Association for Learning Technology

13th International Conference
ALT-C 2006
5–7 September 2006
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK


ALT-C 2006: The next generation
Research Proceedings



Edited by Denise Whitelock and Steve Wheeler






www.alt.ac.uk

Acknowledgement
The editors would like to thank Jamie Shaw for his work in
sub-editing and setting these Research Proceedings.



ALT gives permission for authors to reproduce and distribute their
own work on the understanding that the origins of the publication
are fully acknowledged. Please use the following format for
referencing when you distribute it:
Your name (2006). Your paper title. In Whitelock, D. & Wheeler, S. (Eds). The next
generation. Research Proceedings of the 13th Association for Learning Technology
Conference (ALT-C 2006).
Held 5–7 September 2006, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland, UK.























Published September 2006 by the Association for Learning Technology
© 2006 The Association for Learning Technology
www.alt.ac.uk
ISBN 0-9545870-5-7
Production editing: Rhonda Riachi, ALT
Printed by Hobbs the Printers, Totton, England. www.hobbsuk.com

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings i
Contents
Index of authors iii
Editorial iv
Part 1: Next Generation Learning
Successful learning or failing premise? A situated evaluation of 1
a virtual learning environment
Mrs Alison Iredale
Mismatched expectations of staff and students towards Blackboard 11
Miss Elisabeth Yaneske, Andrew Bingham
Knowledge construction in online learning 20
Shalni Gulati
L2C: Designing simulation-based learning experiences for collaboration 31
competencies development
Albert Angehrn
Use these tools, your mind will follow. Learning in immersive micromedia and 41
microknowledge environments
Martin Lindner
Blogs, wikis and VOIP in the virtual learning space: the changing landscape 50
of communication in online learning
Ms Rita Kop
Using ICT in education: From pilot to implementation, who is involved? 41
Petra Fisser
Topped by cross-winds, tugged at by sinuous undercurrents: e-learning 70
organisational critical success factors as identified by HE practitioners
Maggie McPherson, Jose Miguel Nunes
Part 2: Next Generation Learners
Are our students digital students? 82
Diana Andone, Jon Dron
Student perspectives of online learning 97
Dr Jo Coldwell, A Craig, A Goold
The modus operandi of the next generation e-learner: an analysis of 108
tracking usage across the disciplines
Dr Judy Hardy, Simon Bates, David McKain, Kirsty Murray, Jessie Paterson,
Brendan McGonigle, Lorenzo Vigentini, Andy Jackson
Can computer games help next generation learners? A survey of students’ 121
reasons for playing computer games
Prof Thomas Connolly, Elizabeth Boyle, Mark Stansfield, Thomas Hainey
From lifelong to m-learning 132
Marie-Therese Barbaux

ii ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 3: Next Generation Technology
The evaluation of next generation learning technologies: the case of 143
mobile learning
John Traxler, Agnes Kukulska-Hulme
Learning objects: seeking simple solutions for students and 153
staff: a New Zealand experience
John Clayton
Leveraging synergies between knowledge management and learning objects 163
Joanne Mowat
The WAFFLE bus: a model for a service-oriented learning architecture 172
Prof Andrew Booth, Dr Brian Clark
Mapping the future: the personal learning environment reference 182
model and emerging technology
Mark Johnson
Part 4: Next Generation Providers
Mapping e-learning: visualising the negotiated social shaping 192
of educational technology
Dr Andrew Whitworth, Dr Angela Benson
Accessing sector e-learning capability with an e-learning maturity model 203
Dr Stephen Marshall, Dr Geoff Mitchell

Index of ID numbers 215

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings iii
Index of authors
Andone, Diana 82
Angehrn, Albert A. 31
Barbaux, Marie-Therese 132
Bates, Simon 108
Beauvoir, Phil 182
Benson, Angela 192
Bingham, Andrew 11
Booth, Andrew G. 172
Boyle, Elizabeth A 121
Boyne, Chris 82
Clark, Brian P. 172
Clayton, John F. 153
Coldwell, J. 97
Connolly, Thomas M. 121
Craig, A. 97
Dron, Jon 82
Fisser, Petra 59
Goold, A. 97
Gulati, Shalni 20
Hainey, Thomas 121
Hardy, Judy 108
Iredale, Alison 1
Jackson, Andy 108
Johnson, Mark 182
Kop, Rita 50
Kukulska-Hulme, Agnes 143
Liber, Oleg 182
Lindner, Martin 41
Marshall, Stephen 203
McGonigle, Brendan 108
McKain, David 108
McPherson, Maggie 70
Milligan, Colin 182
Mitchell, Geoff 203
Mowat, Joanne P. 163
Murray, Kirsty 108
Nunes, Miguel Baptista 70
Paterson, Jessie 108
Pemberton, Lyn 82
Sharples, Paul 182
Stansfield, Mark 121
Traxler, John 143
Vigentini, Lorenzo 108
Whitworth, Andrew 192
Wilson, Scott 182
Yaneske, Elisabeth 11

iv ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Editorial
Editorial
The 13th ALT-C main conference theme looks to the future with its title “The Next Generation”. It
is timely to perhaps embark on some crystal ball gazing with respect to the most recent
developments in e-learning and to review the technological pushes and pedagogical pulls that
shape the learning technology landscape. Many of the authors draw upon their current practice
and research findings to highlight some important issues that undoubtedly will influence future
research and in turn affect learning for “The Next Generation”.
The research papers are discussed with respect to the four conference sub-themes. They fall
into four parts:

Part 1: Next Generation Learning

Part 2: Next Generation Learners

Part 3: Next Generation Technology

Part 4: Next Generation Providers
Part 1: Next Generation Learning
The papers in Part 1 explore the current learning frameworks and spaces available to the
“Lifelong Learner”. Alison Iredale in her paper, Successful learning or failing premise? A situated
evaluation of a virtual learning environment, opens the debate by questioning whether the policy
makers are correct in assuming that e-learning can affect retention, achievement and motivation
of learners in traditional face-to-face centres of learning. In her conclusion she questions the
future role of VLEs. The findings presented by Elisabeth Yaneske and Andrew Bingham in their
paper Mismatched expectations of staff and students towards Blackboard also highlight some of
the present difficulties experienced with VLE usage. Their survey of both staff and students who
were working on a second-year multimedia course found that one third of staff believed that
Blackboard could not be used to enhance student learning. This was primarily owing to the staff’s
inability to customize Blackboard to individual learner’s needs.
Providing appropriate learner-centred support is a recurring notion in many of the papers and the
following three investigate a number of pedagogical strategies and tools that can enhance
learning. Shalni Gulati begins this discussion with her paper Knowledge construction in online
learning, and concludes that participation in online discussion is more complex than it might
appear to be. Gulati shows that a combination of individual differences, social identities, access
issues, emotions, conflict and power discourses all play a role in shaping participation. The
impact of collaborative learning is explored in Albert Angehrn’s paper L2C: Designing simulation-
based learning experiences for collaboration competencies development. He continues the
theme of complexity, arguing that students need to learn to collaborate effectively, if issues of
diversity, motivational, psychological and cultural barriers are to be traversed. He offers advice
from the findings of the L2C project, including key design principles of simulation-based
immersive learning environments as a useful set of development tools. The lessons learned from
the use of microknowledge environments are discussed by Martin Lindner with his paper Use
these tools, your mind will follow. Learning in immersive micromedia and microknowledge
environments. Lindner argues that new roles and practices of learning result in new communities
and personae, and that institutions are struggling to keep pace with change. He proposes that a
new model of learning is required, based upon a shift from ‘macrocontent’ to ‘microcontent’—
dynamic content which is volatile and ever shifting, and presented in small and manageable
bits—a sort of conceptual downsizing of e-learning.
The debate then moves forward with Rita Kop’s paper, entitled Blogs, wikis and VOIP in the
virtual learning space: the changing landscape of communication in online learning, which
focuses upon the use of more recent online tools and how these can support learning. She
emphasises the fact that wikis and blogs offer tools that sit well within a communities of practice

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings v
Editorial
paradigm for learning and that these user controlled communication tools attract a large usage
outside educational settings and questions what this will mean for students learning in the future.
The penultimate paper explores a number of issues related to technological change
management. Petra Fisser’s paper, entitled Using ICT in education: From pilot to
implementation, who is involved?, demonstrates the need to develop strategies that advance
e-learning beyond the implementation phase and enable integration of new e-pedagogies into
teachers’ repertoires. Fisser shows that the influences of a wide range of actors need to be
considered if institution wide implementation is to be successful.
The final paper in this section follows on from the Fisser paper, through an examination of the
success factors that facilitate an organization-wide adoption of e-learning. A paper by Maggie
McPherson and Jose Miguel Nunes with the evocative title Topped by cross-winds, tugged at by
sinuous undercurrents: e-learning organizational critical success factors as identified by HE
practitioners, identifies several critical success factors which promote integrative change.
McPherson provides readers with guidelines on how decision making and strategic thinking about
e-learning implementation can be successfully achieved.
Part 2: Next Generation Learners
Part 2 opens with a paper by Diana Andone and Jon Dron: Are our students digital students?, in
which the authors wrestle with the notion that younger learners—‘digital students’—think differently
about technology. Through online surveys in several countries, the authors identified user
characteristics and expectations and measured the ‘digital literacy’ of student respondents. They
reveal that even where technology is less prevalent such as in Romania and Hungary, ‘digital
students’ respond positively to the use of learning technology, demand greater levels of immediacy,
and that learner characteristics tend to blend in a similar manner to their western counterparts.
The next three papers address Andone & Dron’s question about whether our students are indeed
digital. The first one from this group, which is led by Jo Coldwell, reports the findings from a survey of
students studying at Deakin University, in their paper Student perspectives of online learning. They
conclude that despite technical hitches, students embrace the flexibility that online learning can
provide. Judy Hardy et al’s paper supports this notion. However in their paper, entitled The modus
operandi of the next generation e-learner: an analysis of tracking usage across the disciplines, these
authors demonstrate how the process of gathering detailed information about student interaction with
online resources can be used to inform future course design and development. On the other hand
Connolly and colleagues with their paper, Can computer games help next generation learners? A
survey of students’ reasons for playing computer games, do not dispute the advantages of online
learning but wish to understand how students’ attraction to computer games can be leveraged in
developing educational gaming environments.
Finally, Marie-Therese Barbaux with her paper From lifelong to m-learning contends that a significant
pedagogical shift is essential if teachers are to understand students’ use of new technologies.
Echoing the earlier paper by Andone and Dron, her paper is premised on the argument that the new
generation of learners, i.e. the ‘digital natives’, have developed cognitive and social skills which
facilitate the use of mobile technologies. These, however, are disconnected from the skills of the
current generation of teachers (the so-called ‘digital immigrants’). Barbaux provides teachers with a
range of strategies which will support them in coming to terms with new pedagogies that are
becoming ever more expedient in the digital mobile age.
Part 3: Next Generation Technology
As the last paper in the previous section suggests, the next generation of learning technologies will
certainly include mobile devices. Addressing the above trend, the opening paper in this section is
entitled The evaluation of next generation learning technologies: the case of mobile learning. The

vi ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Editorial
paper, written by John Traxler and Agnes Kukulska-Hulme, makes explicit the need for thorough
evaluation and testing of next generation technologies. In a meta-evaluation, drawing on published
case studies of mobile learning, the authors reflect critically upon the quality of mobile learning
pilots and trials. They conclude that to date, few studies have been grounded in sound theory.
They call for a more rigorous and scientific approach to be taken in the selection of research
methods that are sympathetic to the ethos and emerging pedagogies of mobile learning.
The following two papers address the role that learning objects can play in the deployment of next
generation learning technologies. John Clayton’s paper describes how the Open Source Learning
Object Repository (OSLOR) project explained the process of describing, defining and sharing
learning objects. They acknowledge that this is only one approach to the problem and their work
contributes to an ongoing debate in this domain. Joanne Mowat’s scrutiny of learning objects in her
paper Leveraging synergies between knowledge management and learning objects offers an
overview of knowledge management, and its features which overlap with the next generation of
learning objects. She argues that a synergy exists between the two which can be leveraged to
improve effectiveness, reduce costs and ensure consistency in the delivery of e-learning.
Andrew Booth and Brian Clark draw the reader’s attention to a service-oriented learning architecture
known as The WAFFLE Bus. The principal content delivery mechanism here is a network of
federated portals and all services have access through the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). They
believe that using this sort of architecture will avoid “an unmanageable spaghetti architecture” and
therefore allow educational establishments to gain the maximum benefit from their Web services.
To conclude this section, Mark Johnson offers the reader a reference model for next generation
technology in his paper Mapping the future: the personal learning environment reference model
and emerging technology. The author espouses the use of the Personal Learning Environment
(PLE) as an extension to the e-portfolio approach, and illustrates how individual learner profiles can
be generated with this environment. Johnson concludes his paper by arguing that PLEs offer a
clear route forward for learners to become creators of their own learning tools, which in turn gives
greater freedom for students to experiment and explore within digital learning environments.
Part 4: Next Generation Providers
Andrew Whitworth and Angela Benson draw our attention to the negotiations that occur between
the different stakeholders in providing the next generation of learning technologies with their
paper Mapping e-learning: visualising the negotiated social shaping of educational technology.
Their visualisation techniques offer a set of cognitive tools which planners and developers,
together with academics, can use to develop e-learning solutions. Another way to assess
resources as institutions move to “next generation provision” is provided by Stephen Marshall
and Geoff Mitchell in their paper Accessing sector e-learning capability with an e-learning
maturity model. They not only describe the key elements of the e-learning maturity model (eMM)
but also illustrate how it has been used in a successful pilot study in New Zealand. One
advantage of this methodology is that it can highlight linkages between the learning objectives in
a course with the technologies and pedagogical strategies used to implement these objectives.
We trust that once again the research papers strand will promote a well informed debate at
ALT-C this year.
Dr Denise Whitelock
Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University
Steve Wheeler
Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth
Co-Editors of ALT-C 2006 Research Papers Strand

PART 1
Next Generation Learning

2 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 724: Successful learning or failing premise? A situated evaluation of a virtual learning environment
Discussion of the literature explores the following areas:

Research relating to initial trainee teachers on University of Huddersfield CPCET courses,
linking the e-learning interventions with improvements in retention and achievement. It is
recognized that this research is limited, and often local in nature.

