. Basic Books.

➜ Prensky M (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5).

➜ Prensky M (2001b). Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon 9(6).

➜ Shirky C (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin Press.

➜ Tapscott D & AD Williams (2006). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Portfolio.

➜ The Economist (2006). Special Report. Innovation: Something new under the sun. Oct 11th 2007. http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9928154

➜ Von Hippel E (2005). Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press. http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm

➜ Weber S (2005). The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press.

➜ Weinberger D (2007). Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. Times Books.

➜ Young GO (2007). Passionate Employees: The Gateway To Enterprise Web 2.0 Sales. Forrester Research. http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,43106,00.html

➜ Zittrain J (2006). The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review 119:1974-2040. http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/119/may06/zittrain.pdf

Page 20: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200918

Virtual action learning: what is going on?

Mollie Dickenson Research Project ManagerHenley Business School, University of [email protected]

Mike Pedler Professor of Action LearningHenley Business School, University of Reading

John BurgoyneProfessor of Management LearningHenley Business School, University of Reading

Summary Whilst there is extensive and growing literature in online and networked learning (e.g. McConnell, 2000) and in research and practice on face-to-face (f2f ) action learning (AL) (Pedler et al, 2005), there appears to be very little reported or anecdotal evidence of the virtual variety. Yet with the development of communication technologies such as groupware, videoconferencing and the internet changing working and learning practices, virtual action learning (VAL) might have been seen to be flourishing as the natural successor to AL. This paper presents the findings of on-going research at Henley Business School which aimed to explore current practice and identify the critical enabling factors for this emerging form of action learning.

At the start of the inquiry, October 2006, existing technologies for VAL seemed very limited in what they could deliver and suggested a simple 6-form model of potential ways of VAL. In less than 2 years, there have been considerable advances both in technological developments and in the levels of usage. What was cumbersome is becoming more accessible, more user-friendly yet sophisticated and is increasingly offering viable alternatives to f2f collaboration. However, despite these technological advances, with more examples of VAL practice going on than we thought, simple technologies such as e-mail and audio-conferencing are proving successful.

VAL emerges as a variety of action learning in its own right with its own strengths and weaknesses. The practitioners of the various approaches to VAL frequently assert different potential benefits from this way of doing AL. Just as VAL should not necessarily be measured against f2f AL, so one must caution against making assumptions that any one form is necessarily better than any other, even where communication possibilities appear to be restricted. Opinion is divided on whether VAL is a substitute for f2f AL or whether it has advantages that may lead it to being preferred over it. These arguments await further research and exploration.

Keywords Case study; collaborative; blended; learning, f2f, virtual action leaning, VAL, second life

1 Introduction: What do we mean by Virtual Action Learning?Virtual action learning (VAL) is an emerging variety of action learning practice (Pedler et al, 2005). In action learning, people come together to share ideas and experiences to help tackle real, work-based problems or issues which can effect change in the individual and the organisation. An emergent virtual variety, with its capability of bringing together individuals geographically dispersed within and across organisations to engage in action learning, has obvious potential in both educational and organisational contexts as a means of individual and organisational development in the global context.

But despite this potential, it appears to be under-exploited. In contrast, f2f action learning (AL) has been a growing influence in management education and development in the UK since its origins in Revans’ pioneering approach in the coal industry of the 1940s and 50s (Revans, 1982, pp 30 –55) and especially since a major initiative undertaken in the UK General Electric

Company in 1975 (Casey & Pearce, 1977). From these origins, AL has proved to be a highly adaptable philosophy, discipline or approach which has resisted precise definition whilst generating many variations in practice in different organizational and educational contexts across the world (e.g. Cusins, 1995; Smith, 2001; Marquardt, 2003; Pauleen & Yoong, 2004; Poell et al, 2005).

As an emerging variety of AL practice, we define VAL as:

‘... action learning which takes place in a virtual environment, rather than f2f, via a range of enabling, interactive and collaborative communication technologies’

The opportunity for VAL arises from a confluence of three distinct developments: technological advances; globalisation; and a shift towards context-sensitive, work-based approaches to individual and organisational development. Technological advances, particularly the development of interactive and social communication technologies, have made virtual working much easier. The growth in size and extent

Page 21: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 19

of global corporations has made virtual team working increasingly necessary and common, with a greater reliance on virtual teams to solve organisational problems (Gill & Birchall, 2004), which is predicted to become even more prevalent (Paré & Dubé, 1999). VAL can also be seen as emerging in parallel with the virtualisation of many aspects of work, organisation and life, as an example of Bowles’s (1975) correspondence theory, which argues that educational practice mirrors the social, cultural and economic conditions of its era - for example, just as the Victorian classroom looked like a room full of clerks’ desks, so virtual learning mirrors emerging virtual work practices.

However, whilst technology and educational thinking have developed greatly, educational practice has been slow to adapt to changing ideas about learning, knowledge and its accessibility (Hodgson, 2000, p 4). A lack of understanding of constructionist theories in the design of networked learning is compounded by lack of experience and training in using new technologies to support these approaches. The potential of VAL to address these issues, the lack of evidence of its existence, yet anecdotal interest in it, present the justification to find out whether it is happening and in what way?

The research comprised a literature review, interviews with practitioners and the identification of 20 case examples of VAL practice. The findings detail several varieties of VAL practice and a discussion of the skills and capabilities required in facilitating this form of action learning. A 6 -form model of VAL specifies a range of contexts and frameworks in current use.

2 Varieties of VAL practiceOur findings show that VAL is not a single form but a family of virtual approaches using different technologies and temporalities, all sharing a common allegiance to an action learning way of working (Revans, 1998). A 6-form model of VAL describes this variety based upon the communication media used - text, voice or visual - and how the set meeting takes place, either synchronously or asynchronously (Figure 1).

However, a detailed examination of 20 cases found soon reveals a complexity beyond the simplicities of this model. For example, the three types of media used - text, voice and visual – are sometimes used alone and sometimes together; the first two of these can be and are often used alone, whereas visual always includes audio and sometimes text. Similarly, whilst the terms synchronous and asynchronous are apparently well understood, the question arises: how synchronous is synchronous? For example, with regard to Form 2, text messaging, there is the issue of delays in responses. We classed as synchronous all instant messaging and discussion forums where participants were all online at the same time and responses were more or less immediate, whereas, where participants were not online at the same time and responses were delayed as in e-mail and other forms of threaded text messaging, we classed as asynchronous. Additionally, synchronous and asynchronous approaches are sometimes used in combination; and all forms of VAL can be used in combination with or alongside f2f action learning.

Nevertheless, despite the complexities, the 6-form classification remains useful; first to demonstrate that there is no single VAL practice but many variations;

Figure 1: A 6-Form Model of VAL

Temporality

Technology medium

SYNCHRONOUS(participant interaction is simultaneous, i.e within the same finite time period)

ASYNCHRONOUS(participant interaction is delayed, i.e. at different time periods)

Text Form 1:Instant messaging e.g online

Form 2:E-mailText messaging in delayed threaded discussions e.g bulletin boards

Audio Form 3:Live tele/audio confOnline discussion forumsOnline chat rooms

Form 4:Audio recordings, e.g. podcasts and recorded voice messages

Visual Form 5:Video/web-based conferencing

Form 6:Video recordings

Page 22: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200920

and also that these categories describe some very distinct alternatives. Just as the efficacy of VAL should not necessarily be measured against that of f2f action learning, it should not be assumed, that for example, Form 5 – Visual/Synchronous - is necessarily better than Form 3 - Audio Conferencing - or Form 2 - Text messaging. As the practitioners of these approaches frequently assert, there are different potential benefits and costs involved, which make such simple comparisons invalid.

Our findings also add an additional dimension to the model. We found one case – as yet unreported – of a VAL trial conducted in the 3D virtual world, Second Life, in 2007 by a PhD candidate at the University of Southern Queensland, which sits outside our 6-form model. Two further examples have subsequently come to light (Sanders & McKeown, 2008; Arrowsmith et al, 2003). 3D (three dimensional) virtual worlds are computer-simulated environments which attempt to follow real world rules such as gravity, topography, locomotion, real-time actions and communication; which has until recently been in text only but now direct communication is also available using Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP). Some, such as Second Life, enable user interactions through “avatars” (computer-created graphical representations of people).

Sanders & McKeown (2008) describe a collaboration between the University of Southern Queensland and the Appalachian State University, USA, which they say reconceptualised the teaching of a library sciences course, combining the pedagogy of AL with a 3D virtual learning environment (Activeworlds, Inc.) in order to support interaction and reflection. The authors says ‘the student’s ability to see other avatars and interact with them encourages serendipitous interactions and promotes a greater sense of presence and co-presence than other text-based learning management systems’ (p 51).

Arrowsmith et al (2003) describe a virtual field trip designed for teaching and learning geospatial science at RMIT University, Australia. Using Macromedia software linked to a distributed learning system built around the Blackboard online platform, interactive computer-based exercises are combined with a series of embedded interactive questions relating to the learning objectives. They say that this facilitated action learning and action research, but qualify their interpretation of AL (with reference to Michael & Modell, 2003) as incorporating active learning which establishes a learning environment which students are actively engaged in building, testing and refining mental models.

Some views are already being expressed that 3D virtual worlds offer potential benefits as learning environments and have some advantages over f2f situations. Fans

of Second Life, for example, say it engages distance learners in a way that e-mail, instant messaging and chatrooms do not quite manage: “It replaces that sense of immediacy that you have in real life.” (Dr Rory Ewins, Edinburgh University in an article in The Guardian by Shepherd, 2007) However, he also notes that “It is early days, and at the moment we are comparing it with e-mail communication …rather than f2f ”. From the same article, a student of Second Life says: “It can bring distance learners together in what feels like a closer physical relationship than other online technologies. I think that collaborative activities are possible in Second Life that aren’t in other online learning situations”; while one 3D character said: “hiding behind your avatar…makes you feel more confident and involved”.

3 Illustrative Cases of VALThe twenty cases examples found illustrate the varieties of VAL shown in Table 1.

Burns (2001) (Form 3) reports on a ’virtual action learning set’ using audio-conferencing in British Telecom (BT). This comprised 6 facilitated audio-conferences of up to 2.5 hours in length over a 3-month period. The author suggests that it may be the first recorded example of an action learning set using audio conferencing and is one of the first published accounts to use the term VAL.

