Looking Toward the
Future of Technology-
Enhanced Education:
Ubiquitous Learning and the
Digital Native
Martin Ebner
Graz University of Technology, Austria
Mandy Schiefner
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Hershey • New York
InformatIon scIence reference

Director of Editorial Content: Kristin Klinger
Senior Managing Editor: Jamie Snavely
Assistant Managing Editor: Michael Brehm
Publishing Assistant: Sean Woznicki
Typesetter: Kurt Smith, Sean Woznicki
Cover Design: Lisa Tosheff
Printed at: Yurchak Printing Inc.
Published in the United States of America by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference
Copyright © 2010 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Looking toward the future of technology-enhanced education : ubiquitous learning and the digital native / Martin Ebner and
Mandy Schiefner, editors.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: "This book evaluated the incorporation of technology into educational processes reviewing topics from primary
and secondary school to higher education, from Second Life to wiki technology, from physical education to cultural learning"-
-Provided by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-61520-678-0 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-61520-679-7 (ebook) 1.
Educational technology. 2. Internet in education. 3. Education--Effect of
technological innovations on. I. Ebner, Martin, 1975- II. Schiefner, Mandy,
1980-
LB1028.3.L66 2010
371.33'4--dc22
2009045238
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

List of Reviewers
Ralf Appelt, University of Hamburg, Germany
Andrea Back, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Oliver Bendel, University of Applied Sciences FHNW, Switzerland
Thomas Bernhardt, University of Bremen, Germany
Taiga Brahm, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Helena Bukvova, Dresden University of Technology, Germany
Martha Burkle, SAIT Polytechnic, Canada
Cristina Costa, University of Salford, UK
Bettina Dimai, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Johannes Dorfinger, University of Teacher Education Graz, Austria
Eric Duval, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Urs Gröhbiel, University of Applied Science FHNW, Switzerland
Gabriela Grosseck, West University of Timisoara, Romania
Christian Gütl, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Nina Grabowski, University of Augsburg, Germany
Wolf Hilzensauer, Salzburg Research, Austria
Klaus Himpsl, Danube University Krems, Austria
Janet Holland, Emporia State University, USA
Andreas Holzinger, Medical University Graz, Austria
Mary Hricko, Kent State University, USA
Michael Kickmeier-Rust, University of Graz, Austria
Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
Patrick Kunz, University of Teacher Education St. Gallen, Switzerland
Anoush Margaryan, Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland
Nadine Ojsterek, University of Duisburg, Germany
Jutta Pauschenwein, University of Applied Science Graz, Austria
Thomas Pfeffer, University of Klagenfurt, Austria
Annabelle Preussler, University of Duisburg, Germany
Wolfgang Reinhardt, University of Paderborn, Germany
Jochen Robes, X-Pulse E-Learning GmbH, Germany
Matthias Rohs, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Brigitte Römmer-Nossed, University of Vienna, Austria

Bernd Simon, University of Economics and Business Vienna, Austria
Sandra Schaffert, Salzburg Research, Austria
Christian Spannagel, University of Teacher Education Ludwigsburg, Germany
Kathryn Trinder, Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland
Günther Wageneder, University of Salzburg, Austria
Anja C. Wagner, University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany
Edgar Weippl, Vienna University of Technology, Austria

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. xx
Preface ..............................................................................................................................................xxiii
Section 1
Introduction
Chapter 1
Future Media Adoption in Learning and Teaching: Current Study Design from the Perspective
of Cultural Studies .................................................................................................................................. 1
Sandra Schaffert, Salzburg Research, Austria
Christina Schwalbe, University of Hamburg, Germany
Section 2
Learner and Teacher
Chapter 2
Students, Internet, eLearning and Web 2.0 ........................................................................................... 13
Rolf Schulmeister, University of Hamburg, Germany
Chapter 3
How to Improve Media Literacy and Media Skills of Secondary School Teachers in Order
to Prepare Them for the Next Generation of Learners: A New Type of In-Service Training
for Teachers ........................................................................................................................................... 37
Silke Weiß, Institute of Didactics of Chemistry, Germany
Hans Joachim Bader, Institute of Didactics of Chemistry, Germany
Chapter 4
Navigation and Visualisation Techniques in eLearning and Internet Research .................................... 55
Sue Fenley, University of Oxford, UK
Table of Contents