exploration of the use of e-learning as a vehicle for supporting learners with learning skills

a broad view of social learning theory in an attempt to weave the learning skills development
strategies contained within Successful Learning into the affordance of structured,
meaningful learning envisaged by Laurillard et al (1999) that e-learning facilitates.
E-learning
The DfES defines e-learning as
E-learning exploits interactive technologies and communication systems to
improve the learning experience. It has the potential to transform the way we
teach and learn across the board. It can raise standards, and widen participation
in lifelong learning. It cannot replace teachers and lecturers, but alongside existing
methods it can enhance the quality and reach of their teaching. (DfES 2003)
In this definition there appears to be an underlying sense of nervousness from the DfES about
the concept, seeking to reassure teachers about their continued existence, despite the advent of
this technology.
Virtual learning environments
JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) defines VLEs thus:
While recognising that the world at large will continue to use terminology in
different and often ambiguous ways, the Steering Group recommends that the
term Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) be used in our own discussions and
specifications to refer to the components in which learners and tutors participate in
'on-line' interactions of various kinds, including on-line learning. (JISC 2000)
It is interesting to note the prevailing view that VLEs are about more than content (Ferl Becta
2002). This misses the point that without content there can be little in the way of motivation to
engage from the learner, and support and encouragement by the tutor. I like to think of the
content as the end of party 'goody bag', whereas the real party is going on inside with the
opportunities for communication, collaboration, and group to group networking. More worryingly
for institutions and teachers, and despite the considerable investment by Further Education (FE)
and Higher Education (HE) institutions in VLEs, academics and key thinkers in the field of
e-learning are already questioning their value, particularly as they are currently used, looking
towards a future where the VLE
will act like a personal organiser that helps users co-ordinate tools and services
from learning providers. It will also have a very strong social networking capability,
so that users can discover other people with shared interests and goals, and forge
instant connections. If a user wants to host a sim or a role-play, then they will be
able to use their VLE to discover people to take on the other roles based on their
published interests and availability.
(Wilson 2005)
Lewis (2005) even questions the pedagogical basis of VLEs, particularly in the sense of their
widest use, that of distributing content:
The reality is that solutions like proprietary VLEs have merely provided a more
efficient way for pushing content online and yet again supporting and indeed
magnifying the knowledge transfer model (Lewis 2005)

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 3
Part 1 Paper 724: Successful learning or failing premise? A situated evaluation of a virtual learning environment
Section 1: Literature review
Established literature and research exists in the broad areas of my aims for my research, those
of learning skills, situated learning and learner motivation, but what is difficult to find are any firm
findings or causal links that verify the use of innovative teaching methods within a strategy that
seeks to achieve improvements in retention and achievement among learners in the further and
higher education sector. Defined as “supply-ide” concepts, analysis of retention and achievement
is concerned with the effectiveness and efficiency of an educational institution to retain its
learners, and maximising achievements against a set of values (benchmarks) and compared to
other institutions, either similar or very different in nature, and against economic indicators set
more broadly. (Yorke and Longden 2004: p5). While the Higher Education sector in the UK
actually compares favourably with other OECD countries in this area (OECD 2002 in Noel 2004)
it is vital not to undervalue the importance of success for learners in further and higher education
in terms of the socio-economic benefits for the country. The simple act of measuring and
benchmarking can have significant implications for future and potential student success,
however, particularly within the political imperative at FE and HE level of widening participation.
Concentration on achieving an arbitrary benchmark is likely to influence enrolment decisions,
and Yorke and Longden (2004 p5) highlight the risks of taking the safer option at the point of
entry to a course, rather than concentrating efforts on improving the overall course experience.
Despite this retention and achievement data has been studied for some time now as a result of
changes to funding criteria and the growth of adult learners in the further education particularly.
McGivney (1996) writes about an economic imperative to retain learners, not just at government
and institution level, but also for the learner him/herself. Costs are incurred by all parties to the
learning contract when a learner withdraws from a course, and the concept of the learner as a
'rational economic person' (Rickwood 1993: 1–2) has resulted in wholesale decisions which can
affect the very survival of some vocational disciplines within institutions. At an individual learner
level the decision to withdraw from a course can often be a positive one, which involves a
complex interplay between the costs and benefits of staying or leaving the course (National Audit
Office 2001). However positive the decision is for the learner and his individual tutor though, the
impact on the institution is generally negative. Following on from investigation of literature and
research surrounding retention and achievement of learners generally, there is also a small but
growing body of research which attempts to tie in e-learning interventions to improvements in
retention and achievement. Current report findings written for the Consortium for Post
Compulsory Education and Training (CPCET) reveals links between centres that actively use the
VLE (Blackboard™), and improvements in their retention and achievement rates for the
PGCE/Cert.Ed. courses. Ahmed (2004) suggests that a correlation can be made between “low
frequency” users of Blackboard™ and their likely withdrawal from the course, creating an “at
risk” category which can be identified and therefore targeted for greater academic and pastoral
interventions. Whereas it is accepted that there are many other risk indicators, Ahmed (2004)
highlights the immediacy of the information available, in comparison to other information, such as
attendance and assignment deadline problems, which may not come to light for some time. He
concludes that:
These results lend weight to the notion that the adoption of the VLE has a positive
impact on retention figures. Clearly retention is a very complex issue and many
other factors will come into play. None-the-less, the data is consistent with the
possibility that higher levels of use of the VLE can contribute to good retention
rates. (Ahmed 2004)
He does offer a cautionary note however, in that he accepts that the data falls short of providing
a clear causal link. Various strategies have been identified to improve retention (McGivney
1996), one of which is academic support. A key factor affecting adult learners, whether they
come straight from school, or more usually after a break from education is the barrier they face in
‘learning how to learn’. The skills of managing time, work, outside commitments and information

6 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 724: Successful learning or failing premise? A situated evaluation of a virtual learning environment
replicated the features of the original content. The students comprised two groups of trainee
teachers undertaking a Post Graduate Certificate in Education/Certificate in Education
(PGCE/Cert.Ed.) in 2004/5. During the project research was conducted using the discussion
forum, together with an online focus group, one-to-one interviews and a questionnaire.
The choice of the Situated Evaluation of Computer Assisted Learning framework (SECAL) as a
methodology offered a qualitative approach which was constructive in nature. Squires (2000)
raises the question of the lack of informed evaluation of the effects of using learning
technologies. My methodology was informed by the views of Gunn (1997) where she advocates
a conceptual approach to evaluation based on the common findings from individual cases. It is
her view that a scientific approach has inherent failings in that there is a lack of ‘situation’ and
‘context’, leading to results which are too general and isolated to be meaningful to others.
Barbera (2004) confirms this view, advocating the use of evaluation methodology which focuses
on the relationships and dialogue which are inherent in educational communities. My role as
researcher was not an independent one, as I was also actively engaged, during the case study,
as teacher and personal tutor. While this appears to present an ethical conflict, it actually worked
well in terms of the methodology selected as I was able to use my position of trust to glean
important soundings which, although interpreted in a subjective way, provided a depth of
information which would have been difficult for a truly objective and independent researcher to
unravel. The scope of this case study encompasses two current year groups of trainee teachers
undertaking a Post Graduate Certificate in Education/Certificate in Education (PGCE/Cert.Ed.).
Wider groups, forming the basis of many of the observations, discussions and trial runs, included
a previous year group of trainee teachers, and a current group of trainee teachers from a Pre-
Service PGCE/Cert.Ed group, who while unable practically to participate in the research directly,
offered valuable insights into the field of case study. Research was conducted using
observations, a questionnaire, discussions (online and face to face), focus groups and individual
interviews over the academic year 2004/5. As previously stated, it became problematic to draw
significant conclusions due to the nature, scope and scale of the research, particularly in relation
to the issues around the impact of VLEs on retention and achievement, but this does not detract
from the importance of the findings as a focus for discussion on the future of VLEs.
The SECAL framework (Gunn 1997) guides the evaluator to a consideration of a nine factors
within a case study or small scale research activity. These are listed as:
1 A detailed statement of Learning Objectives and appropriate
means of assessing achievement
2 Hardware/Software Issues
3 Effective Use of Technology
4 Instructional Strategy
5 Design Quality
6 Teaching method and Learning Support
7 Motivation factors
8 Integration issues
9 Institutional issues
Section 3: Research findings
This paper summarises the findings into common issues and concerns for future research.
In terms of learning objectives, those for Successful Learning are embedded within the
PGCE/Cert.Ed. course as a whole in that they support the learning skills development of the
learner in order that he can achieve the module outcomes. However, engagement with the
package was not summatively assessed, and thereby did not contribute to a record of
achievement. Review of literature around learner motivation, confirms the need for more
alignment between learning objectives and assessment. Technical problems dogged the

8 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 724: Successful learning or failing premise? A situated evaluation of a virtual learning environment
“With work commitments, teaching commitments, essay writing commitments,
shopping ,cooking ,cleaning, if there is any free time after that, sorry to say I could
find much better things to do than search for a Web site which is not only difficult
to access, but also temperental, which dos`nt have a spell check facility (sorry for
all my mistakes)and to be frank I find unenspiring.” (Kathryn) (sic)
The trainees felt that they required more support from the tutor, at least while they gained
familiarity with the system. In general the feeling was that the teaching method, that of facilitating
discussion and sharing resources was a useful enhancement to the course, however this
conflicted with the issues around learner motivation. Extrinsic motivators, such as making access
and contributions a module learning outcome, were not a feature, however, early attempts made
to engage, by sharing resources with trainees, and by encouraging them to share did bear some
small fruit. Jon reflected on this aspect
“Picking up Alison's suggestion on sharing some resources, I have attached
something here that you might be able to adapt for your own purposes.
Also, following on from Mary's point, if we can all put something on here it might
encourage us all to have a go and keep visiting” (Jon)
Relevance was not clearly perceived by all, as a significant proportion of trainees failed to
contribute to the discussion threads at all. Previous research into creating virtual social spaces
reached the unsettling conclusion that: “mature, full time professional, part time students have
neither the time not the inclination to spend effort on non-essential and unrewarded tasks”
(McPherson and Nunes (2004 p320)
Whilst it is accepted that this research concentrated on the social aspects of VLEs, the warning
is clear.
Successful learning is designed to integrate with the early modules of the PGCE, as trainees
are developing their study skills, academic writing skills and familiarising themselves with the
modular structure of the course. As such it integrates well for those who are identified as needing
support at this stage. However, because of previously identified issues integration was not
helped by the point at which most trainees were able to access the system as a critical mass.
There is an organizational commitment to the VLE for the foreseeable future; however one issue
is that many of the trainees work in educational settings where their own institutions have
invested in alternative e-learning infrastructure, including intranets, VLEs, video and computer
mediated conferencing facilities and interactive classrooms. This plethora of technology is a
source of confusion and frustration for many, an example of which is the process of logging on to
the various systems.
In summary several key issues clearly arise from the findings, those of accessibility, integration,
navigation, learner motivation and technical reliability and robustness.
Section 3: Conclusions, discussion, and suggestions
for future research
It was interesting how the research supported the effectiveness of retention and achievement
strategies (Noel 2004) but seemed to fail to make a causal link between the use of a VLE and
improvements in retention and achievement (Ahmed 2004). The growing premise about
e-learning solutions as a basis for successful learning at an individual, institutional and national
level is therefore not made as yet, in the author’s view, and again there is scope for more
detailed research. Certainly if recent Weblogs (Lewis 2005 and Wilson 2005) created by key
thinkers in the field of e-learning are anything to go by future research may be hampered by the
lack of research base, because of the actual demise of the VLE in preference to:
The emergence of the ‘open’ movement and technologies as represented by
SourceForge, MIT Courseware, Wikipedia etc was of particular note. Also, of

12 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 721: Mismatched expectations of staff and students towards Blackboard
The changes in the delivery of learning resources also has an impact on the way lecturers design
learning and their expectations of the VLE. The need to understand pedagogical principles of
learning models, such as constructivism, rather than concentrating on the transmission is crucial
to blended learning design. In addition the lecturer must think about the model of learning used in
the VLE and whether existing materials transfer into this environment. A research study
evaluating the impact of a VLE on learning and teaching, found that VLEs do not alter the way
academics teach. The basic approach remains the same. However, it had enhanced the
instructional process, contributing to more effective teaching (Newland, 2003).
First stage use of the VLE is often using the tool as a content management system, replicating
what can already be achieved through print (Morón-Garcia, 2001). Usage of the VLE within the
School of Computing appears to be in line with expectations of ‘first phase adoption’. In a study
undertaken at the University Of Twente, The Netherlands, they found that instructors are most
likely to begin by choosing aspects of a system that reflects their current ways of teaching and
then gradually move to new instructional approaches and new features. These methods evolve
as staff become more familiar with the environment and its capabilities (Newland, 2003). The
findings from the survey results suggest that effective use of VLEs could potentially be improved
with an initial induction for both staff and students which set expectations correctly and illustrated
how to use the environment for effective learning rather than just teach functionality.
Background
The School of Computing at Teesside is incorporating more e-learning with some modules
already conducting online lectures, with lecturers available via discussion forums and email for
learner support. It is therefore important that the implications for the quality of student learning in
this new e-learning age be considered. Students must have the required level of technical ability
to enable them to successfully complete online activities (Moloney & Tello, 2003).
Computing students are expected to be computer-literate because of their chosen discipline and
so an assumption is made that being unable to use the technology will not be an issue for these
students. This is a dangerous assumption to make, however, as a growing number of non-
traditional students enter into Higher Education as a result of widening participation. For
example, younger students in the UK study ICT as part of their curriculum at school but older
students and students from outside of the UK may not have the basic information technology
skills that are taught now in the UK (Myers & Beise, 2001).
Now that around a third of all school leavers enter higher education, it has to be accepted that
the student population is significantly different from that which existed in a more elitist education
system. One of the results is a tendency towards increased dependence of students on tutors to
support their learning. Many students do not think they have learned something successful
unless they have been taught it in some formal way (Brown & Smith, 1996:22). This conflicts with
the move towards blended learning, where there is an expectation that they learn independently,
using a variety of learning resources. Students who believe they learn best from traditionally
taught lectures are therefore often resistant to e-learning (Alexander, 2001).
In a recent study conducted by Students Online Learning Experiences research group, it was
found that students’ biggest issue was that of control—with individuals recognising the benefit of
online access to course materials, enabling them to take control of their own learning (review
course notes, cross reference their own notes with the online content uploaded by the lecturer).
However the students stressed the need to retain face to face contact with lecturers, with class
time valued very highly (Timis, 2003).
There is also an assumption made that because computing students are computer-literate they
will be happy to engage in e-learning and perhaps even prefer this method of learning over
traditional face to face lectures and tutorials. This is in part due to the often-held stereotype that
computing is studied by ‘nerds’ and ‘geeks’. In a study conducted by Martin (2004) first year