A second, well-articulated case confirms the validity and technological simplicity of the audio-conferencing approach. The authors strongly assert the merits of this approach in its own right and cite various advantages over f2f AL:

Caulat (interview and see Caulat & De Haan, 2006) describe their approach as ‘audio action learning’ for sets which follow f2f programmes at Ashridge Management College in the UK, and with sets comprising globally dispersed clients of Ashridge Consulting, participants of which in some instances, but not all, never meet each other or the set facilitator.

E-mail (Form 2) is another simple and reliable technology that can be used for VAL:

Birch (interview) describes the evolution of action learning via e-mail as part of CPD programmes for health professionals run by the University of Brighton. This case is distinctive because the action learning idea was unknown to those concerned when they developed the process as a result of trying to deliver CPD programmes remotely to participants in a range of countries (UK, Canada, Tokyo, New Zealand and Australia). When the course developers discovered the idea of action learning, this encouraged then to improve their approach to virtual group working and to be more

Page 23: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 21

confident to letting go of control over content. Virtual action learning via e-mail now forms the basis of an 18-month qualification programme. Like Caulat & De Haan, Birch notes that his participants prefer simpler and robust technologies over more sophisticated but less reliable options.

Most case examples of VAL show it as part of a mix or blend of technologies in use, including f2f AL. There are several examples of web-based sets in conjunction with educational programmes:

DeWolfe Waddill (2006) describes a web-based application on a 5-week course via an e-learning instructional delivery method (“Action E-Learning”). In a prescribed format of week-long discussion cycles, each person posted their issues and put up questions about the other set members’ issues; in the 2nd half of the week people responded to their questions and received more questions. A second week-long cycle followed in which participants could re-post their issue or reframe it based on what had transpired online. The process was facilitated by the author asking questions about learning and supplying resources and information. She concludes that this way of doing action learning has several advantages over f2f meetings.

One of the most ambitious examples we found combined f2f action learning with a range of virtual support processes and technologies

Roche & Vernon (2003) describe a pilot project called ‘Electronic Advanced Learning Sets’ designed to create a virtual learning community for health service managers distributed around remote areas of Western Australia to support service improvement and CPD. Clear preferences again emerged with regard to technologies; f2f was preferred to virtual working, and e-mail and tele-conferencing were preferred to video-conferencing because of access and technology problems.

4 VAL vs. AL?Opinion is divided on whether VAL is a substitute for f2f AL (“the next best thing to f2f ”) where this is impossible or too expensive, or whether this is a new and developing variety of action learning with characteristic advantages that may lead it to be chosen in preference even when f2f AL is also available.

Most of our case study respondents could cite certain advantages which they discerned in VAL. These included:

− “some things work better on the phone if the discipline is there”.

− “Not having eye contact can help with clarification”

− as permitting ‘continuous set meetings’

− the asynchronous online process allows managers time for to reflection without appearing indecisive

− the slower pace enables the questioner to ‘design and examine the question before submitting it’

− the slower and more measured communication allows participants ‘have more time to notice the questions being asked, to think, and to write down’

− it enables individualised attention online from ‘colleagues’ and the ‘learning coach’

− it may facilitate joint working on tasks - ‘I think it could be useful to do things graphically on screen together and capture it’

− it may promote disciplined turn-taking: ‘I think it can work, and may have some special advantages, both practical and in terms of being more disciplined in turn taking’

− participants develop variety of skills in written expression, reflection and question formation

− the process stimulates the virtual workplace and participants learn how to work in a virtual team with agreed norms and netiquette any by asking questions before making statements.

Some, notably Caulat & De Haan (2006), assert these advantages more strongly and make out a case for VAL as a preferred approach.

5 The facilitation of VALThe facilitation of VAL emerges as a crucial aspect of the process in all our cases and is a preoccupation in many of the published accounts of VAL. The impression is that facilitation is perhaps more important in VAL than in f2f AL, especially in the early stages.

Setting up VAL involves both setting up AL and the enabling communication technologies that distinguish VAL from AL. Some authors highlight the time and effort needed setting up the VAL process, (although this can also be the case in f2f AL). Some authors think that there is no fundamental difference between f2f and e-facilitation competencies, but most suggest that special skills are especially in terms of managing the technology and in managing the AL process within the virtual environment, which includes such skills as helping participants to:

− understand the expectations regarding collaboration

− appropriately self-disclose and share confidences online

− build the rapport, trust and expertise in the virtual environment

Page 24: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200922

− develop virtual communication skills such as higher levels of listening, the ability to sense what others are feeling without visual clues and the restriction on dialogue caused by a lack of non-verbal cues and a reduction in the exchange of socio-emotional information

− develop reflexivity and social knowledge construction via unpacking and deconstructing the words develop the collective ability to reflect publicly on-line

Given the variety of VAL forms, it is perhaps not surprising that some distinctive stances and styles of facilitation emerge from this research. Whilst multiple stances and styles of facilitation also characterise f2f AL, the alternative technologies for VAL may amplify these differences. Caulat & De Haan (2006) for example teaches her participants specific skills and practices in order that they may work successfully in audio action learning sets which are sometimes stranger groups without any f2f experience of each other. Burns (2001) by contrast, using the same technology but with a group who already know each other, takes a more traditional f2f AL facilitator role as his model, whilst detailing several new skill requirements. DeWolfe Waddill (2006) takes a directive and teaching role in a higher education setting whilst Powell (2001) takes on more of the initiator role who aims to leave his sets to choose to continue in a self-supporting mode.

6 ConclusionGiven the apparently scarce evidence of VAL practice when we embarked on this enquiry, we have uncovered an increasing amount of activity, not all of it called VAL or set up expressly for the purpose of doing action learning virtually. At the start of this research, October 2006, existing technologies for Form 5 VAL (synchronous visual) seemed very limited in what they could deliver. At the time of writing (July 2008), there have been considerable advances both in technological developments and in the levels of usage. What was cumbersome is becoming more accessible, more user-friendly yet sophisticated and is increasingly offering viable alternatives to f2f collaboration.

From the cases examined, and with the technologies currently available, VAL is evolving within 4 of our 6 forms, with the majority of cases occurring in Form 2 – asynchronous text. This is the only asynchronous form in evidence; perhaps not surprisingly there are no examples found of Forms 4 and 6 – asynchronous audio or visual ie use of recordings. What is surprising is the predominance of asynchronous text amongst our cases, perhaps reflecting the ease of use, the relatively low demands on time and the wide availability of access that this medium allows.

This is connected to another finding, that where technology is concerned, it is often a case of the simpler and more robust the better. This is apparent both from the literature and from conversations with respondents and case accounts, for example with both audio conferencing and text messaging. VAL is not necessarily dependent on more sophisticated or combined technical solutions because these single technologies have proved effective. As Birch (Case 3 Interview 2007) notes: ‘Compared to other technologies none have worked anywhere near as well as e-mail” and “it needs to be easy and to be easy quickly”.

Another surprise is that, contrary to our expectations and much of the literature reviewed, meeting f2f first is not necessarily essential for effective virtual collaboration. Whilst this must be a very tentative finding given the slimness of the evidence available, the cases here where VAL exists without an f2f element, report as much success as those that are supplemented by f2f meetings.

VAL emerges as a variety of action learning in its own right with its own strengths and weaknesses. As noted above, the practitioners of the various approaches to VAL frequently assert different potential benefits from this way of doing AL. Just as VAL should not necessarily be measured against f2f AL, so we must caution against making assumptions that any one form is necessarily better than any other, even where communication possibilities appear to be restricted. Opinion is divided on whether VAL is a substitute for f2f AL or whether it has advantages that may lead it to being preferred over f2f AL. These arguments await further research and exploration.

7 ProspectsIt is likely that easily available laptop-based netmeeting software will emerge soon, and with it a sustainable delivery platform for Form 5 VAL. This could presage a massive increase in the use of such technologies for all sorts of virtual meetings, including VAL. The rapid technological developments suggest that VAL will flourish in circumstances where f2f AL is difficult or expensive or as an alternative with its own advantages as claimed by some respondents. However, although VAL has obvious potential in the global context for both education and organisational development programmes, it appears currently under-exploited. One explanation for this may be found in correspondence theory (Bowles, 1975), as already mentioned in the Introduction, that educational practice mirrors work practices. This leaves the question: which drives which? Does educational practice change work practices, or follow it? Although educationalists might like to believe the former, if anything, the latter seems more true.

Page 25: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 23

In terms of higher education and business schools, the possibilities afforded by this confluence of technological advances; globalisation; and a shift towards context-sensitive, work-based approaches to learning, are considerable, especially for those who can adapt their teaching and learning approaches. Current trends in higher education are moving from more didactic content delivery towards constructionist student-centred models, with an increasing emphasis on the skills that support independent, self-motivated learning (Hobbs et al, 2006): a trend Hobbs says (reported at length in the Tavistock report (Cullen et al, 2002)) is increasingly facilitated by dedicated educational software to create virtual learning environments (VLEs) which provide access to online materials as well as supporting collaborative learning by providing areas where students can comment, contribute and share their learning.

For business schools in particular the quality of the learning experience is a key differentiator in a global marketplace. Surveys suggest that whilst client organisations increasingly utilise “context specific” methods such as action learning, coaching and mentoring in their own internal development practice, or in the services they buy from consultants, many business schools continue to rely upon more traditional methods (Thomson et al, 1997; Mabey & Thomson, 2000; Horne & Steadman Jones, 2001). Such methods

persist despite growing criticism (Mintzberg, 2004) perhaps because Business School staff lack the skills associated with the newer approaches. Whilst some staff are aware of the newer learning theories that provide the theoretical underpinning for action learning approaches, this is not usually reflected in their practice. (Hodgson, 2000; CEML Reports 2002)

A viable VAL model would create a number of opportunities for commercial and educational providers as part of the move from disseminational to more dialogical approaches to learning. In such contexts, VAL could facilitate various possibilities, for example:

− providing an on-the-job link between theory-based teaching and the actual business problems faced by participants

− providing in-organisation or consortial cross-organisational learning sets on a local or global basis

− offering Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

− helping organisations develop internal capacity to deal with problem-solving and innovation.