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 15
Part 1 Paper 721: Mismatched expectations of staff and students towards Blackboard
discussion which takes place when a tutor is challenged. Mature students are less likely to have
had prior experience using computers in education, for example, through use at school (Myers &
Beise, 2001). This may explain why they felt less comfortable with e-learning than traditional
students preferring the familiar face to face classroom experience.
Sociability questions were included to determine whether the students fitted the unsociable
‘computer-geek’ stereotype and whether this could predispose them towards an e-learning
environment rather than traditional face to face techniques. The score for each sociability
question was added for each respondent to obtain a total score for each respondent. A score
from 0–5 indicates an unsocial personality. A score of 6 or 7 indicates a neutral personality. A
score from 8–11 indicates a social personality. The respondent group scored a median of 6 and
a tied mode of both 5 and 6. The overall sociability of the participants was therefore close to the
norm with a slight tendency towards being unsociable. However, this showed the students who
participated did not fit the ‘computer-geek’ stereotype.
A non-parametric correlation analysis was performed with the sociability score to determine
whether there was any statistically significant difference in the way the questions had been
answered by the three different social types. There was no significant difference in the way that
the different groups responded.
Overall attitudes towards e-learning
The overall score for the group indicated that they had a slight overall preference for face to face
techniques. However, mature students were over-represented in the sample, 37% as compared
to 19% in the population and therefore may have skewed this result.
Around two thirds of the respondents (63%) felt it was important to attend all the lectures.
However, only 54% felt that they missed valuable information if they missed a lecture. It could be
supposed that this may have been due to the lecture notes being made available online,
however, 71% of respondents disagreed that if lectures notes were available online they were
not worried if they missed a lecture. In addition, 73% felt they learned more by attending the
lecture than by just reading the notes provided online. Sixty one per cent of students did not think
it was important to ask questions in lectures but 63% said they learned when other people asked
questions. The value in attending lectures therefore seemed to lie in the face to face interaction
with the tutor but the respondents were not pro-active in creating this type of learning.
Similarly, around two thirds of respondents (66%) felt it was important to attend all tutorials.
Respondents valued the collaborative aspect of tutorials with 68% agreeing that they learned
from their fellow students when they attended. The majority of respondents (81%) preferred to
attend tutorials so that they could receive feedback from their tutor. However, again, the
feedback appeared to often be driven by the tutors rather than the students with only 51%
indicating that they attend tutorials in order to ask questions.
In terms of support, 59% of respondents preferred to ask the tutor questions face to face.
However, only 51% felt that the support provided by tutors in lectures and tutorials could not be
provided by online resources alone. This may reflect the passive role that the respondents
seemed to assume during lectures and tutorials where they do not appear to take full advantage
of the tutor’s presence to ask questions and generate discussion.
The Blackboard survey
The objective of the second survey, fielded to both lecturers and students was to find out how
they were currently using Blackboard and what existing functionality was important to them in a
VLE. Blackboard has been in limited use within the School of Computing at Teesside since 2002,
with wide scale adoption from 2004. It is not known if staff and students have been exposed to

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 17
Part 1 Paper 721: Mismatched expectations of staff and students towards Blackboard
replace them. Students choosing to study in this way risk a poorer quality of learning experience
than those who study the course as it is intended. Graduate skills such as collaboration skills and
communication skills will potentially suffer. This finding suggests the importance of setting the
students’ expectations of how Blackboard should be used from the start.
Students were asked which online resource they were directed to use for their study was most
useful. Thirty-seven percent of students said online course content was the most useful
resource, 20% said online tutorials, 10% said the School of Computing intranet, 7% said the
internet and 5% said lecturer’s individual Web sites. Lecturers were asked what online resources
they would recommend to enhance student learning. Thirty-three per cent of lecturers
recommended their own Web sites, 22% the internet, 22% the School of Computing intranet and
11% recommended online tutorials, message forums, Web logs and online reference material.
Perhaps alarmingly only one member of staff and no students mentioned the online learning
resource centre which provides access to online journals. This is perhaps a reflection of the
culture within the school. Blackboard could be used as a portal to all of these resources. This
indicates that both staff and students should be educated not only on the functionality of
Blackboard but also on how to use it effectively to promote learning.
Discussion
The online survey aimed to determine whether second-year multimedia students had a
preference for either e-learning or traditional teaching techniques in particular aspects of their
education. The data was also analysed by various demographic data to determine whether a
particular group showed strong preferences. The survey also tested the idea of whether students
in the computing discipline were unsociable technological ‘geeks’ who preferred to work in
solitude and whether this would predispose them towards e-learning.
The results indicated a need for more active learning in lectures to engage and motivate
students. The results also showed that students valued the face to face contact they got in
tutorials as the majority of students recognized the benefits of collaboration and of receiving
feedback from the tutor. This could be because talking with a tutor or peer helps them to form the
question and answers through dynamic interaction, whereas an email is static and requires the
student to articulate the problem well in writing. This is something tutors should keep in mind
when designing e-learning resources. The sociability data showed that, for this group, an
individual’s sociability did not affect their preferences for teaching techniques although this could
be because the sample size was small. The group was shown to have a fairly average
sociability. The most important finding was that mature students had a preference for face to face
techniques, even though they are on a computing course. There are increasing numbers of
mature students entering into higher education due to widening participation and their differing
needs for effective learning must be met.
For effective learning to take place, a VLE should be used to embed learning objects.
Unfortunately the results indicated that staff expect more of Blackboard than for it to be used as
a dissemination tool which leads them to become disenchanted with the environment and move
to intranet sites instead. Staff must not only have the tools they need but must be prepared on
how to use them effectively. Embedding simulations and problem-based learning activities rather
than simply the provision of information has been found to be more effective in e-learning
environments (Alexander, 2001). The findings suggest that both staff and students could benefit
from being prepared in how to use blended learning and also in assessing how effective the
technology has been. When designing courses it is ineffective to use technology for technology’s
sake. Media should be chosen according to their appropriateness for the task and their design
should be in line with current theories of learning. The environment should teach the intended
learning objectives and it should encourage students to reach those objectives using a deep
approach to learning. There are technologies emerging which allow the creation of environments

20 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 772: Knowledge construction in online learning
PAPER 772
Knowledge construction in online learning
Authors Shalni Gulati
Address for correspondence Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford,
Norham Gardens, Oxford, UK.
shalnigulati@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
This presentation intends to share some results of a doctorate research that used the Repertory
Grid Method and the grounded theory approach to investigate the differences and similarities in
active and silent online discussion participants’ meaning making processes. The results revealed
personal control and emotions as the two common main constructs that influenced learning
preferences, the online social identity construction processes and practical and technical factors,
which in turn affected learners’ participation and engagement in online discussions. The
presentation will be of interest to online educators to understand the underlying issues
influencing online discussion participation.
Introduction
This paper reports on some of the results of a doctorate research that investigated differences in
active and silent online discussion participants’ knowledge construction processes, in eight
online and blended courses. Situated in the constructivist paradigm, the research used the
Repertory Grid Method to deconstruct learners’ knowledge construction processes. The
grounded theory approach for analysis identified two main personal constructs and three tenets
that influenced knowledge construction and online discussion participation for twenty-nine
postgraduate learners. This paper describes the tenet online social identity construction in some
detail and identifies implications for practice.
Background and context
Information technology (IT) in education is often seen as a means of making learning accessible
to adults with work and domestic responsibilities and for raising standards in education (DfES
2004). Increased access to learning via IT may seem incontrovertible. However, many e-learning
developments have advanced with the assumption that technology will somehow engage
different learners. There is limited critical and evaluative research into how can technologies
enhance learning experiences for different learners (Oliver and Dempster 2002).
Growing numbers of educationalists advocate the use of communication technologies embedded
in VLEs to promote interactive, collaborative and socially constructivist learning (Britain and Liber
1999). In a typical online learning scenario, educators design tasks that require participation in
online discussions. An online activity often begins with reading learning materials followed by
online participation. Online interaction is encouraged and learners are expected to reply to
others’ messages. Facilitators perceive such a structuring of online learning can enable
reflection, build a learning community (Conrad 2002) and engenders co-operative activities
where learners can take active roles in knowledge construction. Yet all learners do not actively
participate in online discussions. There is growing literature on difficulties in engaging all learners
in online discussions (Williams 2002). This research was situated in the above context where
online pedagogues emphasize online discussion participation.

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 21
Part 1 Paper 772: Knowledge construction in online learning
Rationale
Online learning literature often refers to learning as a socially constructivist experience, and
assumes that flexibility offered by online communication technologies can help support learner-
centred strategies for diverse learners’ (Miller and Lu 2003). At first the inclusion of and
emphasis on online discussions may seem beneficial and socially constructivist. Requiring
compulsory online participation may also seem an appropriate way to integrate learning
processes and assessment. These strategies may be effective for knowledge construction for
some learners. Yet literature repeatedly reports on a silent majority who do not participate in
online discussions (Williams 2002).
Online educators’ disapproval of silence in online discussions has led to grading of online
discussion. They advocate close monitoring and tracking of learners (Epling et al 2003) to ensure
engagement. Educators use phrases like ‘need to control the discussion’, ‘to track learner activity’,
‘make sure the discussions are posted by a certain date’ and ‘penalise non-contributors’ (Anderson
et al 2001). The grading of discussions suggests tutors favour active discussion participants over
others because the former conform to the tutor-defined requirements (Beaudoin 2002). Favouring
some learner behaviours over others may exclude silent participants, who may prefer other ways
of learning. On one hand, the online rhetoric intends to use technology to make the learning more
open, discursive and learner-centred. On the other hand, the emphasis on online participation
promotes visible learning processes judged by a formal authoritative figure.
This emphasis on online participation disregards individual differences. It results in judgement of
those who do not comply and raises questions about the constructivist nature of online
discussions as claimed in formal education course designs. The lack of participation by some
and not others suggests the need to understand the reasons behind differences in online
participation. There is a need to understand learners’ experiences to understand the impact on
those marginalized due to emphasis on visible participation. This research proposed to
understand different learners knowledge construction.
Research questions
The research questions and methodology were situated in the constructivist paradigm. The
underlying philosophy was that learning is influenced by individual constructions and views about
oneself and others. The research assumed that learning is a process of conceptual and cognitive
change, and individuals play dynamic roles in constructing and re-constructing their
interpretations and representations (Bezzi 1996). This view suggests that learners may adopt
‘active’, ‘moderate’ or ‘silent’ roles to understand others’ outlooks and external concepts (Kelly
1970). This interpretation of constructivism led to the research questions:

How do learners construct meaning during online and blended courses that encourage
participation in online discussions?

Are there differences between how active, moderate and silent learners construct meaning?

Are silent learners or ‘lurkers’, who do not participate in online course discussions, learning?

What are the implications for practice?
Methodology
The research used the Repertory Grid Method designed by Kelly (1970), based on his theory of
personality called the Personal Construct Theory (PCT). According to Kelly (1970), no two
experiences in any individuals’ life are the same. When faced with new experiences, one devises
theories from past experiences and uses those theories to anticipate new experiences. The
different viewpoints and behaviours, such as different levels of online participation correspond to
different theories one creates from past encounters. These theories are called personal
constructs, abstracted by differentiating experiences into two homogeneous groups (Kelly 1970).

22 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 772: Knowledge construction in online learning
The theories held by individuals are not permanent. As one encounters new experiences, they
use their previous constructions to choose how they respond or behave. New experiences help
to re-confirm previous constructions or deconstruct old constructions and reconstruct new ones.
This ongoing deconstruction and reconstruction is what Kelly (1970) calls learning.
The Repertory Grid Method based on the PCT provided a systematic method to analyse
learners’ knowledge construction processes. The method began with an interview to gain
contextual information about the participants. Then each participant was asked to list 10–15
learning activities during their online or blended courses. These could be online, offline, formal
and informal activities. Each activity was noted on a separate card. The participants were asked
to look at random combinations of three activities to describe which two were more similar as
compared to the third and why. This is called the triad method (Kelly 1970). The comparisons
helped to elicit a pair of personal constructs that were noted on another set of cards.
After the participants had considered each activity in at least one triad and had exhausted their
personal constructs, they used a scaled of 1 to 5 to rate each activity against each pair of
personal constructs. This resulted in a Repertory Grid for each participant that was analysed
using SPSS factor analysis function. The factors extracted helped to identify activities and
personal constructs with high loadings on each factor, for each participant. These were
represented as graphical dimensions and used for qualitative analysis in the second interview.
During this interview, the participants were asked to consider each factor and label each
dimension. This allowed insight into learners’ engagement processes and reasons for differences
in online participation.
All audio interviews were transcribed. The transcriptions and labelled graphical representations
were coded and analysed using the grounded theory principles and the qualitative analysis
software, ATLAS.ti. The participants were volunteers, gave informed consent and were free to
discontinue participation at any time. They were assured confidentiality throughout the study and
pseudonyms were used in further reporting (Data Protection Act 1998).
Research sample
The sample included twenty-nine volunteer learners studying for online or blended post-graduate
and post-registration courses at one Higher Education Institute (HEI) in the UK. The grounded
theory approach supported the use of theoretical sampling, which evolved with data collection
and ongoing comparative analysis. Some variation within this population group was important to
allow for broader explanatory power and precision of the emerging themes and theory (Strauss
and Corbin 1998). This variation was enabled through inclusion of learners from different
professional disciplines that used online discussions. Table 1 summarises the heterogeneous
characteristics of the final sample that was representative of the current postgraduate learner
population indicated in the Higher Education Policy Institute Report (Sastry 2004).

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 23
Part 1 Paper 772: Knowledge construction in online learning

Course
Subjects
Online/
Blended
Mode
No. of
Males/
Females

Overseas &
Home
students*
In PT/
FT
Study
Who pays
the fees?
Learner (L)
Employer (E)
Bursary (B)
Employment
during course
PT/FT/
Self-employed/
Unemployed/
Student
Nursing
(PG Diploma)
Blended M=0
F=4
Overseas=0
Home=4
PT=0
FT=4
B=4
Student=4
Nursing (Post-
registration
Certificate level)
Online (with 3-
day workshops)
M=0
F=3
Overseas=1
Overseas=2**
FT=1
PT=2
L=1
E=2!
PT placement=1
FT employed=2
Geographic
Information
Sciences
(M level)
Blended
Online (without
workshops)
M=4
F=2

Overseas=3**
*
Home=3
FT=4
PT=2

L=6!!

Student=2
FT employed=2
PT employed=2
Information
Sciences
(M level)
Blended M=0
F=2
Overseas=0
Home=2
PT=0
FT=2
L=2
PT employed=2
E-learning
module
(M level)
Online (with
workshops)
M=0
F=3
Overseas=0
Home=3
FT=0
PT=3
L=2
E=1
FT employed=1
Self-
employed=2
Online tutoring
(PG Certificate
level)
Online (with
workshops)
M=3
F=2
Overseas=2**
Home=3
PT=5
FT=0
L=2
E=3!
FT employed=4
Self-
employed=1
Business
Management (M
level)
Blended M=1
F=2
Overseas=3
Home=0
PT=0
FT=3
L=3!! Student=3
Digital
Entrepreneurship
(PG Certificate
level)
Online (with
workshops)
M=2
F=1
Overseas=0
Home=3
PT=3
FT=0
L=3 FT employed=1
Student=1
Self-
employed=1
Total number of
course subjects
represented in
the study = 8
Total number of:
Online courses
(with
workshops) = 4
Online courses
(without
workshops) = 1
Blended courses
= 4
Total
number of
Males = 10
Females =
19
Total number
of
Overseas = 9
Home = 20
Total
number of
PT learners
=15
FT learners
=14
Total
number of
Home
paying=13
Overseas
paying=6
On bursary
=4
Employer
support=6
Total number in
FT employment
= 10
PT employment
= 5
Self employed =
4
Student = 10

M = Masters level; PG = Post-graduate; PT = Part Time; FT = Full Time
*See Glossary for definitions of Overseas and Home students
**These learners trained overseas. At the time of the study they were working full time in the UK
***One of these learners is an overseas student and is based in Europe studying at a distance. Other overseas
students in this course are based in UK during the time of study
! Overseas learner fees was paid by the NHS employer
!! Three overseas learners paid more than double fees in contrast with their UK counterparts
Table 1 Heterogeneous characteristics of the research participant group

24 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 772: Knowledge construction in online learning
Results
Situated in the constructivist paradigm, the research concluded the importance of reconstructing
the individual learning process as a whole, rather than just focusing on online discussions as the
main activity. The results showed that different learners did not regard just one activity on its
own, such as online discussion participation, as their main learning process. The deconstruction
of twenty-nine learners’ experiences concluded that each knowledge construction cycle was a
complex mix of individual and social ways of knowing, affected by their constructs of personal
control and emotions. Online discussion participation was a complex social psychological
phenomenon among the different learning activities that was also affected by the two main
personal constructs, personal control and emotions.
Personal constructs and main tenets
The grounded theory analysis approach identified control and emotions as the two main
constructs influencing knowledge construction processes for different learners. The learners
used individual and social learning activities, course requirements and learning resources to
control their learning directions, goals and depth of engagement. Although all learners used
online discussions during their online or blended learning courses, they did not equally benefit
from participation. The learners’ emotions were significant and related to their experience of
control over and social engagement in online discussions. Personal control and emotions
influenced the active, moderate and silent participants’ choices to either learn alone or with
others in the online learning context. The analysis concluded personal control and emotions
experienced during the social psychological and practical processes were important enablers or
disablers of knowledge construction using online discussions. That is, a feeling of personal
control and positive emotions led to increased participation in a learning activity, including online
discussions, and vice versa.
The influence of personal control and emotions on ways of knowing and participation in online
discussions led to the identification of three main tenets that helped to explain the differences in
the knowledge construction of professional postgraduate learners who were active, moderate
and silent participants in online discussions.
These tenets were:
Tenet 1 (T1) Individual and social learning preference Learners engaged in
online, offline, individual and social activities depending on their learning
preferences and their construction of personal control and emotions during a
learning activity.
Tenet 2 (T2) Online social identity A positive online social identity was an
important precursor for successful participation and engagement in online
discussions.
Tenet 3 (T3) Practical and technical factors The time for learning, Information
Technology (IT) access and a sense of ownership of the virtual learning space
influenced control and emotional engagement during online learning activities
including online discussion participation.
These tenets were not independent but interrelated and influenced by the two personal
constructs. The different constructions of personal control and emotions were related to learners’
learning preferences (T1), the social psychological processes for online social identity
construction (T2), and the practical issues (T3) such as time, IT access, learning space
ownership and learning goals. These differences in personal control and emotions due to these
tenets explained learners’ differences in online discussion participation during online and
blended courses. The next section demonstrates how T2 explained online participation
differences.

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 27
Part 1 Paper 772: Knowledge construction in online learning
“I didn’t feel part of the community at all. And this is why also I probably felt that I
didn’t gain anything from it. In the end it just became an exercise. I just felt that for
me it was just emotion. That involvement, it didn’t happen for me. I never felt I was
inside. I felt I was on the outside looking in through that opaque glass, not really
seeing.” (Shelly Int 1 & 2)
In the desire to be accepted and seen positively by others in the online context, all learners
stated they controlled how they presented themselves through their messages (2 in Figure 2).
“I think my initial worry online was that putting work online and its there. And people
can discuss it, think about it and go back to it. So (it is) important not to make a
mistake …I think it is just more permanent in writing. I know I would say things, like I
would say things now, perhaps things that I wouldn’t write” (Claire Int 1)


Figure 1 Principal themes of online social identity construction
Controlled self-presentations to get others to like you and to build a positive social identity are
known phenomena in social psychology. In this research the learners identified using formal
language in tutor-monitored online discussions, which limited open exchange of ideas. They
made declarative statements or held back from participating. The learners in the research also
identified that this imposed control resulted in a surface discourse and consequent
disengagement.
Another social psychological aspect of online social identity construction and online discussions
was the conflicting social identities. The learners’ perceptions of how they were seen by others
and how others actually saw them in online discussions were in conflict (3 in Figure 1). This
conflict resulted from the learners’ desire to gain control over the online social situations, while
they had limited awareness of how others perceived them. These conflicting social identities
demonstrated the lack of sensitivity and awareness of each other and resulted in online
disengagement by some and active participation or dominance of the online space by others.


















4. Language
socialisation and
identity







Knowledge of
others and
connectedness

Knowledge of
others and
connectedness
Knowledge of
others and
connectedness
Knowledge of
others and
connectedness
5. Professional
socialisation and
identity

1. Emotional
response and social
identity

2. Personal control
over social identity

3. Conflicting social
indentities in online
discussions

Social identity
in online and
blended courses

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 29
Part 1 Paper 772: Knowledge construction in online learning
Secondly, for online learning to be flexible and accessible, the educators also need to take
account of the learners’ personal learning interests and goals, the time they have for learning,
their different learning preferences, and have the flexibility to accommodate learners’ personal
and professional responsibilities outside the course. Thirdly, educators need to recognize the
importance of personal control, emotions and emotional connection for participation in online
discussions. Any online discussion strategies need to ensure the discussion tasks are relevant to
learners with different professional needs. A pre-course induction may be necessary where
learners can develop technical skills and practice online communication to openly discuss and
challenge each other. It is recommended tutors include time and strategies for initial online and
offline socialisation so learners can get to know others, building an intersubjective understanding
about each others goals, building trust and an emotional connectedness. This socialisation can
foster a sense of responsibility towards others in the online group, give consideration to language
differences and foster openness in different English usages.
An understanding of the above tenets and constructs will not necessarily result in increased
online participation. But it may result in educators who are more aware of the complexities of
online engagement. This awareness may enable them to become more sensitive and perceptive
to learners with different learning preferences, and to the power discourses in online discussions,
so they can support more equitable learning experiences for their learners.
Conclusion
This paper has presented the main results of a qualitative study that investigated knowledge
construction processes of different learners. The paper has demonstrated that online discussion
participation in online and blended courses is more complex than it may first appear. It is more
than a two-way textual exchange. It is bound with complexities of social identity, social
presentation, emotions, control, conflict and power discourses. It is also influenced by the
practical access factors and personal learning preferences, which are in turn affected by the
personal control and emotions experienced during learning. The discussion has also outlined
how practitioners can use the main tenets and constructs to construct more learner-centred and
equitable learning strategies.

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 31
Part 1 Paper 1033: L2C: Designing simulation-based
learning experiences for collaboration competencies development
PAPER 1033
L2C: Designing simulation-based
learning experiences for collaboration
competencies development
Authors Albert A. Angehrn
Address for correspondence

Centre for Advanced Learning Technologies (CALT), INSEAD,
France
albert.angehrn@insead.edu
Abstract
Effective collaboration dynamics are at the core of learning, knowledge exchange and innovation
processes. Nevertheless, in today’s global environment, a large number of collaboration
initiatives fail to deliver the value expected, as complexity is increased by the diversity and the
distributed nature of the people, groups, and knowledge sources and by the knowledge
integration processes involved. Effective collaboration competencies are hence emerging as a
key condition for productive and sustainable value creation at the individual, team, organizational
and inter-organizational level. L2C—Learning to Collaborate—is an ongoing research project
addressing the design of effective immersive simulation-based learning experiences supporting
the development of collaboration competencies both at the individual and organizational level.
The key characteristic of such advanced learning tools consists in the integration of
psychological, motivational, cognitive, organizational, cultural and technological factors affecting
the success or failure of collaboration into the modelling of a set of virtual characters with whom
learners can interact dynamically within a challenging and realistic collaboration scenario. This
paper provides an overview of the conceptual basis, key design principles and expected
pedagogical impact of this new type of immersive simulation-based learning experience.
Introduction
Effective collaboration dynamics are fundamental to learning, knowledge exchange and
development/innovation processes in a wide variety of educational, economical or societal
contexts. In spite of the attention that the subject of collaboration has attracted over the last few
years in fields like management (Hansen and Nohria, 2004), organizational dynamics (Mayer et
al., 1995; Orlikowski, 1992) and education (Pea, 1994), no traditional or computer-enhanced
approaches and learning solutions have emerged to-date which address efficiently and
effectively the development of collaboration competencies from an inter-disciplinary perspective,
including:

individual psychological and motivational factors determining knowledge seeking and
behavior sharing of people involved in collaboration

group, organizational and inter-organizational factors conducive or detrimental to
collaborative behavior

cognitive and behavioral mechanisms to support effective knowledge exchange processes in
order to seek and integrate knowledge from diverse sources taking into consideration their
contextual embeddedness

opportunities and pitfalls of technologies aimed at supporting distributed collaboration

pragmatic aspects resulting from the analysis of best/worst cases and experiences of
collaboration patterns in different contexts (such as merger-like situations, joint ventures and

38 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 1033: L2C: Designing simulation-based
learning experiences for collaboration competencies development
Magerko and Laird, 2003; Salen and Zimmermann, 2003; Sarjoughian and Singh, 2004;Yilmaz
and Oren, 2003).
The ultimate objective is to provide: (i) the community of educators with a new technology-
enhanced approach to the effective development of relevant collaboration competencies, and (ii)
the community of instructional designers, learning technologies experts and researchers with
tools, components and a conceptual and design framework enabling them to design and deploy
their own collaboration scenarios, simulations, and learning experiences.
Acknowledgements
A personal thank-you for their input goes to all the colleagues involved in the L2C Project, the CALT
team members, Alicia Cheak, Rachel Royer, and the EC, which co-sponsored this research.
References
Aldrich C. (2005). Learning by Doing: A Comprehensive Guide to Simulations, Computer Games, and Pedagogy
in E-learning and Other Educational Experiences, Jossey-Bass.
Angehrn, A.A. (2004/5). The EIS Simulation User Manual. www.calt.insead.edu/eis/
Angehrn, A.A. (2004a). Learning by Playing: Bridging the Knowing-Doing Gap in Urban Communities; In A.
Bounfour and L. Edvinsson (Eds.), Intellectual Capital for Communities: Nations, Regions, Districts, Cities,
Butterworth-Heinemann, 299–316.
Angehrn, A.A. (2004b). Behind the EIS Simulation: An Overview of Models Underlying the Simulation Dynamics;
CALT Working Paper 10–2004.
Angehrn, A.A. (2005). Learning to Manage Innovation and Change through Organizational and People
Dynamics Simulations; Proceedings of the International Simulation & Gaming Association Conference (ISAGA
05), Atlanta, USA.
Angehrn, A.A. (2006). SmallWorld Simulations: Experiences and Developments; CALT Working Paper, 2006.
Angehrn, A.A. and C. Loebbecke (2004). Open Source Communities Reflecting Co-opetitive Learning and
Knowledge Exchange Networks; Proceedings of the 2004 IFIP International Conference on Decision Support
Systems (DSS 2004), Prato, Italy.
Angehrn, A.A. and Nabeth, T. (1997). Leveraging Emerging Technologies in Management Education: Research
and Experiences, European Management Journal, 15, 3, 275–285.
Angehrn, A.A., Schönwald, I., Euler, D. and S. Seufert (2005). Behind EduChallenge: An Overview of Models
Underlying the Dynamics of a Simulation on Change Management in Higher Education; SCIL-Universität St
Gallen, SCIL Report 7, December 2005.
Angehrn, A.A., Y. Doz and Atherton, J.E.M. (1995). Business Navigator: The Next Generation of Management
Development Tools, CALT Working Paper. www.calt.insead.edu/eis/documents/BN Paper.pdf
Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. A. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization, Academy of Management
Review, 14, 20–39.
Baillie-de Byl, P. (2004). Programming Believable Characters for Computer Games, Charles River Media.
Benbasat, I. and Lim, L. H. (1993). The effects of group, task, context, and technology variables on the
usefulness of group support systems: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Small Group Research, 24,
430–462.
Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg and D.
Adams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1–16.
Burt, R. (2001) Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. In: Lin, N., Cook, K. S. and Burt, R. S.
(Eds.). Social Capital: Theory and Research, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 31–56.
Burt, R. (2004) Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 2, 349–99.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Collins, M.A. and Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and Creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.): Handbook of
Creativity. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 297–312.
Davenport T.H. and J.K. Back (2001), The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business,
Harvard Business School Press.