With increasing numbers of people embracing the internet, and employers wanting informal, flexible learning experiences for their employees, focusing on the needs of their business, VAL can be a cost-effective solution.

References

➜ Arrowsmith, C, Counihan, A and McGreevy, D (2003) Development of a multi-scaled virtual field trip for the teaching and learning of geospatial science. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 1 (3), 42-56.

➜ Bowles, S. and Ginnitis, H (1975) Schooling in Capitalist America. London: Routledge.

➜ Burns, P (2001) Report on a virtual action learning set. Action Learning News, 20 (2), 2-7.

➜ Casey, D and Pearce, E (1977) (eds) More than management development: Action learning at GECI. Aldershot: Gower.

➜ Caulat, G and De Haan, E (2006b) Virtual peer consultation: How virtual leaders learn. Organization & People, 13 (4), 24-32.

➜ CEML Reports (2002) http://www.managementandleadershipcouncil.org/

➜ Cullen, J, Hadjivassiliou, E, Hamilton, E, Kellerher, J, Sommerlad, E, Stern E (2002) Review of current pedagogic research and practice in the fields of post-compulsory education and lifelong learning. Final Report to the Economic and Social Research Council by the Tavistock Institute http://www/tlrp.org/pub/acadpub/Tavistockreport.pdf

➜ Cusins, P (1995) Action learning revisited. Industrial and Commercial Training. 27(4), pp 3-10.

➜ DeWolfe Waddill, D (2006) Action e-learning: an exploratory case study of action learning applied online. Human Resource Development International, 9 (2), 157-171.

➜ Gill, J and Birchall, D (2004) Trust in virtual teams – a framework for management research and action. HWP 0406, Henley Management College.

➜ Hobbs, M, Brown, E and Gordon, M (2006) Using a virtual world for transferable skills in gaming education. Virtual world environments: http://www.ics.heacacademy.ac.uk

➜ Hodgson, V (2000) Changing Concepts of the Boundaries within ODL Paper presented at Networked Learning 2000 Conference, University of Lancaster.

Page 26: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200924

➜ Horne, M and Steadman Jones, D (2001) Leadership: the challenge for all? London: Institute of Management & Demos.

➜ Mabey, C & Thomson, A (2000) The determinants of management development. British Journal of Management (11) Special issue 1, S3-S16.

➜ Marquardt, M J (2003) Developing global leaders via action learning programs: A case study at Boeing. Thai Journal of Public Administration, 3 (3), 133-157.

➜ McConnell, D (2000) Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning. 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page.

➜ Michael, J A and Modell, H I Active learning in secondary and college science classrooms – a working model for helping the learner. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

➜ Mintzberg, H (2004) Managers Not MBAs. London: Financial Times, Prentice Hall

➜ Paré G, and Dubé L (1999) Virtual teams: an exploratory study of key challenges and strategies. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.

➜ Pauleen, D J and Yoong, P (2004) Studying human-centred IT innovation using a grounded action learning approach. The Qualitative Report, 9 (1), 137-160.

➜ Pedler, M, Burgoyne J and Brook C (2005) What has action learning learned to become? Action Learning: Research & Practice, 2 (1), 49-68.

➜ Poell, R, Yorks, L and Marsick, V (2005) Conducting action-learning research from a cross-cultural multi-theory perspective: theory and data from the US and the Netherlands. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development, Estes Park, CO, 26 February.

➜ Powell, J A (2001) European virtual learning for innovation in small and medium enterprises – a British case study of higher education helping small and medium sized contractors. Salford University.

➜ Revans, R W (1982) The origins and growth of action learning. Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt Ltd.

➜ Revans, R W (1998) ABC of Action Learning. London: Lemos & Crane.

➜ Roche, V and Vernon, M (2003) Developing a virtual learning community of managers in rural and remote health services. Proceedings of the 7th National Rural Health Conference, Hobart.

➜ Sanders, R L and McKeown, L (2008) Promoting reflection through action learning in a 3D virtual world. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2 (1), 50-55.

➜ Shepherd, J (2007) It’s a world of possibilities. The Guardian, 8 May.

➜ Smith, P A C (2001) Action learning and reflective practice in project environments that are related to leadership development. Management Learning, 32 (1) pp 31-48.

➜ Thomson, A, Storey, J, Mabey, C, Farmer, E and Thomson, R (1997) A Portrait of Management Development London: Institute of Management.

Page 27: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 25

Reflections on sustaining Open Educational Resources: an institutional case studyAndy Lane Director, OpenLearnThe Open University, [email protected]

Summary This paper reviews some of the literature on the sustainability of Open Educational Resources (OER) and what it has to say about successful or sustainable open content projects on the internet. It goes on to argue that OER need to be considered with respect to the different types of economy – market, public and social – that operate for educational materials in particular and education in general. The paper then examines what sustainability means to different actors in these economies and the relationships between them, notably within organisations, between organisations and amongst communities and individuals, but not within or with political institutions. This is followed by a case study of one project within one higher educational organization: OpenLearn at The Open University in the UK.

The case study outlines the objectives of the OpenLearn project; notes its relationship to The Open University’s mission; lists the major internal and external benefits that have arisen from the project and sets out the future directions for the project. These traits are then compared with some key factors for successful projects listed in Guthrie et al (2008). The paper concludes by looking at the different sources of funding for OER projects and issues of both financial and social sustainability. It notes that sustainability for these projects, at least within organizations, depends upon the activity fitting closely with the goals of the organization such that most of the activity is absorbed into existing systems and practices. It also argues that they can act as a test bed for extending activities and securing a mix of new or improved funding streams.

Keywords OER, distance learning, open educational resources, OpenLearn, Open University, content, educational materials

1 IntroductionOpen educational resources (OERs) have become a significant feature in discourses about the future of education, and higher education in particular (Atkins et al, 2007; Geser, 2007; OECD, 2007). Many institutions and other organisations have actively created and published such resources over the past few years, following the lead of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with their Open CourseWare initiative (MIT, 2008) and the prior inception of Creative Commons’ licences1. Currently the majority of OERs are the products of single institutions, such as MIT, but some are more community based such as Connexions2 and WikiEducator3, albeit with the publishing infrastructure supported by particular institutions. And what nearly all these activities have in common is that they have relied in part on the support of charitable organisations, most notably The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (Hewlett, 2008) to happen. While charitable organisations are continuing to pump prime a variety of OER initiatives, they also expect that such initiatives will have to become self sustaining as they will not provide recurrent funding, and this issue of sustainability has also been a significant feature of many reports (e.g. Geser, 2007) and papers (e.g. Wiley, 2006).

This paper both reviews and adds to the debate about why OERs need sustaining and what might constitute sustainability with reference to different types of activity and economies. It will then go on to examine the strategy for sustainability in a specific higher education case study, that of OpenLearn at The Open University in the United Kingdom, and finish with a wider review of the sources of funding available to OER initiatives.

2 Why publish open educational resources?Open educational resources are championed as a public good, with those supporting them believing that knowledge used for educational purposes should be freely available to all at no or minimal cost (OECD, 2007; Hewlett, 2008). This is in contrast to the use of knowledge and ideas to create products and services that are sold for commercial gain and where there is some protection in law to generators of those products and services about others using their knowledge and ideas without due payment. I have argued elsewhere that the former is largely operating in a social economy and the latter in a market economy, with both being mediated by a public economy (Lane, 2008a). The social economy usually involves a social exchange rather than a monetary exchange where, most often, it is people’s time and personal knowledge/experience that

1 www.creativecommons.org2 www.cnx.org3 www.wikieducator.org

Page 28: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200926

is brought to bear on a common need. Alternatively it involves an individual or organizational monetary exchange (a gift or donation) to another organization that provides a social exchange service on behalf of the donors, albeit by working with the market and public economies.

Gifts are not always wanted and not always useful to the intended recipient, so if OERs are to be more than a grand vanity publishing exercise by some organizations that makes the donor at least feel good, what is the higher goal donors want to achieve? My view is that it is to open up education, particularly higher education, and help alleviate the disparities in access to educational provision not yet achieved by the market, public policy and even current social programmes. Much current educational provision is closed or partly closed off due to the economics of scarcity and the paucity of public policy on these issues (Lane, 2008a).

3 How can we make open educational resources sustainable?So, if we are talking about the opening up of education, with OERs as one, possibly major, factor in this, this begs the question of what is being sustained, for whom and by whom?

Sustainability within organizations Currently most OERs are generated by Educational organizations, usually Universities, using new or existing grant funding to do so. Even where there are other types of organizations publishing (or using) OERs it is important to determine whether the activity is central or marginal to the existing mission of the organization and whether it is there simply to maintain existing activity, albeit in a new form, or to act as an incubator or test bed for a new activity that serves the mission in previously unthought-of ways. In other words how do OERs fit both with organizational strategy and with organizational practices?

As outlined by Wiley (2006), the sustainability of OER projects in Universities will be achieved by making OERs part of the normal fabric of the University’s business, whether that is around teaching and learning, research and/or business and community engagement activities. If the activity is seen as a nice-to-have one rather than a must-have one then it will always be fighting for attention and resources. But to be a must-have one, the activity has got to provide benefits or value to customers/users/members of the organization that in turn provide benefits or value to the organization. Such benefits or value may be monetary but may equally be reputational as discussed below. Similar issues of the importance of institutional strategy are also discussed in an OECD report (OECD,

2007) and the OLCOS Roadmap (Geser, 2007); and have been reported on in even more depth in a recent study looking at the sustainability of a wider array of open academic resources than just open educational resources (Guthrie et al, 2008).

Guthrie et al (2008) argue for a change in mindset on the part of OER project leaders and list 8 key factors to take note of:

1. Assuming that grant funding will always be available is not likely to lead to a successful sustainability plan.

2. Project leaders need to adopt a more comprehensive definition of ‘sustainability’.

3. The value of a project is quantified by the benefits it creates for users – what it allows them to do that they could not do before.

4. Project leaders need to consider a range of options for long-term governance.

5. The web is a highly competitive environment.

6. Leaders must also embrace the fact that their environment is rapidly changing.

7. Running a start-up is a full-time job and requires full-time leadership.

8. Innovation depends on experimentation, and project leaders should embrace the fact that there are generally no straightforward solutions.