40 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 1033: L2C: Designing simulation-based
learning experiences for collaboration competencies development
Locke, E.A. and Schweiger, D.M. (1979) Participation in Decision-Making: one more look. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 1, 265–339
Magerko, B. and Laird, J. (2003). Building an Interactive Drama Architecture with a High Degree of Interactivity.
1st International Conference on Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment, Darmstadt,
Germany, March.
Malone, T.W. (1981). Towards a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333–369.
Manzoni, J.F. and A.A. Angehrn (1997), Understanding Organizational Dynamics of IT-Enabled Change: A
Multimedia Simulation Approach, Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 3, 109–140.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy
of Management Review, 20, 3, 709–734.
Mayrhofer, D. & Back, A. (2003). Workplace E-Collaboration. Theoretical foundations and practical implications
(Bd. 1/2003). St. Gallen: Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1992). Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management Review,
34, 4, 53–72.
Moll, L.C. (1990), Vygotsky and Education—Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical
Psychology. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). Learning From Notes: Organisational Issues in Groupware Implementation,
Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Toronto, 362–369.
Pea, R.D. (1994). Seeing What We Build Together: Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for
Transformative Communications. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 3, 285–299.
Poole, M.S., Holmes, M., and DeSanctis, G. (1993). Group decision support systems and group
communication: A comparison in computer supported and non-supported groups. Communication Research, 20,
176–213.
Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2003). Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and
Range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267
Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, MIT Press.
Sarjoughian, H.S. and Singh, R.K. (2004). Building Simulations Modelling Environments Using Systems Theory
and Software Architecture Principles, Advanced Simulation Technology Symposium (ASTC), Washington DC,
Apri..
Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 3, 3, 265–283.
Shenkar, O. and Yan, A. (2002). Failure As a Consequence of Partner Politics Learning From the Life and
Death of an International Cooperative Venture. Human Relations, 559, 565–601.
Tushman, M.L. (1977). Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. Administrative Science Quarterly,
December, 22, 587–605.
Tushman, M.L. and Katz, R. (1980): External Communication and Project Performance: An Investigation into
the Role of Gatekeepers. Management Science, 26, 11, 1071–1085.
Wadsworth, B.J. (1979). Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development. Longman.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A. and Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice a guide to managing
knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wild, M. (1996). Mental Models and Computer Modelling, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12, 10–21.
Williams, P. (2002). The Competent Boundary Spanner. Public Administration, 801, 103–124.
Wunderer, R. and Dick, P. (2002). Sozialkompetenz—eine mitunternehmerische Kompetenz. Die
Unternehmung, Heft 6, 361–391.
Yilmaz L. and T. Ören (2003). Towards Simulation-Based Problem Solving Environments for Conflict
Management in Computational Social Science, Proceedings of Agent2003: Challenges in Social Simulation,
October.

44 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 773: Use these tools, your mind will follow.
Learning in immersive micromedia and microknowledge environments
worker—he is still quite different from the type of advanced “symbolic-analytic worker” Johnson-
Eilola (2005) describes as not merely using, but inhabiting information.
The interesting thing is that the micromedia experience is not limited to digital natives. Most of
the characteristics listed above can also be applied to the mainstream of students and digital
workers, who are checking the e-mail-box more than once per day, are searching with Google,
are using cell phones for lots of short calls to keep in permanent contact with their peers, or are
just keeping more than one window open on the PC. The transition to digital micromedia
environments is fully under way.
The so-called “information overload” is not so much a problem of “too much information”. It is the
consequence of the clash of old media behavioral patterns and new kinds of micro-chunked,
multi-channeled digital information.
The difference between the mainstream and the avant-garde of media users (who are better
called media beings) is mostly that the latter are not just experiencing the general
fragmentization of information and communication, but also develop positive strategies to cope
with this: re-framing, re-constructing and re-using microcontent, integrating it into new kinds of
patterns and threads. But increasingly this has not just been left to individual media
competencies. In the last years a new wave of new online applications and services to support
this has emerged.
4 Micromedia technologies
To escape the hype-speak of the net-visionaries one has to look closely at the level where things
really are happening. And this is not in the first place “the people”, as is often stated, but
applications and interfaces: “Use your media tool, your mind will follow,” to bend a famous pop
culture-quote. Not only are communities “built by software”, as a renowned software developer has
put it (Spolsky 2003), but to a large degree, identities, knowledge and learning experiences too.
In the last years educational theory has been staggering behind the dynamical changes of Web
technologies and practices. The real innovations in Computational Humanities or Cultural
Informatics have been made by small teams of programmers experimenting with technologies
with wide theoretical implications: the blogosphere, wiki-based collaborative texts, “folksonomies”
and the like. These plain and simple online applications, interfaces and services not only “put the
users in the center” but in fact transform the user through small software implementation details
that result in big differences in the way the community (the individual, the knowledge worker, the
learner…) develops, behaves, and feels.
The focus on microcontent is the common denominator. A closer look on the main groups of
applications shows some fundamental characteristics of the new micromedia environments that
have to be understood to create new kinds of microlearning experiences.
(a) “Point of Presence”: The basic interface metaphors of the Web are about to change. Up to
now we have still “pages” that are “read” and “sites” and “portals” that are “visited”. Web-shops
and marketplaces supplement this by a rudimentary personalized cockpit-type of interface,
where users do not have to “go there and get it”, but feel like “being in control”. But the
immersive “Web 2.0” interfaces take another radical step further: a point of presence, to borrow a
term from network technology. Now users experience data really like a digital extension of mind:
like being surrounded by a cloud of microcontent dynamically gathering and re-structuring in
every moment. In the “Come to Me Web” (Vander Wal 2006) the desired
information/communication/content is brought to the screen in an instant. And as the screen itself
is changing from a window or a cockpit’s radar screen to a projection screen of the digital mind,
this is obviously changing the role of future learners in a fundamental way.
(b) “Digital Life Aggregators”: The new point-of-presence-interfaces are typically designed with
much white space. They are blank, because the users are expected to “write themselves into

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 45
Part 1 Paper 773: Use these tools, your mind will follow.
Learning in immersive micromedia and microknowledge environments
existence”, as David Weinberger (2002b) has put it. And now it is not only writing anymore, but
doing a collage of quotations, links and annotations. New software applications support these
practices. They encourage users to aggregate and re-mix all kinds of microcontent, from texts to
pictures and audio-clips. The general tendency of micromedia seems points to a fundamental
shift in the external and internal representation of the self, from being controlled and stable (like
in a homepage) to taking on a vague and dynamic shape (like in a Weblog).
(c) “Micro-conversations”: From the beginning, “social” applications like newsgroups and e-mail
have been the real “killer applications” of the Web. “The Web is a conversation”, as Weinberger
(2002) has put it. “Social Software” (see Allen 2004) was developed that is supposed to extend
people’s social abilities and needs into the virtual world. But even “Friend Of A Friend” (FOAF)-
services like MySpace or LinkedIn that are building on this metaphor are only as “social” as the
early “live Webcams”, uploading one photo every fifteen minutes, were “live”. Social software is
not an extension of real world relationships and entities. “Online conversations” are made of
digital texts with links, written and read by individuals being alone and staring at a screen. Even if
one is communicating with one’s own family via social software, it feels different and creates new
and different roles and personas. From a micromedia point of view it is therefore more interesting
to ask exactly how the asymmetric threads of loosely connected micro-statements from different
sources get to form networked “conversations”. From that new ways of designing and re-framing
microcontent into more complex patterns could be derived.
(d) “Ubiquitous Web”: A new ecosystem is created, as microcontent-based media rip the
traditional containers—digital “documents”, “Web pages” and databases—into pieces
(Weinberger 2002a). In this respect “multitasking” is not simply a bad habit of online addicts, but
a natural reaction to the multiple options of consuming, producing and re-using microcontent on
the Web. And it is not restricted to the networked PC: The “attention crisis” is a symptom of the
multimedia lifestyle that is already realizing an “ubiquitous Web”, integrating the PC, the Web,
audiovisual media and, increasingly, mobile phones (Rheingold 2003). Different media and
platforms converge into one digital wireless environment accessible from different devices and
platforms. Microlearning will have to adress this new environment.
(e) “Background media”: From the micromedia perspective, Web-enabled phones play a most
interesting part in this. They are “background devices” (Schick 2005) that seem to create a
different layer of the mediasphere. While the user’s focus is elsewhere, they are always there,
in a state of latency, until a call or an SMS is coming in and one can make the choice to bring it
into the foreground. This is pointing to a new way of experiencing information, beyond the old
push/pull-model (for a discussion see Hagel/Seely-Brown 2005), and relevant also to the Web.
In a way the essence of microcontent and micromedia can be studied best when looking at
mobile content: how does it have to be designed, connected and clustered to form a rich
information or knowledge environment? At present there is little semantically rich mobile
microcontent to speak of, mainly because of the “walled garden”-strategies of mobile service
providers and the extreme diversity of mobile operating systems. In opposition to the situation
in the Web, mobile e-learning here actually plays the role of a precursor. Projects and
applications like Yiibu (www.yiibu.com) or Knowledge Pulse (www.knowledgepulse.com) try to
build on the new characteristics of mobile micromedia.
(f) “Knowledge Clouds”: In a micromedia environment the character of information and
knowledge itself is changing. Fixed macro-structures get replaced by loosely coupled, open and
dynamic micro-structures that form different kinds of semantic patterns. It can be compared to
the difference between a book, made up of complex, highly structured and specific
argumentation threads, and publishing an unordered collection of short excerpts and notes lying
around the author’s desk. The “texts” are being formed on the spot, here and now, while with
every change of context and every re-use not only the fragment itself is getting semantically
enriched, but the whole semiosphere is charged with new meaning. This basic cognitive and
cultural mechanism can be modelled by new micromedia technologies to create “InfoClouds”

48 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 773: Use these tools, your mind will follow.
Learning in immersive micromedia and microknowledge environments
References
Adkins, S. (2003) We are the Problem: We are selling Snake Oil. [Entry in Weblog “Learning Circuit”] Retrieved
February 16, 2006 from www.internettime.com/scgi-bin/mt-fatback.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=1014
Alexander, B. (2004) Going Nomadic: Mobile Learning in Higher Education. Educause Review, 39, 5
(September/October 2004), 28–35. Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0451.asp
Alexander, B. (2006) Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning? Educause Review, 41, 2
(March/April 2006): 32–44.
Allen, C. (2004) Tracing the Evolution of Social Software [Entry in Weblog “Life with alacrity”]. Retrieved
February 16, 2006 from www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/10/tracing_the_evo.html
Blackall, L. (2005) Die LMS die! You too PLE! [Entry in Weblog “Teach and learn Online”]. Retrieved at February
16, 2006 from teachandlearnonline.blogspot.com/2005/11/die-lms-die-you-too-ple.html
Boyd, S. (2005) Microformats v Structured Blogging: A Small War With Big Consequences [Entry in the Weblog
“Get Real”]. Retrieved at February 18, 2006 from getreal.corante.com/archives/2005/10/10/
microformats_v_structured_blogging_a_small_war_with_big_consequences.php
Brown, M. (2005) Learning Spaces. In: Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (Eds) (2005), Educating the Net
Generation. An Educause e-Book. Chapter 12, 174-195.Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf
Cormier, D. (2005) What is this whole school thing about anyway? [Entry in “Dave’s educational Blog”].
Retrieved on February 19, 2006 at http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=31
Cross, J. (2004) An Informal History of eLearning. On the Horizon, 12 (2004), 3, 103 - 110.
Dash, A. (2002), Introducing the Microcontent Client. Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://www.anildash.com/magazine/2002/11/introducing_the.html
Downes, S. (2005a) E-learning 2.0 [10/17/2005]. eLearn Magazine (10/17/2005) [Feature] Retrieved February
16, 2006 from http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1
Downes, S. (2005b) An Introduction to Connective Knowledge. Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034
Edwards, Phil (2005) The Cloud of Knowing [Entry in weblog "Apparently ..."] Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://phenomenologic.blogspot.com/2005/06/cloud-of-knowing.html
Hagel, J. and Seely-Brown, J. (2005) From Push to Pull - Emerging Models for Mobilizing Resources [Working
Paper]. Retrieved at February 12, 2006 from http://www.johnseelybrown.com/pushmepullyou4.72.pdf
Haque, U. (2005) The New Economics of Media. Micromedia, Connected Consumption, and the Snowball Effect
[especially slides 32 – 35, 51]. Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/resources/mediaeconomics.ppt
Hirshheim, R. (2005) The Internet-Based Education Bandwagon: Look Before You Leap. Communications of the
ACM. 48, 7, 97-101.
Hodgins, H. W. (2001). The future of learning objects. In: Wiley, D. A. (Ed.) (2001), The Instructional Use of
Learning Objects [eBook, online version]. Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://reusability.org/read/chapters/hodgins.doc.
Johnson-Eilola, J. (2005) Datacloud. Toward a New Theory of Online Work. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Jones, M. G., Harmon, S. W. & O’Grady-Jones, M. K. (2005) Developing the Digital Mind: Challenges and
Solutions in Teaching and Learning. Teacher Education Journal of South Carolina, 2004-2005, 17 -24.
Leene, A. (2005) Microcontent is Everywhere. Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://www.sivas.com/microcontent/microlearning2005/microlearning.pdf
Leinonen, T. (2004), E-learning Is Dead - Long Live E-learning. Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://www.uiah.fi/page_exhibition.asp?path=1866,1917,2728,3352,6184,6770
Levy, J. (2001) The Ecosystem of eLearning 2005. White Paper for the Docent and Richardson Webinar
(October 23, 2001). Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/jl63/Ecosystem_of_eLearning_2005102401.doc
Levy, J. (2004) Putting Knowledge Workers’ Knowledge to Work. Distance Learning, 1, 2 (April 2004), 35 - 36.
Retrieved February 2006 from
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/jl63/KnowledgeWorkersKnowledge.USDLA.pdf
Lindner, M. (2005) Wild Microcontent [Entry in the weblog "mediatope"]. Retrieved at February 18, 2006 from
http://phaidon.philo.at/martin/archives/000318.html