I will return to these points later in this paper when looking at OpenLearn4 at The Open University in the United Kingdom as a case study.

Sustainability between organizations While all the above has focused on sustainability within organizations, we also have to recognize that the sustainability of OERs may also be dependent on a thriving and healthy OER movement (social or public market place) where there is full and open sharing and collaboration between organizations and with individual users of OERs.

Open educational resources offer potential benefits to educational institutions, individual teachers and both formal and non-formal learners. The size and scale of these benefits are yet to be fully determined, but the size and scale of the educational challenge worldwide is vast and will require much greater efficiency and effectiveness in teaching and learning policies and practices in the coming years and decades. Recent experiences in Higher Education in the UK indicate that successful change will require a mixture of both competition and collaboration (known as coopetition5); in that individual institutions do not have sufficient wherewithal to meet these needs alone but where some

Page 29: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 27

competition for funding, students and staff forces institutions to closely examine the programmes they offer and the support services they provide.

To date most collaboration around OERs has been on a bilateral basis between educational institutions not directly competing with each other. The open and free sharing philosophy behind OERs directly creates an informal multilateral relationship unless all but the first movers decide not to cooperate by entering the ‘marketplace’ of OERs. Even if there are no informal or formal institutional relationships, some individuals will be tempted into sharing materials as it is so much a part of academic culture (this is beginning to happen within OpenLearn’s LabSpace6 –as well as being central to Connexions and WikiEducator). But although individuals may dominate the transactions or exchanges in the ‘common’ market place many will do so as a representative or employee of an organization that may benefit from the exchange as much as the individual.

Projects and programmes that involve others will provide financial benefits if they are able to reduce the cost of developing educational content which an individual or organization employs in its courses and programmes and also expand the curriculum areas it covers to those for which there is not significant demand, since currently large numbers of students are needed to help justify the investment in such educational content and recoup the costs of delivering them. However, there is a high transaction cost associated with partnerships and/or other forms of collaboration and managing partnerships is a capability that is required within organizations as well as the capacity to act on agreed joint activities.

Two main paths are likely for organizational involvement (they are not mutually exclusive). The first is that a sufficiently large ‘volunteer’ community of professional or semi professional educators will continue to develop, refine and add to a growing worldwide bank of OERs in an open source software-like mode because they individually benefit from this collective activity (e.g. Connexions). Their employers are happy for this to happen and activity to even take place in paid time because the teaching and learning at their institution improves from these high quality materials and support network. The second is that institutions, supported by politicians, become the main developers and exchangers of OERs, in order to provide public policy and social benefits for the country in which they mainly operate. There have been attempts to do this in more restricted ways such as with the JISC7 supported JORUM website in the UK, which is now going to be made more open (Jorum, 2008).

Of course, it can be argued that with sufficient organizations contributing to and taking from the educational commons, most of these transaction costs will be greatly reduced, but this is only likely to be so if content is the only thing being exchanged and there are no other goals associated with the collaboration such as reaching a particular excluded group or teaching a particular topic; which brings us on to the eventual beneficiaries of OERs – individual learners.

Sustainability amongst communities and/or individuals A major issue here is whether most people, most of the time will interact with OERs as self interested individuals or as part of a community of interest or practice. And is that interaction a simple transactional one of seeking to learn from or with the OER and related tools and services (a consumption approach) or is it to engage in new ways with other learners and not just to seek information (a contributory approach)?

In part the approach adopted will reflect the desires of the learners and whether they make seeking personal benefits as a primary or a secondary consideration. If the former dominates then there is likely to be much greater interest in paying for value added services or access to more content than is available free. If the latter dominates then they are being more virtuous and seeking to contribute to a common good where they get value from contributing to the common project.

Successful communities basically need to be self organizing and sustaining without continued third party involvement as with Wikipedia, Ebay and Flickr (although most of these communities depend on simple one or two way exchanges with minimal social interaction). That does not mean there is not some type of organizing body but it is one that manages the environment in which the many individuals and communities can collaborate (e.g. Connexions and WikiEducator). Communities for open education could be, for example, groups of individuals, groups of institutions and voluntary groups. A successful community will most likely be a community of interest around a topic, a discipline or an issue but some may be construed as communities of practice where it involves professional or semi-professional practitioners. The latter is needed to get open education started but it should be the communities of interest that dominate in the long term. However in all cases a large enough community of users is needed.

Another point to make is that most of the exchanges in this ‘common’ market place for education will probably highlight very asymmetric relationships. Most teachers are learners but many learners do not want to act as teachers even if given the opportunity. Indeed most participants will act as learners and a minority act as

4 www.open.ac.uk/openlearn5 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition6 www.open.ac.uk/labspace7 www.jisc.ac.uk

Page 30: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200928

teachers. Few learners will probably produce significant de novo (even remixed) teaching material (in the sense of being a creator of a sense making narrative) as opposed to augmenting existing materials with comments, essays, questions etc (as a co-learner). All markets and/or commons see variable engagement with them on the part of all potential users.

Sustainability for political institutionsPolitical institutions can help or hinder economies through public funding and/or the regulation of activity. I will return to the issue of funding later but am not going to say much more about regulation as it is not particularly relevant to the case study.

4 OpenLearn at The Open University: a case studyFollowing the emergence of OERs as a new activity, most notably the launch of MIT’s OpenCourseWare project supported by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation , strategic discussions were promoted by the Vice Chancellor and a Review Group convened to assess how the University should adapt to something that fits so closely with the University’s mission (Gourley and Lane, 2008). The Review Group submitted a report to the University’s Academic Board and Council in mid 2005, both of which fully supported its recommendation to establish a major OER project. A Planning Group was then established that devised the project proposal that was subsequently submitted to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation8 in early 2006 (Stage1). The Foundation granted the University a substantial sum to establish an Open Content Initiative over 2 years at The Open University, known as Stage 2 (The Open University, 2006; 2007). We are now in Stage 3, building upon this initial work and using other sources of funding.

This 2 year Stage 2 began in April 2006 and became known as OpenLearn9 (see Figure 1). It was devised as a large Institutional project that through action research would help to answer some fundamental questions about the potential role and impact of free educational content and an open, web based, learning environment on the work of The Open University in particular and systems of education in general. The major planned outcomes were:

1. Enhanced learning experiences for users of OERs;

2. Greater involvement in higher education by under-represented groups and empowerment for various support networks that work with them;

3. Enhanced knowledge and understanding of OER delivery, how it can be effective, and the contribution it can make to further development of e-learning;

4. Enhanced understanding of sustainable and scalable models of OER delivery.

We could not claim that any of the above aspects of our initiative was unique but it was the combination and configuration of them in one project that we believed was unique at the time. Certainly we could, and do, claim that the OpenLearn initiative is a direct extension of our mission:

‘The Open University is open to people, places, methods and ideas. It promotes educational opportunity and social justice by providing high-quality university education to all who wish to realise their ambitions and fulfil their potential. Through academic research, pedagogic innovation and collaborative partnership it seeks to be a world leader in the design, content and delivery of supported open and distance learning.’

Figure 1. A screenshot of OpenLearn’s front page highlighting the buttons through to the distinctive LearningSpace and LabSpace.

To bring us up to the time of writing this paper in mid 2008, while the 2 year start up phase of the project began in April 2006 as noted above, the website was launched in October 2006 using the open source product Moodle as the basis of the learning environment and with 900 hours of published current content. The project achieved, by the end of April 2008, 5,400 hours of current Open University content through over 450 Study Units ranging from 1 to 50 hours in study time from all academic levels in a LearningSpace mainly aimed at learners; that same content plus a further 8,100 hours of archived content of almost complete courses in a LabSpace mainly for educators; and an enhanced learning environment with various tools and technologies (e.g. chat, video conferencing, video blogging, knowledge mapping) to support registered users of the site (see Figure 2). By that same time there was also a further 300 hours of content in the LabSpace that had come from non Open

8 www.hewlett.org9 www.open.ac.uk/openlearn

Page 31: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 29

University sources or were user generated modifications of Open University Study Units. All the content is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 Licence except for a few assets from Third Party sources that still retain a full copyright licence and cannot be downloaded with the rest of the content.

Figure 2. A screenshot of the LearningSpace showing social computing tools on the left, high level details of the Study Units in the middle, and other learning environment features such as tag clouds on the bottom right.

The multimedia content is displayed as text in XML or occasionally PDFs, embedded audiovisual items as MP3 files, embedded mages as jpeg files (see Figure 3) and occasionally Flash animations. The majority of the content has been taken directly from larger Open University courses and undergone only limited revision under what we have called an Integrity model (Lane, 2006). Much of the content is available in eight alternative formats for downloading/taking away (HTML print, Unit Content XML, Unit Content RSS, OUXML, IMS Content Package, IMS Common Cartridge, Moodle backup, and zip file) by users of both the LearningSpace and LabSpace with the ability to upload repurposed content, or even new content, only to the LabSpace.

By April 2008 there had been 2 million unique visitors from 160 different countries (rising from 100,000 to 200,000 unique visitors per month, with 35% returning at least once) and 60,000 registered users using the various social computing tools and technologies to make forum posts, create knowledge maps, book video conferences and keep learning journals as well as simply studying the Units). There have been several thousand downloads of Study Units each week, with the most popular format being an HTML print version that alone accounts for about 10,000 ‘downloads’ per week. Understanding what people are doing both on the site and when they take the content away has been a key feature of our research and evaluation activities of this Open Content Initiative which are variously described on The Open University’s Knowledge Network10. From

all this believe that we have achieved the first and third of our planned outcomes and, as explained below, have made a good start on achieving the second and fourth outcomes.

Figure 3. A screenshot of a study unit on childhood life stories, displaying integrated text, an embedded audio file, an embedded PDF of the transcript of the audio file, and embedded images.

The sustainability of The Open University’s activities using OERs depends mostly upon the overall policy and practice in relation to them within the institution and the identification of funding sources for sustaining that policy and practice; and partly on developments externally, in particular the acceptance of OERs in wider higher education policy and practice.

We are still exploring in Stage 3 the areas for sustaining the project and/or its activity as outlined in our original bid (The Open University, 2006): namely cost reduction; impact on core business; additional services; sharing of materials; and additional external funding. This includes its organisational form as either a separate project or embedded practices.

As with all our teaching and learning activities we believe it is important to determine the principles upon which any provision should be based, principles that address a fundamental right of access to education on the part of all. And the most basic principles we believe that all education should follow, is that of the primacy of the learner and their context in shaping their learning experiences and the extent of openness in the provision that tries to meet those contextual needs.

The physical nature of much current educational provision (tied to a particular place such as a classroom or lecture hall), bound up in a particular medium (such as text or audiovisual asset), and available only at pre-defined times (to suit employment norms), has meant that the locus of control was much more with the providers of learning opportunities – the teachers, than the users – the learners. Open and distance learning

10 http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/workspace.cfm?wpid=6087

Page 32: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200930

overcomes some of these barriers to learning and education.

The advent of digital technologies and the internet in particular is changing this dynamic because it helps overcome more of these barriers, making digital content more accessible and available to more people and enabling new forms of instantaneous communication between people in different places and times (there is more detail and case studies on this particular topic in Lane, 2008). However, even more significant than these digital technologies, has been the emergence of social technologies in new forms of licensing for (largely) digital content. This ‘some rights reserved open licensing’ (for example the Creative Commons licences) placed on new and previously ‘all rights reserved’ copyrighted content enables the free copying, sharing, reuse and remixing of that content within pre-defined guidelines. In principle this gives learners (and teachers) even more freedoms as they can decide when to access it, whether they want to alter it, and how they learn from it in ways they choose.

OERs flow naturally from The Open University’s mission but this does not mean that we did not, and do not, have to carefully examine and assess the impact of such a move on current policies and practices and how they in turn impact on the contexts in which our learners/students find themselves.

Stage 1 of OpenLearn established that OERs fit very well with the mission and work of The Open University, particularly the fact that it already undertakes substantive educational publication. Stage 2 has been a fast track pilot that has enabled the University to begin to evaluate the impact on itself, and more widely, of its particular type of OERs based on open and distance learning materials in a technology supported environment that encourages collaboration. While there is a still a lot to discover from the planned activities of Stage 2 and now stage 3 we can already see some benefits to existing University activities and pointers to new activities.

In brief, internally it has:

− Demonstrated that the University can successfully deliver a large scale cross institutional project in a short time scale (useful in itself in understanding how we can cope with rapid and large scale changes);

− Shown that it can implement the web 2.0 philosophy of perpetual beta, release changes often and release early;

− Significantly tested and enhanced its new e-Production and publication technologies such as Moodle, Documentum™ and Structured Content and provided a robust platform for wider exposure and

use of technologies devised by our Knowledge Media Institute;

− Supported significant institutional R&D activities such as Learning Design for course development and helped win substantial new research grants;

− Enabled regional and enquiry staff to undertake new and successful forms of information, advice and guidance, outreach and widening participation;

− Been shown to have played some role in the recruitment and choice of fee paying courses by over 6,000 registered students;

− Enabled significant testing and evaluation of Search Engine Optimisation and Social Media Marketing (e.g. linking content to the SkyLearning™ website, placing audiovisual content on YouTube™), enhancing our external web presence and e-visibility in mass market web 2.0 sites.

While externally it has:

− Generated substantial international attention for the University amongst individuals and institutions, with 69% of the visitors from outside the UK;

− Placed the University at the forefront of open education and web based learning through gaining several awards, positive media coverage, many institutional visits and approaches, book chapters and commissioned reports, refereed journal articles and conference papers, and active inclusion in related work instigated by major worldwide consortia;

− Enhanced relationships with major strategic partners in the UK (e.g. National Institute for Adult Continuing Education, Unionlearn, U3A) and stimulated existing or new partnerships with international organisations (e.g. Commonwealth of Learning) or organisations in other countries (e.g. UNISUL in Brazil).

Now that OERs have become an established feature of The Open University and as the nature of their impact becomes clearer, the strategy for sustaining the development and use of OERs within The Open University in Stage 3 is being built upon three strands:

− The first strand is to embed the development and use of OERs within all our existing activities (and hence existing funding) wherever possible, rather than commit specialist funding to the activity as has been the case so far for the start–up phase (this is part of cost reduction and impact on core business). This has already begun with plans in place to integrate open publication into the standard educational resources planning and production systems and to integrate OpenLearn into existing information, advice, guidance, and outreach activities.

Page 33: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 31

− The second strand is to secure additional recurrent and project grant funding from a variety of sources, including public funding from political institutions, to build upon this core work and to work with partners around the World (additional external funding). Funding proposals have been developed and submitted and the outcomes are awaited.

− The third strand is to investigate new business models and potential revenue streams arising from differentiated or disaggregated services that support learning and that can be provided to very large numbers of learners using digital technologies (additional services and sharing of materials). A start has been made by linking to Amazon.com but this is the subject of a new strand of activity for The Open University that also links to its very new presence on YouTube™11 and iTunesU™12.

We feel confident that in due course the cost savings created by new and improved working methods for the development of educational materials and the promotion of courses and services, as well as the additional revenue derived from extra student enrolments and new or expanded fee paying services to existing and new clients will offset many of the basic costs of running OpenLearn (and related ventures) in the future.

Returning to the 8 factors noted by Guthrie et al (2008) I can comment on then as follows with regard to OERs at The Open University:

− Assuming that grant funding will always be available is not likely to lead to a successful sustainability plan – from the outset we always saw external Foundation funding as start-up investment only.

− Project leaders need to adopt a more comprehensive definition of ‘sustainability’ – as the project leader I have helped do this within the Institution and explained much of our thinking in this paper.

− The value of a project is quantified by the benefits it creates for users – what it allows them to do that they could not do before – as with developing courses for distant students we have taken great care to think about user needs, to make adjustments following user feedback and to build a significant research and evaluation element into the project budget. That is not to say that we have got all this right as some features have not gone down well with some users.

− Project leaders need to consider a range of options for long-term governance – the centrality of the project to the University was evident through a high level steering group that included 4 members of the Vice Chancellor’s Executive with regular reporting as

well to major University Committees. With greater mainstreaming oversight will change and probably fall solely under existing University Governance mechanisms.

− The web is a highly competitive environment – we have interpreted this as having to compete for people’s attention and time. One of the more significant developments of the project has been experimentation with social media marketing.

− Leaders must also embrace the fact that their environment is rapidly changing – the project was set up because University leaders have acknowledged this and responded with a number of initiatives to understand the changes afforded by web 2.0 and greater internet access, not just OpenLearn.

− Running a start-up is a full-time job and requires full-time leadership – a substantive project team was established with a full time project Director and Project Manager

− Innovation depends on experimentation, and project leaders should embrace the fact that there are generally no straightforward solutions – I have already mentioned how we have made several changes and adapted our work as evidence emerged, but equally there are many things we have thought we would like to do but have not had capacity or necessarily the capability at hand.

OpenLearn therefore does cover all the factors that Guthrie et al, list but even so it has not yet generated much new income that can be directly, and only, attributable to its existence and activity (there is much evidence to show that it has helped with recruitment of some students but is often one of several influences on such decisions). So how might OER projects actually make money to cover their costs at worst and provide additional income to the organization at l best?

5 Making money out of free stuffThere is much more complexity to people’s motivations and actions around open educational content and education than I have portrayed above. But services or products that are free at the point of use still have to be paid for through somebody’s efforts, paid or unpaid.

If authoring OERs is unpaid, then the sharing of effort only makes sense at economies of scale. So it may be that if OERs become a successful and sustainable activity there will quickly become one dominant outlet for community authored educational materials at Higher Education level with all others being distant also-rans, just like there is one major online encyclopaedia (albeit in different languages) that dominates that field. However there are many difficulties in creating an acceptable common

11 http://www.youtube.com/theopenuniversity12 http://www.open.ac.uk/itunes/

Page 34: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200932

curriculum at the higher education level as it is more changeable and more susceptible to local and factional interpretations than lower levels of education. At school level there is usually a much greater involvement of political institutions in defining curricula as opposed to the relative freedom there is at University level. The style and model of teaching in schools, with common curricula and common, often national examinations, compared to University determined curricula and assessment practices, leads to a more restricted view and interpretation of topics as represented in major texts and other educational resources. In other words school level content is generally driven towards consensus and conservatism, and may be amenable to substantively similar and larger OERs being used within and across countries, while much University level content thrives on differences and novelty that arises from research and scholarship and so would trade in smaller OER elements that encourage greater flexibility.

If efforts to author OERs are paid for, then there are no new sources of money for open educational resources as compared to closed educational resources, just possibly new ways to get at those sources of money depending on whether it a not for profit or profit seeking organization. The sources for largely public institutions remain (in contrast to commercial operations as discussed by Anderson, 2008):

− Public grant (recurrent or project based funding from taxes);

− Individual donations (the goodwill of users and non users);

− Organizational donations (philanthropy by individuals and organizations);

− Advertising (selling space for messages);

− Fees for products or services (i.e. sales or subscriptions).

All of these sources are being tried by different OER projects. State funds have been used to initiate Edu.net in Vietnam (http://edu.net.vn). MIT has received individual and organisational donations and gains some micro payment revenue from links to books on Amazon mentioned on the MIT Open CourseWare site. Selling services around free content is a major approach used around open source software and is being looked at in terms of challenge exams (e.g. Utah State University) or eLearning services for organisations (e.g. The Open University). What is clear is that this is all very new for most higher education institutions and it will take time to ascertain the levels of income that might be generated.

6 ConclusionsThe sustainability of open educational resources can be looked at in different ways. There is sustainability within an organisation and sustainability within a wider market place, whether a market, public or social economy. There is financial sustainability, where sufficient money is in place at both organisational and market level. And there is social sustainability where the social demand and support can drive the activity through ‘gifting’ of voluntary services and money only covers certain costs (as happens with many clubs and societies). Education and higher education in particular, spans all levels and all economies, meaning that there will be many different ways in which financial and social sustainability for Open Educational Resources will be realised.

In looking at the many ways to make money on the back of free things then Anderson (2008) sets out the wider possibilities of revenue generation (as opposed to relying on recurrent or project grants) for (mainly) profit making organizations. The approaches he talks about have a long history in commerce and have worked across more than just the internet. Meanwhile, Guthrie et al (2008) focus on open academic resources for largely public institutions, where profit is not a primary motive.