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 49
Part 1 Paper 773: Use these tools, your mind will follow.
Learning in immersive micromedia and microknowledge environments
Manovich, L. (2000), Beyond Broadband: Macromedia and micro-media. In: Lovink, G. (Ed.) (2000):
net.congestion reader. De Balie: Amsterdam. Digital version retrieved on February 8, 2006 from
http://www.manovich.net/docs/macro_micro.doc
Masie, E. (2005) Nano Learning [Podcast transcript]. Retrieved on February 18, 2006 from
http://www.masie.com/l5/podcasts/l5_u_podcast27.pdf
McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
McLuhan, M. and Fiore, Q. (2001 [1967]) The Medium is the Massage. An Inventory of Effects. Produced by
Jerome Angel. Ginko Press: Corte Madera, CA.
Menell, B. (2005) Atomization of Learning (Beyond the Learning Object) [Entry in weblog "Learning 2.0"].
Retrieved at February 5, 2006 from http://learning20.blogspot.com/2005/11/atomization-of-learning-beyond.html
Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital. Knopf: New York.
Neuhold, E. and Lindner M. (2006) Quo Vadis, eLearning? In Hug, T., Lindner, M. and Bruck, P. A. (Eds.)
(2006) Microlearning: Emerging Concepts, Practices and Technologies after e-Learning. Proceedings of
Microlearning 2005. Learning & Working in New Media (Innsbruck/Austria, June 2005), Innsbruck University
Press: Innsbruck, 19-22.
Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (Eds) (2005), Educating the Net Generation. An Educause e-Book. Retrieved
February 6, 2006 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf
Parkin, G. (2005) Learning from vaporware: how small is the future? [Entry in weblog "Parkin's Lot"] Retrieved
February 11, 2006 from http://parkinslot.blogspot.com/2005/09/learning-from-vaporware-how-small-is.html
Price, J. (2005) Object-Centered Sociality, or the Act of Being Kicked [Entry in the weblog "Smelly Knowledge"].
Retrieved on February 16, 2006 at http://www.zappazoom.com/node/24
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 5, October 2001. Online version
retrieved February 16, 2006, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp
Prensky, M. (2004) The Emerging Online Life Of The Digital Native. Retrieved on February 16, 2006 from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf
Rheingold H. 2003. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution Transforming Cultures and Communities in the
Age of Instant Access. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rieger, B. (2005) Structured Content [Entry in the weblog of www.yiibu.com]. Retrieved January 21, 2006 from
http://yiibu.com/content/structured-content/
Schick, C. (2005) What are the true qualities of mobility? Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://cognections.typepad.com/lifeblog/2005/09/what_are_the_tr.html
Siemens, G. (2004), Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved February 16, 2006 from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Spolsky, J. (2003), Building Communities with Software. Retrieved February 16, 2006 at
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BuildingCommunitieswithSo.html
Tapscott, D. (1997) Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
Tosh, D. (2006) PLE's – Are they what the ePortfolio promised to be? [Entry in Tosh's elgg-weblog] Retrieved on
February 19, 2006 at http://elgg.net/dtosh/weblog/7365.html
Spivack, N. (2003) The Birth of the Metaweb [Entry in weblog "Minding the Planet"]. Retrieved February 16,
2006 from http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2003/12/the_birth_of_th.html
Vander Wal, T. (2003) Welcome to the Personal Info Cloud [Entry in weblog "Personal Infocloud"]. Retrieved
February 16, 2006 from http://www.personalinfocloud.com/2003/10/welcome_to_the_.html
Vander Wal, T. (2006) The Come To Me Web [Entry in weblog "Personal Infocloud"]. Retrieved February 16,
2006 from http://www.personalinfocloud.com/2006/01/the_come_to_me_.html
Weinberger, D. (2002a). Small Pieces, Loosely Joined. A Unified Theory of the Web. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Publishing.
Weinberger, D. (2002b) Bone Dry Future [Entry in weblog "JoHo - The Blog"].
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/archive/2002_01_01_archive.html#8939753
Wilson, S. (2005a) The VLE of the Future [Entry in weblog “Scott’s Workblog”]. Retrieved at February 16, 2006
from http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott/blogview?entry=20050117150356
Wilson, S. (2005b) Learning Resources – A (Personal) Educational View From UK. Retrieved on February 2,
2006 from http://www.theknownet.com/writing/elearning2.0/entries/scott_wilson_on_using_resources/scottwilson-
eduresources.pdf/attach/scottwilson-eduresources.pdf

50 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 760: Blogs, wikis and VOIP in the virtual
learning space: The changing landscape of communication in online learning
PAPER 760
Blogs, wikis and VOIP in the virtual
learning space: The changing landscape of
communication in online learning
Authors Rita Kop
Address for correspondence

Department of Adult Continuing Education
University of Wales Swansea
Singleton Park
Swansea
SA2 8PP
Telephone: 01792 513095
F.G.Kop@Swansea.ac.uk
Abstract
The dramatic increase in the use of peer-to-peer software in society has instigated questions
about the way in which technology is being used in educational institutions. There seems to be a
discrepancy between the use of commercially produced virtual learning systems, and the more
natural, informal and often chaotic manner in which most people use Information Communication
Technology (ICT) at home. This paper will analyse the changing nature of communication in
online learning and will explore if emergent tools such as wikis and blogs, could play a part in
meaningful knowledge creation in an educational context to supplement or replace commercial
Virtual Learning Systems. It forms part of a literature study and ongoing research in ‘Lifelong
Learning and the Internet, Post Modernism and the concept of knowledge’.
Introduction
Much discussion has taken place about the impact of the introduction of virtual learning systems
on education. The changed position of educational institutions such as universities due to the
changed sense of space, place and identity in a virtual learning environment has been lamented
as a loss, as universities were seen as places where people came together, where minds met
and where new ideas were conceived as nowhere else in society. Some academics have
expressed reservations about the networked alternatives (Greener & Perriton, 2005), while
proponents of the use of peer-to-peer technology in education (MacCallum-Stewart 2004, Lamb
2004) have argued that tools such as wikis and blogs could fulfill exactly this role as the
openness of the media and the willingness of people to share in such experiences encourages a
similar discussion of ideas and collaborative development of thoughts and knowledge. The
added advantage of the online tools would lie in their globally positioned communication forums,
which would provide immediate responses on a scale unimaginable in the traditional university
with its huge lecture theatres and much slower publication rates.
This paper will investigate the nature of communication in the online knowledge creation
process. It will explore the challenges that online educators face and the innovations that
emergent technology could offer as they surface from a fast changing wider context.

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 51
Part 1 Paper 760: Blogs, wikis and VOIP in the virtual
learning space: The changing landscape of communication in online learning
Knowledge, communication and learning
‘The point of knowledge cannot be just to store it. Traditionally, the value of
knowledge centred on understanding—on the power to see the connections of
things, to wonder at them, and so to live wisely.’
Midgley (1989, p3)
In line with the changes in postmodern society, current theories of knowledge have moved away
from the ideas of Plato (Lewis 1999) in that knowledge is no longer only seen as a justified belief,
reaching the ‘truth’ through intelligence and reason, where knowledge would be achieved
through making connections and by communication with others in order to reach understanding
and wisdom. Jean-Francois Lyotard published his ‘The Postmodern Condition’ (1984), which
provides us with an analysis of the status of knowledge and the ways it had been transformed
under the influence of technological change in society. He emphasises the commodification of
knowledge: the way in which acquiring knowledge is no longer an end in itself as it was in the
Enlightenment-era, but has become a commodity that can be bought and sold. Lankshear and
Knobel (2000, pg17) argue that the secure foundations on which knowledge was based has
altered:
‘The circumstances, conditions and the very status of knowledge, learning,
teaching and researching are currently in a state of profound upheaval under the
impact of rapid and far-reaching technological change’.
Major developments have taken place in the use of technology in recent years, notably the
growth in Internet use and the changes that the Internet and broadband and wireless technology
have brought to communication. The uncomplicated way in which communication, multimedia
and information sources can be linked today is having a significant impact on education.
At a time when vast amounts of information are available on the Internet, concerns are being
raised about the feasibility for individuals to analyse all that is available. In addition, the future
possibilities of the Semantic Web with its ability to ‘understand’ information (JISC 2006), would
have a profound effect on the role of humans in developing and creating knowledge. The
organization of information and communication into searchable and interlinked systems has
become crucial and is seen to change the overload of information into manageable systems. The
business world has grasped the potential fragmentation of knowledge and devised data and
information capturing systems that not only store, but also connect information in order to create
and store valuable knowledge in the workplace. Downes (2003a) points out that knowledge
acquisition does require evaluation and assimilation, while Drucker (2000, pg6), when discussing
e-learning in business, argues that ‘success depends less on the amount of information you have
than on the number of connections you can form and reform to link information and people’. The
use of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) with their neat organization of information,
activities, communication and resources fits well with these ideas.
Rorty (1979) suggests that knowledge is socio-culturally situated and mediated by language. His
thinking suggests that communication is of vital importance in forming meaning in a globally
positioned learning space with participants from a wide range of cultures and ethnicity. Current
views of knowledge (Lave and Wenger 2002, Cobb 1999), emphasising constructivist and socio-
cultural perspectives, aim to leave behind a curriculum dominated by the teacher, and embrace a
curriculum in which the student takes control of her or his own learning, making connections with
her or his own experiences and knowledge in co-operative activities with fellow-learners. Initially
the tutor might be the expert, but by engaging the learners into participation in problem-solving
activities, information gathering exercises and communication with peers, experts facilitate their
move from the periphery to the centre of the community of practice.
Active participation in collaborative learning activities, rather than passively receiving knowledge
from the teacher are key in these theories and have been embraced by developers of e-learning

52 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 760: Blogs, wikis and VOIP in the virtual
learning space: The changing landscape of communication in online learning
(Salmon 2004, Lafarierre 2006). Using a VLE in e-learning lends itself very well to the facilitation
of participation in structured online activities, where learners can draw from their own experience
and additionally link course work to experiences of others in a collaborative environment to
achieve understanding. The crux to active knowledge construction and understanding of new
concepts in this view is online collaboration (Salmon 2004, Mayes 2002, Drucker 2000,
Laferriere 2006). Moreover, as Mayes (2002, pg169) suggests ‘activity, motivation and learning
are all related to a need for a positive sense of identity shaped by social forces’. The relationship
the learner has to the community he or she learns in is a determining factor in the learning
process; the more active engagement in group communication the better.
Since antiquity communication and dialogue have been seen as the crucial components in the
creation of knowledge, but communication technology is changing their nature. Heidegger (in
Meyerson, 1927) emphasised the way ‘communication’ develops from ‘discourse’ and ‘language’
and grows out of an interaction between people, where the position of the ‘hearer’ is the more
important one as she is the one to reach understanding. The quality of the interaction is
determined by this two-way process, ‘in which people actively search for knowledge, as part of
the wider process of understanding one another’ (Meyerson, 2001, pg 55). Habermas’ (in
Meyerson, 1981) concept of communicative action describes as the essence of communication
the reaching of agreement leading to an understanding. The German Philosophers envisaged
this process taking place between actual people and communicating in face to face
environments. Online communication while using technology is quite a different activity: it does
not take place between people engaged in meaning making, but is a fast connection between
systems and networks, conveying messages produced by people. Online messages are
distinctly different from communications between real people: they are one-way, the receiver
might not know the sender, nor his/her intentions or if he/she can be trusted. Meyerson (2001)
predicted that ‘we will live amongst a tidal flow of messages, coming and going, often registered
by our communication ‘device’ on its own.’ This lack of direct two-way contact leads to a number
of problems in an educational context as described by Mason and Weller (2001) and Conrad
(2005). Some of the students in their evaluations of online courses were overwhelmed by the
number of messages on the discussion board, while others (Conrad 2005) describe monologue
confessions and tensions in online group activities. It also raises a number of questions: how
deep will the message exchange be and how will this depth affect the quality of the knowledge
created? Mason and Weller (2001) explain the higher level of tutor support required for effective
online learning, but also the high learner satisfaction rate if the tutor support is adapted to
student needs. Others (Mann 2005, Mason and Weller 2000, Selwyn and Gorard 2004) explain
how difficult it can be to engage adult students in meaningful online communication. Not least
because tutors are still newcomers to this way of working, and traditional class-room activities do
not translate easily into an online environment (McConnell 2005). Salmon (2004) emphasises the
length of time required for the moderator to cultivate a non-threatening and supportive
community, while MacDonald et al (2002) and Clarke describe the new skills that learners and
tutors require to engage in online collaboration. Furthermore, Mann (2005) argues that openness
in online dialogue and an understanding of the power-relations within an online learner group will
be required to facilitate communication effectively.
A good Virtual Learning System brings information and communication together and offers some
structure to the tutor and the ‘not so technologically adept’ learner. Communication will
predominantly take place through tasks set by the tutor and as learners are dispersed this will
inhibit the forming of trust relations in the learning space, and affect the quality of the
communication and subsequently of the nature of the knowledge created. Some observers even
suggest that to get the best out of ICT we should stop trying to transfer a traditional class-room to
an online environment and its ways of teaching and learning altogether and look at teaching in a
new light (Bereiter 2000, Lankshear and Knobel 2003, Lee 2000). Lee (2000) is concerned that
educational institutions do not take enough notice of the ways in which learners use technology

54 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 760: Blogs, wikis and VOIP in the virtual
learning space: The changing landscape of communication in online learning
increasingly respected content which has been evaluated and revised by the thousands to visit
the site over time’ (Lih 2004, pp3).
The rapid increase in its popularity has given rise to concern from librarians, academics and
journalists alike, claiming that it is a great resource, but as content cannot be verified it can never
be a reliable source.
The availability of broadband has introduced the possibilities of cheap Internet based voice to
voice communication through VOIP. This technology is usually integrated in instant messaging
(IM) systems that also use Webcams for video communication. Instant messaging and personal
spaces have experienced a dramatic increase, particularly amongst teenagers, who use them as
their preferred option of communication with friends. Examples of VOIP and instant messaging in
education are not abundant. Falmer (2003) describes IM in education for group or one-to-one
discussion between tutor and student and he identifies its availability, functionality and
instantaneous presence as advantages, which he also sees as problematic because of the
overload of messages the tutor receives. The use of VOIP in combination with IM and Webcam
are identified as good tools in initial contact between learner and tutor to aid the trust-building
process (Laferriere 2006).
A number of academics have shown an interest in blogs and have seen their potential in an
educational environment (Downes 2004, Godwin-Jones 2003, Halavais in Glaser 2004,
Lankshear and Knobel 2003). Comments from lecturers about the use of blogs in their classes
include: ‘the push into critical thinking, critical reading and reflection,’ (McIntire-Strasbourg 2004);
‘the ability to achieve active back-and-forth discussions outside the classroom’ (Martin and
Taylor 2004); ‘Bloggers may move across subjectivities within their blog, one day emphasising
their difference, another day emphasising their sameness. …Not marked by the physical
presence of a person, allows a different and more inclusive community’ (Earhart 2004); Walker in
Glaser 2004 notes: ‘I think that blogging alongside other academics in my field … is a form of
indirect collaboration… There is an openness and a willingness to share in blogging … that
means I know more about many of my fellow bloggers’ research than I do about a colleague
whose office is down the corridor’. ‘Students are blogging about topics that are important to
them. Students direct their own learning while receiving input and feedback from others.’ (Ferdig
and Trammell 2004). However, on a more critical note, Stephen Downes (2003b) while analysing
student Weblogs at Harvard University found numerous biased sites, conveying personal
opinions as no editing, filtering or control had taken place. Krause (2004) discussed how one of
his blogging projects went wrong as students expected a more structured writing environment
and did not participate as much as he would have liked.
Lamb (2004) notes the openness of the wiki environment. He sees a number of possibilities to
use wikis in an educational context: as spaces for brainstorming, as collaborative areas for
teams to work on projects, outlining and managing activities or research; as repositories of
shared knowledge. Additionally, James (2004) and Lamb (2004) indicated the need for teachers
to hand over control over content in using wikis to ensure successful knowledge-building. The
role of the tutor would lie in ‘setting the scene’ and thinking up problems relating to the subject
being taught, while allowing students to develop the wiki to their own liking.
Most lecturers who have used blogs and wikis in adult education have seen opportunities to
improve the traditional learning environment, particularly as a way for communication, reflection,
ordering thought and knowledge. Their strength in network forming has become clear. Once
engaged in a blogging community, its quick linking possibilities based on interests makes that
networks are formed spontaneously. Blogs seem to provide an opportunity, particularly for
starting researchers, to share knowledge and to publish instantaneously, but to also receive on
the spot peer-reviews!
Other strengths would be their novelty, their informality, the opportunities they provide for global
communication and the ways in which they bridge ICT use between educational institutions and

56 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 760: Blogs, wikis and VOIP in the virtual
learning space: The changing landscape of communication in online learning
encouraging young people in particular to overcome their reservations and develop new and
different forms of communication and knowledge creation outside formal education. The way in
which we communicate with each other will influence the depth and quality of knowledge we
create and the interactions taking place via technology driven communications will always be of a
different nature to their equivalent in a face to face learning environment. The value of emerging
technologies in adult education would need careful consideration as their introduction would
require very different teaching and learning strategies from current practice.
Two issues for research spring to mind: further exploration of the development and depth of
communication within the online learning environment and related to this, how the changing
communication environment would impact on the quality of the learning experience and quality of
knowledge. In addition, an examination of the use of new emerging technologies in adult
education and the role of the tutor in working with technologies, such as blogs, wikis or software
like Elgg. E.g. exploration of the tutor role changing from provider of content to a role more
concerned with the framing of questions, working with the learners on developing intellectual
depth and a critical analysis of source material found on the Internet, and the way in which this
role would fit in the institutional structure.
The pace of technological change might force us to incorporate online co-operative knowledge
development tools such as wikis and blogs in our VLEs to ensure that learners from the ‘Net
generation’, who use ICT in a non-linear, informal and sometimes chaotic way at home and in the
workplace will not be alienated from education. In the words of Lamb (2004, pg44): ’Change is
happening. What remains unknown is whether educators, institutions, and developers will join (or
coexist with) the revolutionary forces or whether they’ll stand their ground and simply be overrun.’