Nevertheless, both have a clear message: know what it is you are trying to do, make that central to your way of working or business model, understand your users as fully as possible, and look at more than one source of funding to sustain the activity. What is apparent so far is that everyone is still looking for those various sources of funding and that no OER projects have been going long enough to judge whether they are fully sustainable, either financially or socially. However, some, like OpenLearn, are doing much of what is thought needed to become sustainable within an institution but is not quite there yet, while there appears to be much further to go to see if there can be sustainable activity between institutions and with a wider community of groups and individuals.

Page 35: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 33

References

➜ Anderson, C (2008) Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business, retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free.

➜ Atkins, D.E., Seely Brown, J. and Hammond, A.L. (2007) A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities. Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://www.hewlett.org/NR/rdonlyres/5D2E3386-3974-4314-8F67-5C2F22EC4F9B/0/AReviewoftheOpenEducationalResourcesOERMovement_BlogLink.pdf.

➜ Geser, G (2007) Open Educational Practices and Resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012, 150 pp, retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://www.olcos.org/english/roadmap/.

➜ Gourley, B. and Lane, A. (2008, submitted) Re-invigorating openness at The Open University; the role of Open Educational Resources, invited paper for special issue of OpenLearning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning edited by Susan D’Antoni.

➜ Guthrie, K., Griffiths, R. and Maron, N. (2008) Sustainability and Revenue Models for Online Academic Resources: An Ithaka Report, 66pp, retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://sca.jiscinvolve.org/2008/06/03/download-final-ithaka-report-on-sustainability/

➜ Hewlett (2008) Why are we funding OER? accessed August 26, 2008 from http://www.hewlett.org/Programmes/Education/OER/.

➜ Jorum (2008) New services: the plan for the next phase of Jorum, accessed August 26, 2008 at http://www.jorum.ac.uk/future_directions.htm

➜ Lane, A.B. (2006) From Pillar to Post: exploring the issues involved in re-purposing distance learning materials for use as Open Educational Resources, 25 pp, OpenLearn Working Paper No. 1, retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=9724

➜ Lane, A.B. (2008a) Widening Participation in Education through Open Educational Resources. In Eds Ilyoshi, T. and Vijay Kumar, M.S., Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge. MIT Press. 2008. ISBN 0-262-03371-2.

➜ Lane, A. B. (2008b) Am I good enough: the mediated use of open educational resources to empower learners in excluded communities? 5 pp. Paper given at 5th Pan Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning, London, 14-17 July 2008, retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://www.wikieducator.org/images/f/f2/PID_405.pdf.

➜ MIT OCW (2008) MIT Open CourseWare – Our History, accessed August 26, 2008 from http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/about/history/index.htm.

➜ The Open University (2006) Open Content Initiative: application to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 78 pp, retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/__assets/06sngpqpwminsmwxov.pdf.

➜ The Open University (2007). 2nd Year application to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 82 pp, retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/__assets/twnvxam0rxsmz5ok8q.pdf.

➜ OECD (2007) Giving Knowledge for Free. The Emergence of Open Educational Resources. Paris, 153 pp, retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9607041E.PDF.

➜ Wiley, D. (2006) On the Sustainability of Open Educational Resource Initiatives in Higher Education, Paris, 9pp, retrieved August 26, 2008 from www.oecd.org/edu/oer.

Page 36: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200934

Didactic architectures and organization models: a process of mutual adaptationLaura Gonella Consultant/Researcher CSP-ICT Innovation, [email protected]

Eleonora PantòKnowledge Communities Manager CSP-ICT Innovation, [email protected]

Summary This article aims to establish a parallel between the organizational models and the didactic architectures used by businesses to manage internal training. The objective is to understand whether so-called “eLearning 2.0” (eLearning based on the tools and approaches typical of web 2.0) can be useful in different frameworks and organisations. In this context, the paper looks at whether it is possible to identify a mutual process of adaptation among the organizational and training models we term didactic architectures. During the analysis, four different organizational models are introduced (industrial society, post-industrial society, enterprise 1.0 and enterprise 2.0), and the corresponding evolution of didactic architectures is suggested (web based training, eLearning 1.0, online education, eLearning 2.0).

In a knowledge society where time to market is fast and competence domains are widened and in rapid evolution, organizations are forced to move towards the so called enterprise 2.0 model, characterized by an intensive use of blogs, wikis, social bookmarking and RSS. These organizations have a flat structure and are based on the principle of autonomy. This article asserts that in these contexts, training and vocational systems based on the same principles - namely autonomy, informal style and an open approach - can be implemented. In other more traditional frameworks, formal eLearning based on LMS platforms will continue to represent an effective solution: as long as users do not become familiar with the functionalities offered by 2.0 technologies and thus become actors of change.

The document is structured in three parts: The first chapter analyses four different didactic architectures, highlighting the differences between eLearning 1.0 and eLearning 2.0; the second chapter describes organizational models and introduces the relation with the didactic architectures, and the third chapter highlights the process of mutual adaptation between didactic architectures and organization models.

Keywords Informal learning, Training, LMS (Learning Management System), Pedagogy, PLE (Personal Learning Environment), eLearning 2.0., didactic architectures, online education, learning platforms

1 IntroductionThe analysis carried out in this document focuses on web-based distance training and its evolution. The survey also compares different didactic architectures, considered as models for training activities. Each type of didactic architecture is characterized by specific visions, objectives, technologies, methods and practices, and underpinned by a given pedagogic approach.

The analysis carried out in this document looks at four didactic architectures: web-based training, eLearning 1.0, on-line education and eLearning 2.0. The different architectures are described in terms of their pedagogic model, type of supported learning, the tools used and the characteristics of the content. Particular attention is devoted to highlighting the differences between LMS-based systems (eLearning 1.0) and web 2.0 service-based systems (wikis, blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking, RSS, etc.). As we will show in the following chapters, the two models are not only characterized by the use of different technologies but are founded on very different methods and can therefore satisfy the demands of different types of organizational systems.

2 Didactic architectures

Web-based trainingThe name of this didactic architecture recalls the Nineties term for the on-line training programmes implemented within the business framework and based on the on-line distribution of autonomously-used learning materials. The objective was “training” rather than education or learning, terms that today focus more on the active role of the end user in the learning process. This didactic method is nowadays used in training programmes that are based on contents, and is effective when the objectives are more focused on information acquisition rather than the attainment of analytical skills.

In general the term WBT (web-based training) covers the web-based didactic approach, the type of contents and the software used to manage them. The contents consist of a set of multimedia pages for the user to consult autonomously, while web-based software delivers additional services. Unlike the current LMS, with these systems it is not possible to monitor and trace users (eLearning 1.0).

Page 37: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 35

The underlying theory is behaviourism, according to which our brains, when subjected to a given stimulus, produce an answer that is a behaviour. In pedagogic theory this translates into the assumption that workers “exposed” to structured learning material learn the contents and are able to apply them when working. This is known as a transmissive didactic model (Trentin, 2001).

eLearning 1.0The Web Based Training model evolved into the so-called eLearning 1.0 didactic architecture, which is based on eLearning platforms called Learning Management Systems (LMS) or Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS). LMS are very effective in supporting content delivery, designing training, and registering, monitoring and certifying users.

The main strengths of eLearning platforms, especially those implemented in a business environment, regard facilitating the administration and management of a large number of courses and users. Areas regarding communication, collaboration, knowledge creation and active learning receive less attention from both the producers and users of the platforms. Performance is mainly assessed by means of objective criteria, such as the number of pages used and multiple choice tests. Much attention is devoted to contents, using the model of interoperable and re-usable learning objects (SCORM), while the learning process is given less consideration.

The didactic model adopted is based on the distribution of specific learning material to a high number of users, while tools to support collaborative work are available, but seen as additional elements. In a lot of business LMS there is no teacher figure to act as a content expert guiding the students. There is a training coordinator who supervises the course, and a mentor, a kind of tutor who provides help when requested, but does not actively drive the learning process. This didactic model, which closely resembles the transmissive one, can be defined as assisted (Trentin, 2001), as most of the learning is self-learning, with minimum support from the tutor.

The vision which underlies this approach is termed “curricular” by Sica and Scotti (Sica & Scotti, 2007), and is based on planning curricula and didactics in different stages: defining objectives, assessing entry knowledge, breaking down objectives into sub-objectives, etc. Much attention is devoted to identifying the user’s most suitable learning path, which is automatically managed through skills balances1.

Cognitivism is the theoretical framework. It is worth noting that, in terms of learning approaches, behaviourism theories stress the incentive-answer,

whereas cognitivism focuses on how the mind represents knowledge.

Online educationBy the end of the 90s, educational practices based on communication and collaboration, with the use of web-based training initiatives, became more and more frequent. These initiatives, more frequent in academic settings and schools than in the business environment, were initially based on very simple technologies such as mailing lists and newsgroups, and later on devoted frameworks such as conferencing systems . Together with various types of content proposed by the teacher, not necessarily multimedia (books, lecture notes, etc.), there are also activities and discussions which actively involve students and produce output used as learning material in subsequent courses.

The theoretical frame of reference is constructivism, which upholds the importance of the active role of students in the processes of teaching and learning. The construction of new materials and meanings comes both from materials previously delivered by the teacher or simply from hints and stimuli provided by the teacher or tutor, figures which play a central role. It is in fact thought that the students have to be driven, addressed, involved and stimulated by the tutor-moderator. The courses are thus intended as social processes, because they are implemented by means of interaction among the different subjects involved: teacher, tutor and students.

The same approach has been adopted by some open-source LMS which focuses on communication and collaboration functions. Atutor, for instance, is a suite containing specific software to support communication and cooperation (Acollab, Achat, Acomm), integrated with the LMS. Dokeos (www.dokeos.com) includes tools for videoconferencing and the virtual classroom.

This model has not been used much in organizations which started with web-based training systems then subsequently passed to eLearning 1.0. It is more widespread in universities.

eLearning 2.0With the diffusion of “social software”, the way we use the internet for information and to communicate has changed greatly. User contributions are no longer restricted to newsgroups or forums: almost all websites now allow users to upload their own contents: this is called “user-generated content”. The usage/creation process is continuous: multi-channel usage is now a reality, and wireless connections enable us to be online at all times wherever we are.

New practices in web use have further affected the eLearning framework. In order to highlight these

1 A skills balance is a procedure which enables a worker’s skills to be assessed in comparison to his or her professional profile. The gap between expected and real skills is filled by completing a curriculum or activity plan which includes all the courses that the worker attends in order to reach the objectives and eliminate the gap.

Page 38: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200936

technological and methodological changes, the term “eLearning 2.0” is frequently used. This term first appeared in an article by Stephen Downes in 2005 which showed how communities of practice can constitute an interesting new learning model (Downes, 2005).

We will now analyse eLearning 2.0 from the pedagogic and technological points of view.

DefinitionThis definition of eLearning 2.0 is from Wikipedia:

eLearning 2.0 refers to a second phase of e-Learning based on Web 2.0 and emerging trends in eLearning. It can include such features as e-Learning where students create content, collaborate with peers to form a learning network with distribution of content creation and responsibilities, e-Learning that takes advantage of many sources of content aggregated together into learning experiences and e-Learning that utilizes various tools including online references, courseware, knowledge management, collaboration and search.

The term suggests that the traditional model of eLearning as a type of content, produced by publishers, organized and structured into courses, and consumed by students, is reversed; so as that content is used rather than read and is more likely to be produced by students than courseware authors.

Pedagogic Approach

On a methodological level, the typical eLearning 1.0 transmissive/assisted learning model is turned round: with 2.0 tools learning is based on bottom-up contents and put into relation to forge new meanings. With reference to Trentin’s classification (2001), we can define the didactic model as peer to peer, aimed at creating collaborative groups which share knowledge and experience to enable the whole group to grow.

Siemens coined the term connectivism (2005) to define this new way of learning, which is based on the following principles (Siemens, 2006):

− Learning and knowledge require a diversity of opinions to present the whole…and to permit the selection of the best approach.

− Learning is a network-forming process which connects specialized nodes or information sources.

− Knowledge resides in networks.

− Knowledge may reside in non-human appliances, and learning is enabled/facilitated by technology.

− Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.

− Learning and knowing are constant, ongoing processes (not end states or products).

− Ability to see connections and recognize patterns and make sense between fields, ideas, and concepts is the core skill for individuals today.

− Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

− Decision-making is learning. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

As effectively explained by Bonaiuti (2006), “connectivism would like to criticize the main learning theories, synthetically identifiable as behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism, as incapable of providing a suitable theoretical support to the demands of modern on-line learning modalities. (…) It is not a matter of considering the learning process as a progressive accumulation of knowledge, but rather as a set of connections which make access to knowledge possible.”

If we consider the type of learning involved, there is another substantial difference between eLearning 1.0 and eLearning 2.0. While the first is based on formal learning, the second relies predominantly on informal processes.

− Formal learning is a process developed within a structured and organized context (formal school education, business training courses) leading to an official acknowledgement (diplomas, qualifications, certificates).

− Informal learning is the result of daily activities related to work, the family and leisure time. It is not structured in terms of learning objectives, time and support, and it does not usually lead to any kind of certification.

Jay Cross (2003) highlighted the fact that within organizations, most of the learning process (around 80%) occurs during informal moments:

At work we learn more in the break room than in the classroom. We discover how to do our jobs through informal learning -- observing others, asking the person in the next cubicle, calling the help desk, trial-and-error, and simply working with people in the know. Formal learning - classes and workshops and online events - is the source of only 10% to 20% of what we learn at work. (Cross, 2003)

Page 39: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 37

DIDACTIC ARCHITECTURE

WEB BASED TRAINING

ELEARNING 1.0 ONLINE EDUCATION ELEARNING 2.0

Theoretical Framework

Behaviourism Cognitivism Constructivism Connectivism

Pedagogic approach

Transmissive (autonomous)

Assisted Collaborative Peer to Peer

Tools Web-delivered LMS LMS + collaborative tools Web as a platform

Contents Course-based training

Learning objects Mixed production by teachers and students

Community based, user-generated contents

Figure 2. Comparison between didactic architectures

The Spending/Outcomes Paradox

Formal Learning Training Formal EducationPublications

Spending Learning

Informal Learning Day-to-day, on-job Co-workers Mentor & coaches

Figure 1. The spending/outcomes paradox in terms of education (source Jay Cross 2003)

Moreover, Jay Cross draws attention to a sort of paradox between the results of formal learning and related investments.

As stressed by Bonaiuti (2006), formal education, workshops and other institutionalised training initiatives represent a poor alternative in comparison to natural and spontaneous learning. We could thus affirm that the model called eLearning 2.0 fosters informal learning dynamics. The perspective consists in exploiting and improving the potential of the web’s informal framework, and practical experience.

Technologies

The concepts explained above in methodological terms can be implemented in practical terms using the tools offered by web 2.0. Such tools include: blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, podcasts, collaborative conceptual maps, web feeds and tagging. Some of these tools can be integrated into platforms, and the basis of this new approach consists in using these tools directly online, exploiting the flexibility of the web.

In October 2004 Tim O’Reilly began talking about the concept of “the web as platform”, describing a scenario where the user is centred with respect to services (O’Reilly 2005) and can work on-line from different places in a kind of virtual office. The different

services can be “aggregated”, in order to implement an operational and study environment centred on the user and on his or her network of personal resources.

As for eLearning, we can talk about PLE (Personal learning environments) or eLearning frameworks (Jones, 2005). George Siemens (2004) describes a learning environment as based on decentralized, learner-in-control, piece-it-together tools.

Siemens underlines that a single tool cannot do everything and that it is necessary to connect different functionalities or specializations in a set of tools, making the user the leading actor in terms of different areas and personal interests. Some functions are also available on the current platforms that Siemens (2004) defines in his article as “the wrong place to start learning”.

Attwell (2007) recently analysed the PLE concept, highlighting its importance from an ethical and pedagogic point of view. The following is a summary of Attwell’s thoughts:

Personal Learning environments are not an application but rather a new approach to the use of new technologies for learning. (…) PLEs provide learners with their own spaces under their own control to develop and share their ideas. Personal Learning environments are not an application but rather a new approach to the use of new technologies for learning. Moreover, PLEs can provide more holistic learning environments, bringing together sources and contexts for learning hitherto separate. (…)

A comparisonThe following chart describes the elements which constitute and characterize the four didactic architectures mentioned.

The first row lists the theoretical approaches which underpin the didactic models in the second row. The

Page 40: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200938

terms refer to the classification by G. Trentin (2001) that highlights the use of the web to support learning processes. The “tools” row underlines the differences in the technologies used, while the bottom row shows the type of content.

In which contexts or organizational systems is eLearning 2.0 most effective? Where can eLearning 2.0 be effective? In the following chapter we describe a reference framework which highlights the process of mutual adaptation between didactic architectures and organizations.

2 Didactic architectures and organizations In this chapter the didactic architectures mentioned are compared to organizational systems, namely the organizational and cultural models that characterize organizations.

Organizational systems and trainingWe shall start by considering Domenico Lipari’s observations on how training has evolved within organizational systems, together with economic and organizational models (Scotti & Sica, 2007). The evolution of organizational systems followed action logic and related equipment used in training processes. Lipari identifies three stages:

− The Ford model: within the Ford-inspired organization, the training approach consists in education, i.e. the transfer of operational notions to help the worker use machinery and implement production techniques.

− The Taylor model: in the huge international corporations typical of the Taylor model and neo-modernism, the training methodology is more structured and involves a number of phases: requirement analysis, planning, didactic management, assessment. Learning objectives are codified and

broken down; didactic activity is designed around the cognitive mechanisms of the individual.

− The Post-industrial model: today the value of organizations is less bound to products and more centred on intellectual capital, i.e. the full set of intangible assets such as strategic skills, people, background, experiences, traditions and values. Training models are based on an organizational form of learning, based on the ability to capitalize on the tacit knowledge produced.

Company structures and organizational models Company structures are described in terms of the hierarchic/flat dichotomy, while the classification proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) is the basis for the organizational model. They analysed the relationship between knowledge management and the administration of production processes, suggesting an interesting classification of the different trends based on three management models: bottom-up, top-down and middle-up-down. The following paragraphs provide a brief description of these.

The top-down model

The top-down model regards the classical vertical hierarchical model founded on Max Weber’s (1968) observations on bureaucracy and Frederic Taylor’s (1967) “the scientific organization of work”. This model was systematically elaborated by Herbert Simon and asserts that knowledge creation is a simple matter of processing information: the top receives simple and selective information from the bottom, and uses it for planning before returning it to the bottom (Weber, 1968; Simon, 1967). The information is processed at different levels throughout the hierarchical chain: top management defines the basic concepts that become the operating conditions for the middle managers, who have to choose the tools to implement them. The decisions of middle management in turn determine the operating conditions of the employees applying the

Organizational asset Pedagogic approach Approach Logic

Ford Production system Behaviourism Teaching Training

Taylor Dimension, marketplace/products

Systemic approach Instructional design Individual and organization integration

Post-industrial Intellectual capital Constructivism Skills and community management

Organized learning

Figure 3. The Lipari model of training logic within organizations (Scotti & Sica, 2007 page 41)

Page 41: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 39

decisions. At the production line level, the execution of the operations is mainly routine. The knowledge produced within this model is predominantly encoded and stored in files or database.

This model characterised the large-scale companies of the ‘50s and ‘60s or bureaucracy, which called for clear and precise rules. Nevertheless, less complex forms of this model also suit SMEs where the manager is also the owner of the firm. In general terms, the top-down model is the basis for the management of information needed “to define, transmit and achieve assignments; to define and transmit rules; to measure and assess performance” (Shockley & Zalaback, 1991).

Within this model, two different orientations can be identified: top-down task-oriented, as described above, and top-down people-oriented, with more attention to people, roles and individual abilities, albeit still based on a hierarchical model.

The bottom-up model

The bottom-up model essentially mirrors the top-down model, as shown by the schools of human relations (Mayo, 1949) and motivation (Likert, 1961).

The principles of vertical hierarchy and activity control are in opposition to autonomy. Instead of a form of knowledge created and checked by top management, this model represents a knowledge process which is established and, to a certain extent, also checked from the bottom. The flattening of the hierarchy (by eliminating a number of levels) and a reduction in the division of work shortens the distance between top management and the production line to three or four managerial levels.