62 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 733: Using ICT in higher education: From pilot to implementation, who is involved?
educational change efforts regularly fail because they are ineptly implemented, especially
beyond the initial rush of enthusiasm. Limited resources often mean that ideas fail to translate
into action, or that well funded pilot projects are followed by weakly resourced efforts to extend
the changes more widely. And moreover, in the minds and the memories of teachers, the failure
of change becomes a cumulative phenomenon (Hargreaves, 2002). Kallenberg (2004) assumes
that insight in the strategic behaviour of the middle manager within innovation processes can
contribute to solve the problem of unsuccessful implementation. But is the middle manager really
the key actor? Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) argued many years before that there are several
characteristics to a change that contribute to the adoption of a change in an organization, but
that these characteristics are perceived by many actors that are involved in the process. These
characteristics are (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971):

Relative advantage: the degree to which a change is perceived as better than the idea it
supersedes;

Comparability: the degree to which a change is perceived as being consistent with existing
values, past experiences and the needs of the receivers;

Complexity: the degree to which a change is perceived as difficult to understand and use;

Triability: the degree to which a change may be experimented with on a limited basis;

Observability: the degree to which a change is visible to others.
Many other literature studies show that the actors involved in a change process is one of the
main factors that contribute to a successful implementation of the change. This idea about actors
is further elaborated in Section 3. But before going on to the actors it is helpful to list some more
factors that could be of importance to realize successful implementation. Table 1 lists factors that
have been described in earlier research (Fisser, 2001).
Environmental pressures Educational developments
New markets New conceptions of learning
Part-time students New teaching models
Lifelong learning Focus on learner/learning
On-demand training Individual differences
Funding Active learning
Partnerships
Tailor-made products Cost reduction / Cost effectiveness
Dynamic environment Reducing costs
Competition Cost-effectiveness
Response to threats and opportunities Benefits
Flexibility
Knowledge management Technology developments
Changing student demographics Emerging technology
Demands from employers Dependence on IT
Demands from learners New technology (push, hype)
Institutional conditions Support facilities
New organizational structure Administrative support

66 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 733: Using ICT in higher education: From pilot to implementation, who is involved?

Category Actors within the category Role and activity of
the actor-category
Board College board members
President/rector/ principal
Leadership, vision, strategy
Higher
management
Vice president/vice chancellor/provost/policy
advisor
Deans
ICT steering group
Leadership, policy-making,
strategy, budget/ and resource-
allocation
Middle
management
Middle managers/educational managers
Chair/head of department
Leadership, policy-making,
stimulating faculty
Faculty Faculty, instructors, teachers Education and research
Students Students Education
Support Members of staff development unit
Members of pedagogical support unit
Members of infrastructure and computing unit
Staff members of the library
Supporting the implementation
process
External External institutions
Ministry of education
External stimulus to change
Table 4 Categories of actors that are involved in the implementation process
The categories as shown in Table 4 will be used in the next section to make a descriptive model
that can be used to support and stimulate the implementation process.
Descriptive model
To conclude this article a descriptive model is given. The actors were listed and categorized in
the previous sections. By combining what has been said about the steps in the implementation
process based on Fullan (1998), Collis and Moonen (2001) and the figure with the simplified
overview of the implementation process, the following steps are identified that will be used in the
descriptive model: initiation, piloting, advising, decision-making, implementing, and integrating.
The categories of actors is used in the descriptive model, combined with the roles and activities
of the actors and related to the steps in the implementation process. This can be seen in Table 5:
in each of the stages of the implementation process a) the middle management is involved and
b) leadership is an important role or activity.

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 67
Part 1 Paper 733: Using ICT in higher education: From pilot to implementation, who is involved?

Stage in the
implement-
ation process
Initiation Piloting Advising Decision-
making
Implementing Integrating




Actors
involved
Board
Higher
management
Middle
management
Faculty
Students
Support
External
Middle
management
Faculty
Students
Support
Middle
management
Board
Higher
management
Middle
management
Middle
management
Faculty
Students
Support
Middle
management
Faculty
Students
Support




Roles and
activities
Leadership
Vision
Stimulus to
change
Leadership
Education
and research
Supporting
the
implementati
on process
Leadership
Policy-
making
Leadership
Policy-
making
Strategy
Budget/ and
resource-
allocation
Leadership
Stimulating
faculty
Education
and research
Supporting
the
implementati
on process
Leadership
Stimulating
faculty
Education
and research
Supporting
the
implementation
process
Table 5 Descriptive model of the implementation process
In the initiation phase a pioneer or an innovator with leadership-qualities is needed. This person
does not need to be aware of these leadership-qualities, but he or she will explore the
possibilities of a specific ICT application and share the experience with others. This can be an
instructor who has some experience with a specific application, but also a dean who has seen
something in an other department, or a member of the pedagogical support unit who noticed
some new developments in the field can be the initiator. This means that in the process of
initiation all actors could be involved. Students are also often mentioned as initiators of change
(see for instance Fielding, 2001, and Goldman & Newman, 1998). The pilots that come out of the
initiation are often carried out by faculty and support units, possibly involving students. Advising
and decision-making about moving from pilot to implementation is mainly the activity of higher
and middle management. Based on (bottom-up) experiences decision-makers in the department,
faculty or university choose to implement ICT on a broader level and produce a strategic plan.
This plan, the actual implementation is usually carried out by faculty and support units and in
many cases the students are involved. The final integration is largely the work of the faculty,
although without the (financial) support of especially the middle management integration will not
be reached.
Because the middle management is involved in all the stages of the implementation process and
leadership is an important role and activity in the implementation process it is assumed that
these two are connected to each other. Not in all cases will the leadership activity be carried out
by the middle manager, but this notion confirms the idea of Kallenberg that the middle manager
plays a key role in the implementation process (Kallenberg 2004). This should be accounted for
in the whole implementation process. This can be done by not only assuming that the middle

68 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 733: Using ICT in higher education: From pilot to implementation, who is involved?
manager plays a crucial role, but by involving him or her in all steps of the process (for more on
this subject, see for instance Fisser, 2004).
Conclusion
From Table 5 and the idea that the middle manager plays a crucial role in the implementation
process we can conclude that one of the success factors of an implementation process is in fact
an actor: the middle manager. This middle manager, be it an educational director or the chair of
a department, is the key factor. This puts a great burden on this person. Not only is it possible
that he will be held responsible for all stages in the implementation process, he himself may not
be aware of his role. What is known about middle managers is that the may influence the
innovation process in the organization both up and down (Fisser, 2001, 2004; Kallenberg 2004).
They have several strategic roles, which allow middle managers to innovate. These roles have to
do with change: understanding the need for change (synthesizing), preparing for it (facilitating),
stimulating it (championing), and ultimately, managing the process (implementing). This is further
elaborated in Kallenberg (2004).
By using the descriptive model in Table 5 as
a) a checklist to see if all actors involved are really involved in a specific sage of the
implementation process
b) a way to point out to the middle manager that he or she plays a crucial role
c) a start to develop support tools for the middle manager to fulfil his or her role
the process of implementation can be supported and stimulated in a more-systematic way. A first
step toward the support of the middle manager has been made in two recent Dutch projects
(Boezerooij et.al, 2004; Fisser, Dekker, Bosschaart, & van Driel, 2004). But even though the
model can be used in practice, those who use the model should be aware of the fact that the
model will adapt when it is used in practice.

70 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 857: Topped by cross-winds, tugged at
by sinuous undercurrents: E-learning organizational critical success factors as identified by HE practitioners
PAPER 857
Topped by cross-winds, tugged at
by sinuous undercurrents: E-learning
organizational critical success factors as
identified by HE practitioners
Authors Maggie McPherson *1
Miguel Baptista Nunes *2
Address for correspondence

*1 School of Education,
University of Leeds
m.a.mcpherson@education.leeds.ac.uk
*2 Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield
j.m.nunes@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
The introduction of e-learning in traditionally conservative Higher Education institutions has
proved neither straightforward nor universally welcomed as predicted. Universities are still trying
to reshape their courses, professional practice and administrative procedures to address the
emerging demands of this new approach. Nevertheless, e-learning is increasingly considered to
be as one of the most popular educational solutions by both society in general and students in
particular. Thus, universities and governmental bodies are now under pressure to implement
sustainable and efficient e-learning strategies. Any such strategy needs to ensure that academic
programmes consider the specific organisational contexts within the university environment. Yet,
because academics and practitioners involved in setting up e-learning courses and programmes
have tended to concentrate their research on teaching and learning, rather than on management
issues, there is, as yet, very little integrative research incorporating both elements of the
e-learning process. Therefore, there is a need to identify critical success factors (CSFs) in
teaching, learning and management in order to develop integrative change management models
that ensure successful e-learning implementation. This paper reports on a research project that
established CSFs, which may be used as a theoretical foundation upon which to base decision-
making and strategic thinking about e-learning.
Introduction
“E-learning has the potential to revolutionise the way we teach and how we learn”
Charles Clark (2003)
The question that is raised by educational practitioners and managers as a result of such
statements is how this revolution is to be implemented and supported. It is well acknowledged
that technological innovations have and are radically altering education, training and
employment patterns around the world. Consequently, the introduction of e-learning within HE
represents a significant change in teaching practice, which needs to be carefully managed
using appropriate strategies.
However, research into change management, led by the introduction of IT solutions in general
organizational settings, shows that this kind of implementation requires new strategic thinking
and planning. This involves a holistic and dynamic view for managing all aspects relating to the

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 71
Part 1 Paper 857: Topped by cross-winds, tugged at
by sinuous undercurrents: E-learning organizational critical success factors as identified by HE practitioners
implementation of IT. However, such integrative and top down strategic thinking is not always
apparent in the introduction of e-learning in HE institutions.
It is important to note that educationalists are aware of the need for further research into e-
learning implementation strategies. However, although numerous investigations have been
carried out to reveal some of the key factors to be considered when introducing e-learning, most
studies seem to focus on technological, design and delivery issues. Few researchers seem to
have discussed organizational and institutional aspects of e-learning implementation as yet.
This situation is clearly unsatisfactory to sustain the necessary change management process
that is inherent to the establishment of innovative e-learning. In fact, some practitioners have
reported this gap as emerging from their own experience and accumulated understanding (Khan,
2005). However, such statements clearly highlight the need for integrative research into
professional and practical issues. Results of such empirical research would support
educationalists intending to make use of e-learning both at design and at organizational levels.
This paper reports on such a research project that was designed to take a critical research
approach aiming at proposing strategies derived from a holistic, consultative and emancipatory
perspective. Bearing this perspective in mind and the necessity of doing research in a complex
organizational setting, it was decided to draw inspiration from generic management theory that
suggests that the identification of sets of factors that are critical to successful change
management is fundamental (Huotori and Wilson, 2001).
Critical success factors in e-learning
Critical success factor analysis in e-learning
CSF analysis, as initially proposed by Rockhart (1979), is a widely used top-down methodology
for examining factors affecting technological change. It can be used as a means to establish
management information requirements, to define information to be managed; and above all to
identify the crucial factors that must be addressed for an organization to do well. In generic
terms, CSFs can be defined as “[…] those handful of things that within someone’s job must go
right for the organization to flourish” (Robson, 1997), indicating that these are factors that the
manager should keep a firm eye on.
The issue here is the evaluation of factors in the limited sphere of e-learning, rather than placing
a wider focus on the key performance indicators of HE programme provision in its entirety. This
allows the identification of elements that are crucial to the successful management of e-learning.
In this study, the CSF analysis started with a characterisation of five fundamental aspects of e-
learning: organizational; technological; curriculum design; educational systems design; and
finally e-learning course delivery. As required by CSF identification and analysis methodologies,
these elements are represented in a top-down framework in Figure 1.