Bottom-up organization is therefore flat and horizontal. As for the managerial behaviour that characterizes this type of organization, Likert (1961) came up with the concept of “participative” leadership: the management gives few orders and instructions, but contemporarily stimulates collaboration through communicational channels “from the bottom”, thus exploiting produced knowledge.

The middle-up-down model

The middle-up-down model was conceived by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and aims to merge the advantages of the top-down and bottom-up models, as part of that body of organization theories defined as post-Fordist. Without analysing the various different schools in depth, post-Fordist theories supersede the Taylorite conception of knowledge as a set of practical rules for efficient production and emphasise their role as a resource to increase the value of the business (Di Bernardo & Rullani, 1990).

The middle-up-down model is based on analysing the role of middle management, which represents the real structure for the creation and management of business knowledge: it represents an interface between top management and line operators, because it lies at the intersection between the enterprise’s horizontal and vertical information flows and is able to combine operational demands with business strategy. More in detail, the role of the so-called “knowledge manager” consists in identifying, collecting, synthesizing, organizing and administrating all the information in his/her possession or belonging to his/her range of competences, in order to place it at the company’s disposal.

This model, which is based on an analysis of Toyota in the ‘90s - characterized by just-in-time production and different operational procedures in comparison to traditional production lines - provides some insight into, and interesting connections with, knowledge management: in fact knowledge circulates within the whole firm and anyone can contribute to its production and development. This process is facilitated by “interface structures”, people and technological tools that foster, stimulate and enable the management of knowledge circulation within the company. In the first case, as described, this regards middle managers; in the second case ICT.

3 Mutual adaptationHere we revisit the Lipari model shown in Figure 3 (Scotti & Sica, 2007) in greater detail in order to highlight the mutual relationship between organizational systems and didactic architectures (Figure 4).

The four didactic architectures illustrated in the first chapter (Figure 2) are connected to the organizational structures defined in the second chapter: we have added Company Structures and Organizational Models, both described in the previous paragraph.

The chart below highlights the existing relationship between organizational models and didactic architectures.

The white part of the chart shows the characteristics of the organizations: industrial society, post-industrial society, enterprise 1.0 and enterprise 2.0. The four models are characterized by different business structures and different organizational models (described in the previous chapter). In the grey part of the chart are the didactic architectures described in the first chapter.

The analysis of the four models and the mutual relations follows.

Page 42: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

eLearning Papers | 200940

ORGANIZATIONS INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

ENTERPRISE 1.0 POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

ENTERPRISE 2.0

Production model Fordism Taylorism Post-industrial Knowledge society

Company structure Hierarchical Hierarchical Flat Flat/Liquid

Organizational model

Top-down task- oriented

Top-down people- oriented

Middle-up-down Bottom-up

Theoretical Framework

Behaviourism Cognitivism Constructivism Connectivism

Pedagogic approach

Transmissive (autonomous)

Assisted Collaborative Peer to Peer

Tools Web-delivered LMS LMS + collaborative tools

Web as a platform

Contents Course-based training

Learning objects Mixed production by teachers and students

Community-based, user-generated contents

DIDACTIC ARCHITECTURE

WEB BASED TRAINING

ELEARNING 1.0 ONLINE EDUCATION ELEARNING 2.0

Figure 4. The relationship between didactic architectures and organizations

− The industrial society is characterized by a hierarchical, top-down, task-oriented model. Training is seen as the transfer of operational instructions to enable workers to use machinery and implement operational techniques. The didactic architecture most suited to this model of enterprise is web-based training.

− The so-called enterprise 1.0 model is a very similar organizational model but more people-oriented: the hierarchy and delegation mechanisms are handled less rigidly. Communication technologies have an important role and business intranets are widely used. In these organizations both knowledge management and the training model are more structured. Didactic activity is organized into stages, by objectives and based on the individual’s cognitive mechanisms (cognitivism). For these reasons the most appropriate didactic architecture is the so-called eLearning 1.0.

− The third column of the chart shows the relationship between the so-called post-industrial organizational system, based on a middle-up-down model, and the so-called online education didactic architecture. Both organizational and training systems are based on intermediate roles: middle management in the business organization and the tutor in the training

activities. Middle management acts as a bridge between top management and operators in terms of organization of work and information flows, as the tutor is crucial for communications between teacher and student in training activities. On a technological level, the most important systems are those which promote and support communication.

− The fourth column introduces the features of the so-called enterprise 2.02, characterized by a bottom-up structure and the intensive use of web 2.0 tools and technologies. This kind of company is linked to a productivity model that we define the “knowledge society”, where intellectual capital and the competences involved in updating and managing one’s own knowledge are more important than the production of goods and services. For the enterprise 2.0 model, the most effective didactic architecture is eLearning 2.0, as this is mostly based on informal learning and contents generated by social processes.

2 The term Enterprise 2.0 was introduced by Andrei McAfee, professor at Harvard Business School. It refers to the use of blogs and wikis, social bookmarking, RSS and social networking for connecting people, communications in real time, audio-conferencing and video and virtual environments. These technologies go along with a “philosophy”, as in the enterprise 2.0 model hierarchies and business schemes fail and a democratic, informal style of communication develops. For further information see the post by McAfee, The Impact of Information Technology on Businesses and their Leaders, (March 2006) http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/the_three_trends_underlying_enterprise_20/

Page 43: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

Openness and changing world of learning 41

4 Conclusions This document aims to show how training systems have to adapt to the emerging demands of different business contexts, and that such demands are strongly influenced by the business’s structure and culture. Where business culture is based on hierarchical principles and production procedures are founded on the scientific organization of work, a Web-based training architecture is justified.

This model evolved into the so-called eLearning 1.0 system, based on a more attentive management of the training process, which is organized into phases, modules and units. The technology not only delivers multimedia contents, as in the Web-based training model, but also covers administrative management and the assessment of processes, entailing assistance and tutoring from trainers. This kind of training model, based on skills balances and managed by means of learning management systems, is suitable in contexts

where business culture is still primarily top-down, while it is not effective or suitable for the emerging models of business organization which characterize companies operating in the knowledge society.

AcknowledgementsThe article is based on the work developed by CSP-ICT Innovation for CSI-Piemonte during 2007. We would like to thank Marco Grassini, Filippo Ricca, Riccarda Cristofanini and Graziella Testaceni from CSI-Piemonte, for their collaboration.

Special thanks go to Matteo De Simone and Erica Lavagno from CSP, for their valuable support.

We are also grateful to Andrea Demagistris, Michela Garbarini and Claudia Sibilla, who contributed to this collaborative effort with their valuable suggestions and professional inputs.

References➜ MIT Bonaiuti, G. (2006). ELearning 2.0, Il futuro dell’apprendimento in rete tra formale e informale, Trento: Erickson.

➜ Conner, M. L. (2007). Informal Learning, retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://agelesslearner.com/intros/informal.html.

➜ Cross, J. (2003). Informal Learning – the other 80%, retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://internettime.com/Learning/The%20Other%2080%25.htm

➜ Di Bernardo, B. & Rullani E. (1990). Il management e le macchine, Bologna: Il Mulino.

➜ Downes, S. (2005), E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine. October 17, 2005. http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1.

➜ Pfeiffer, J. W. & Jones, J. E. (eds.) (1985). A Handbook of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training, Vols. 1-10, San Diego: University Associates.

➜ Le Boterf, G. (2000). Construire les compétences individuelles et collectives, Paris: Les Editions d’Organisation.

➜ Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management, New York: McGraw-Hill.

➜ Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Approaches that work: how authentic learning is transforming higher education, ELI Paper 5:2007, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3013.pdf

➜ Mayo, E. (1949). The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

➜ Mosher, B. (2004). The Power of Informal Learning, retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_col_selling.asp?articleid=557&zoneid=48

➜ Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

➜ Scotti, E. & Sica, R. (2007). Community Management, Milan: Apogeo.

➜ Shockley & Zalaback, P. (1991). Fundamentals of Organizational Communication, New York: Longman.

➜ Siemens, G. (2003). Learning Ecology, Communities, and Networks. Extending the classroom, retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/learning_communities.htm

➜ Siemens, G. (2004). Learning Management Systems: The wrong place to start learning, retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/lms.htm.

➜ Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, Vol. 2 No. 1, http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/Jan_05.pdf#page=7

➜ Simon. H. (1967), Il comportamento amministrativo, Bologna: Il Mulino.

➜ Taylor, F. W. (1967). L’organizzazione scientifica del lavoro, Milan: Etas Kompass.

➜ Trentin, G. (2001). Dalla formazione a distanza all’apprendimento in rete, Milan: Franco Angeli.

➜ Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society. New York: Bedminister Press.

➜ Wegner, E. Communities of practice: a brief introduction, retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/

Page 44: eLearning Papers - Special edition 2009

http://www.elearningeuropa.info

Promoting innovation in lifelong learning

The elearningeuropa.info portal is an initiative of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture, aiming to promote the innovative use of ICT for lifelong learning. The portal has been serving the eLearning community since 2003 and is currently part of EC’s Lifelong Learning Programme.

The portal offers specific information, tools and resources developed around four main services: Di-rectory, Community, Newsletter and the online publication eLearning Papers. elearningeuropa.info is an open platform where the education players and communities can obtain information, share experiences, present their projects and discuss ideas. The use of the portal services is free of charge

for all the registered members.

The services of elearningeuropa.info include:

The Directory provides a wide range of eLearning materials and information sources from across Europe organised by category and interest area. There are ten categories, which currently include over 6,500 items. The interest areas are Schools, Higher Education, Training and Work and Learning and Society.

The Newsletter provides registered users information about current issues, open calls, forthcom-ing events and eLearning resources. The newsletter is available in 21 languages and it is dissemi-nated once a month. It has over 26,000 subscribers.

The Community is a place for eLearning practitioners to network and post and search for infor-mation relevant to their day-to-day tasks and needs. The Community area includes forums, an-nouncement boards, user suggestions and public profiles of the portal members.

eLearning Papers is an open access online publication which offers an executive summary of each article in 21 languages and the full texts in English. eLearning Papers is published five times a year and it is free of charge to all readers.