72 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 1 Paper 857: Topped by cross-winds, tugged at
by sinuous undercurrents: E-learning organizational critical success factors as identified by HE practitioners

Figure1 A framework for the study of e-learning
Eliciting CSFs in e-learning using a focus group interview approach
The general aims of the research are defined by the research question formulated as follows:
“What are the underlying CSFs required to support the design, development,
implementation and management of e-learning in HE institutions?”
In accordance with this question, this study concentrates on the CSFs required for the human
activity systems that support e-learning. Thus, the specific objectives of this research are to:

propose a theoretical e-learning framework that enables the understanding of e-learning;

elicit CSFs that e-learning stakeholders believe have an impact in their practice;

analyse, relate and group these CSFs in order to provide guidelines for institutional change
and the support of new initiatives;

review and, if necessary, adapt the e-learning framework to guide future practice and
research.
Methodological concerns
Critical research was chosen as the approach for this study, since it would provide the
necessary holistic, consultative and emancipatory perspective that was being sought. It was
felt that a case-study approach centring on one HE institution would probably not enable
breaking away from individual organizational culture, policies and ideologies. For a truly
liberating result to be achieved, it was felt a broader-based consultative approach was needed,
i.e., one that would bring together different e-learning stakeholders and enthusiasts from
different HE institutions and backgrounds.
Having reached the decision to adopt a wide-ranging consultative approach, the question of
method emerged as the next hurdle. Survey methods or in-loco individual interview approaches

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 77
Part 1 Paper 857: Topped by cross-winds, tugged at
by sinuous undercurrents: E-learning organizational critical success factors as identified by HE practitioners
Thus, it can be seen that a number of views contribute to the organizational structure and culture
of HE institutions, and since enthusiasm for introducing e-learning is not universal, numerous
perspectives need to be aligned if e-learning is to be successful. Therefore, interviewees
identified good communication and institutional leadership as core CSFs. To complement these,
some interviewees identified the existence of an e-learning champion as crucial.
This analysis of the CSFs identified in the Leadership, Structural and Cultural Issues cluster,
does not in itself fully respond to the heated debate on how e-learning can be successfully
implemented within HE. However, it clearly draws attention to the fact that, it is essential that
those wishing to implement e-learning should, at the very least, become familiar with their own
organizational culture, structure and corresponding and potentially conflicting strategies, before
rushing headlong into designing, developing and implementing e-learning solutions.
Furthermore, it seems clear that it people-issues in terms of participation, information, training
and communication as well as stakeholder involvement are fundamental when engaging in this
type of learning initiative. These results seem to confirm results form other research projects in
this area such as Wopereis et al. (2005), Khan (2005) and O’Neil (2004).
Design issues
Through either taking a strategic view or leaving things to develop ad hoc, HE institutions have
the ultimate power at an organizational level to facilitate or to inhibit development of any such
initiatives. In the case of e-learning courses, choices made at senior faculty levels may well
impose institutional views on educationalists, obliging them to adopt particular course
philosophies, learning models and approaches. This was clearly present in interviewees’
identification of CSFs such as the alignment of project development with organizational views,
the careful consideration that must be given to such projects, the existence of supportive
administrative systems and the alignment of technological solutions selected with organizational
policies and infrastructures.
The design and development of online learning environments involves collaboration between
educationalists, subject matter experts and technologists, involved in an instructional design
process, where the first two groups are primarily involved in curriculum design and the third
group is involved in technical development. Hence, the communication between these agents
becomes paramount. These groups usually speak different “languages” and do not readily
understand the problems of the other (Lebow, 1993). Thus, an efficient project approach must
integrate and support the dialogue between these different groups. These complexities seem to
be present in interviewees’ preoccupations and anxieties and were expressed in terms of CSFs
such as: balanced collaborative, multi-skilled design and development; tutor, academic and
learner involvement in the design process; and efficient technical support.
This reflects a recognition that good project management must also be at the core of a
successful design process. Interviewees’ also seem to expect explicit advice, from the
organization and sector, in the form of design, development, accessibility, usability and
testing guidelines.
These results are in fact not extraordinary and seem to reveal a certain degree of maturity in the
field of e-learning. In fact, rather then expecting that initiatives emerge bottom up as
characteristic of immature and innovative proposals, practitioners seem to expect a certain
degree of leadership, support and project management from the “university”. That is, e-learning
does not need to prove itself anymore. Conversely, it needs to emerge from well designed
environments, developed by multidisciplinary teams within well managed projects.
Technological issues
HE educational institutions have faced severed challenges posed by the rapid evolution of ICT.
As these ICTs form the backbone for e-learning, universities have had to decide what systems,

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 79
Part 1 Paper 857: Topped by cross-winds, tugged at
by sinuous undercurrents: E-learning organizational critical success factors as identified by HE practitioners
across quite clearly from the results presented and shows evidence of a maturity of thinking and
professional practice in the field of e-learning that is not necessarily to be expected in a fairly
new teaching and learning approach.
The picture shown indicates that stakeholders are prepared to embrace e-learning, but not in
detriment to their profession and their own careers. Thus, if implementation of online learning is
to be successful, the way forward seems to be for the “the university” to manage the change
process by proposing and agreeing goals through consensual debate, supporting strategies
appropriately and then realising these through common commitment. In any case, through either
taking a strategic view or leaving things to develop ad hoc, HE institutions have the ultimate
power at an organizational level to facilitate or to inhibit development of any of e-learning and
choices made at senior faculty levels may well impose institutional views on educationalists,
obliging them to adopt particular course philosophies, learning models and approaches.
Given its complex structure, HE is not necessarily an easy, robust and secure environment for e-
learning. However, even to those with insider experience, as in the case of these interviewees,
this is not always easy to ensure. Furthermore, the increasing demands for quality assurance
means that the process of gaining accreditation for new courses and new delivery mechanisms,
is neither swift nor simple, and requires support at a number of levels within the institution. Even
course proposals with extremely laudable aims and objectives, which on the surface are
extremely sound, sometimes founder because they lack sponsorship from one quarter or
another. Consequently, and as proposed by almost all interviewees, in the context of managing
the implementing e-learning within HE, it is critical to determine who ‘the university’ decision-
makers are and to gain their support.
The role of organizational leadership is therefore to balance these demands and guide
institutions through development of sound strategic change. Therefore, leadership’s role is to
avoid the “flapping” Salmon (2005) refers to. Since all formal e-learning programmes exist
within an organizational context, such as universities, corporations or virtual learning institutes,
it is clear that the organization has the power to facilitate, influence or even impede the
development of e-learning courses. Through the means of decisions made at an executive
level, organizational leaders have the power to facilitate or impede the development of e-
learning courses by imposing administrative or financial procedures. However, and as stressed
by the interviewees, insiders aware of the peculiarities of university cultures, driving through
any such strategic plans require formal agreement via good communication between
practitioners and managers. Thus, if e-learning initiatives are to be successfully implemented,
there is a need for strong champions to support e-learning and guarantee buy in from
institutional stakeholders.
Whilst in general the CSFs and clusters presented seem to be in agreement with current
literature in this field, the findings of this research show that the actual importance of a number of
these CSFs run the risk of being underestimated by technologically deterministic thinking and/or
rigid top-down organizational cultures. Some of the CSFs identified reveal concerns by
practitioners involved in e-learning that do not easily fit into objectivist and technology-centric
approaches that might be adopted without appropriate consultation and understanding of the
complexities of e-learning.
In sum, like the tide of the Oyster River where Theodore Roethke meditated, e-learning today is
still “topped by cross-winds” of fads and fashions, as well as “tugged at by sinuous
undercurrents” of organizational politics and commercial interests. Despite this, the tide of
change and liberating learning approaches are rustling in, sliding between the ridges of stone of
universities conservatism.

PART 2
Next Generation Learners

82 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 2 Paper 775: Are our students digital students?

PAPER 775
Are our students digital students?
Author Diana Andone
Jon Dron
Chris Boyne
Lyn Pemberton
Address for correspondence University of Brighton, School of Computing, Mathematical
and Information Sciences
Watts Building, Lewes Road, BN2 4GJ, Brighton, UK
{D.M.Andone, Jon.Dron, C.W.Boyne,
Lyn.Pemberton}@brighton.ac.uk
Abstract
Recent years have seen a new generation of ‘digital students’ emerging in the developed world.
Digital students are young adults who have grown up with digital technologies integrated as an
everyday feature of their lives. Digital students use technology differently, fluidly (and often
simultaneously) using instant messengers, mobile phones, the Web, MP3 players, online games
and more. A study performed in four European universities was designed to identify the unique
features of ‘digital students’, and focus groups run in UK and Romania have helped to identify
what it means to be a digital student. The study is part of a research project which tries to
investigate how digital students’ attitudes can influence the development of the e-learning
spaces. Reflections on how technology can enhance and stimulate the learning process will
drive towards exploration for the development of a new learning system for digital students.
Introduction
The major impact on our life of the last quarter-century is the digitization of virtually all aspects of
life—something Negroponte has called the “change of atoms into bits and pixels” (Negroponte,
1996). However, for the generation born after 1980 the digital world is even more present and
pervasive than for the rest of us, for them it is the world they know. They are the ‘digital ones' or
the ‘N-Gen—Net Generation’ (Tapscott, 1998): children or teenagers who have lived all their
lives in a changing but (from their perspective) a predominantly digital world. Significantly, most
students in higher education now belong to this group. We identify these students as a special
group due to their characteristics (Andone, Boyne, Dron, & Pemberton, 2005a) and we consider
that this community has different learning habits.
The research described here is part of a larger project to investigate how adaptive and adaptable
e-learning spaces might influence and be influenced by these digital students’ learning attitudes
and abilities, which may well be very different from those of their predecessors (Oblinger, 2003).
The final target of the research is to build and test an e-learning environment aimed at their
needs, based on the assumption of an ‘ecology’ of learning as defined by Seely Brown (Seely
Brown & Duguid, 2000). As part of this process an online survey has been created to investigate
the level of e-literacy of young adult students in an attempt to identify the unique features of
‘digital students’, as a move towards building a customized model of an e-learning environment.
Digital students definition
From our research perspective, 'digital students' are defined as young adult students who have
grown up with active participation in technology as an everyday feature of their lives. Among the

84 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 2 Paper 775: Are our students digital students?

(95 respondents), and Finland (50 respondents), but the respondents come from all age groups
(see Fig1) not always having grown up with ubiquitous internet and mobile phone use. We run
the questionnaire in one West European country, a Scandinavian one and two Central and East
European countries in an attempt to identify possible cultural differences. Our questionnaire
design involved a review of similar published questionnaires together with personal observations
by various groups of young students. Themes covered were digital literacy, Internet use, mobile
phone use, learning attitudes, visual use, and IT expectations. The questionnaire was completely
online with different sets of questions: multiple choices with one choice or with several choices,
rating questions and open questions; it also gathered identification data about the questioned
students. These data (Figure 1) will influence the answers and will lead us in our tentative
attempt to identify different cultural and gender characteristics of the digital students. (Andone,
Dron, Boyne, & Pemberton, 2006). Various strategies were used for analysing the results
(Creswell, 2002): descriptive statistics (averages, number of students), inferential statistics
(assessing the significance of data), simple interrelationship (cross-tabulation), multi-variate
analysis (studying more variables) and in depth interpretation by analysing each student answers
and comments. The results were analyzed in conjunction with other data (gathered from other
research methods, or from literature) as part of a qualitative study.
143
159
34
16
41
54 178
107
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
No
UK FI HU RO
respondents profile
female
male

170
132
8
42
47
48
72
213
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
No
UK FI HU RO
respondents profile
>20
< =20

Figure 1 Online Questionnaire identification data
We feel the need to express some caution about the data so far obtained. The sample was
clearly not completely random, since taking the questionnaire was entirely voluntarily and the fact
that it was online implies at least some level of digital ability. Also, the answers were often
expressions of preference and there was some latitude for different interpretations of what the
questions meant (Andone, Boyne, Dron, & Pemberton, 2005b). In the same time, the advertising
of the survey in some universities (from Finland and Hungary) was done in an obscure Web
location, which led to the low response rate. The results from these two countries were
considered just for qualitative analyse. This was an exploratory survey, not an experiment, and
the results should only be considered as indicative.
Results
General results
The first results and analysis of the UK survey are presented in Andone (Andone, Boyne, Dron,
& Pemberton, 2005b) and the partial results of all the surveys in (Andone, Dron, Boyne, &
Pemberton, 2006). In the current paper we try to identify the general characteristics of the digital
students and the differences and similarities between the different countries. The results were
analysed following 4 main strands: the use of technology, communication, the need of control
and the use of e-learning environments.

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 85
Part 2 Paper 775: Are our students digital students?

The use of technology
The results clearly show a high level of use of technology (computer, Internet, mobile phone) and
that technology is firmly embedded in the students’ lives, a large majority describing themselves as
at least intermediate in computer competence (Figure 2). These results appear to be consonant
with official Eurostat results in 2003 (Eurostat, 2003 , 2004) and with EDUCAUSE results (Oblinger
& Oblinger, 2005) and with the UK survey of their use of media (Livingstone & Bovill, 2001).
69
71
41
69
75
77
67
46
67
64
70
47
35
75
85
30 28
35
51 52
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
use the computer
more then once a day
use the Internet daily use mobile phone
daily
mobile phone ca lling
all the time/daily
mobile phone text
messaging all the
time/daily
%
UK
FI
RO
HU

Figure 2 The use of technology
15
57
18
7
4
60
14
7
4
27
50
6
4
27
2
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
under 7 years old between 7-14 years old between 14 – 18 years old after 18 years old
%
UK
FI
RO
HU

Figure 3 Age students began to use computers

90 ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings
Part 2 Paper 775: Are our students digital students?

18
29
32
51
45
29
24
17
24
40
50
30
27
17
19 20
30
42
29 30
24
19
15
22
19
15
19 19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
background
colour
text colour animation interaction number of links new content new
disscussion
theme
often to control
%
UK
FI
RO
HU

Figure 9 Desire for control over the Web

52
42
51
42
27
32
43 42
26
63
41
30 30
24
17
27
47
40
30
37
42 41
38
35 35
25
37
33
21
42
32
22
14
41
28
30
21
25
10
38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
subjects
learned
course
level
course
modules
testing
time/period
information
course
modules
course
exercises
/activities
project
subject/work
communication
with tutor
discussion
group
/forum
own study
time
often/very often
%
UK
FI
RO
HU

Figure 10 Desire for control over e-learning
E-learning
Here we wanted to look how our subjects’ perceive e-learning and find out how they might
react to an online learning environment. We wanted to know which adaptable and adaptive items
are preferred, the learning styles of the new digital students, how they approach text, image,
links, and how they think about adaptability.

ALT-C 2006 Research Proceedings 91
Part 2 Paper 775: Are our students digital students?

6
11
14 14
12
10 10
14
17
14
27
4
10
13
12
15
12
18
14 14
7
14
7
9
17
9
10
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Do not use (read
linearly)
glossary internal references external
references
examples/activities animations graphics
%
UK
FI
RO
HU

Figure 11 The use of hyperlinks in e-learning
The results (Figure 11) show a preference for a learning environment where the online materials
contain hyperlinks, which Beasley claims to have the educational advantage of allowing students
greater control over the order in and depth to which they explore a topic, allowing for more
reflection and active gaining of knowledge (Beasley, 2004). There is, however, a surprising
disparity between the preferences of students from different countries, which shows a completely
different pattern from our questions about the need for control.
47
12
18 19
14
4
44
47
10
20
14
4
7
30
50
24
29
22
12
7
23
26
17
15
19
14
6
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
personal email
account
Online in public
discussion
groups
Online in private
discussion
groups
text messaging
on mobile phone
a voice call PDA During face-to-
face meetings
%
UK
FI
RO
HU

Figure 12 The preferred communication method for receiving information in e-learning
It would seem that, of the options we presented, students preferred to receive information by
email. However, this may reflect their experience in higher education so far, rather than a