Section 3
Context of Learning
Chapter 5
Building a Global E-Community: Intercultural Courses on Human Rights Education ........................ 88
Sandra Reitz, Amnesty International & Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
Chapter 6
Technology Infused Service Learning: Changing Our World ............................................................. 107
Janet Holland, Emporia State University, USA
Chapter 7
OLnet: A New Approach to Supporting the Design and Use of Open Educational Resources .......... 123
Gráinne Conole, The Open University, UK
Patrick McAndrew, The Open University, UK
Chapter 8
iCyborg: Shifting Out of Neutral and the Pedagogical Road Ahead .................................................. 145
Catherine Adams, University of Alberta, Canada
Section 4
Learning Approaches
Chapter 9
Digital Game-Based Learning: New Horizons of Educational Technology ....................................... 158
Michael D. Kickmeier-Rust, University of Graz, Austria
Elke Mattheiss, University of Graz, Austria
Christina Steiner, University of Graz, Austria
Dietrich Albert, University of Graz, Austria
Chapter 10
A Case Study of Augmented Reality Serious Games ......................................................................... 178
Fotis Liarokapis, Coventry University, UK
Sara de Freitas, Coventry University, UK
Chapter 11
Web 2.0 Meets Conference: The EduCamp as a New Format of Participation and Exchange
in the World of Education ................................................................................................................... 192
Thomas Bernhardt, University of Bremen, Germany
Marcel Kirchner, University of Technology Ilmenau, Germany

Chapter 12
Authentic Tasks: The Key to Harnessing the Drive to Learn in Members of “Generation Me” ........ 205
Thomas C. Reeves, The University of Georgia, USA
Jan Herrington, Murdoch University, Australia
Section 5
Learning Technologies
Section 5.1
Mobile Learning
Chapter 13
Mobile Learning: Didactical Scenarios in the Context of Learning on the Job .................................. 223
Sandro Mengel, University of Dortmund, Germany
Maciej Kuszpa, University of Hagen, Germany
Claudia de Witt, University of Hagen, Germany
Chapter 14
E-Learning Challenges for Polytechnic Institutions: Bringing E-Mobility to
Hands-on Learning .............................................................................................................................. 245
Martha Burkle, SAIT Polytechnic, Canada
Chapter 15
M-Learning in the Field: A Mobile Geospatial Wiki as an Example for Geo-Tagging in
Civil Engineering Education ............................................................................................................... 263
Christian Safran, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Martin Ebner, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Frank Kappe, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Andreas Holzinger, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Section 5.2
Use of Collaboration Tools
Chapter 16
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space ....................................................................................... 275
Michele P. Notari, University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Beat Döbeli Honegger, University of Teacher Education, Switzerland

Chapter 17
Wikipedia in Academic Studies: Corrupting or Improving the Quality of Teaching
and Learning? ...................................................................................................................................... 295
Klaus Wannemacher, Consultant for Research and Teaching Management, HIS GmbH, Germany
Frank Schulenburg, Head of Public Outreach, Wikimedia Foundation, USA
Section 5.3
Virtual Environments and Virtual Worlds
Chapter 18
Instructional Design for Virtual Worlds: Basic Principles for Learning Environments ..................... 312
Nadine Ojstersek, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Michael Kerres, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Chapter 19
Principles of Effective Learning Environment Design ....................................................................... 327
Stephen R. Quinton, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
Chapter 20
Lecturing Tomorrow: Virtual Classrooms, User Centered Requirements and
Evaluative Methods ............................................................................................................................ 353
Thomas Czerwionka, Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
Michael Klebl, FernUniversität in Hagen / University of Hagen, Germany
Claudia Schrader, FernUniversität in Hagen / University of Hagen, Germany
Chapter 21
Virtual Experiments in University Education ..................................................................................... 373
Rob J.M. Hartog, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Hylke van der Schaaf, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Adrie J.M. Beulens, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Johannes Tramper, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Chapter 22
Virtual Learning Environment (ClassSim) Examined Under the Frame of Andragogy ..................... 394
Lisa Carrington, University of Wollongong, Australia
Lisa Kervin, University of Wollongong, Australia
Brian Ferry, University of Wollongong, Australia

Chapter 23
Supporting the Comprehension of Complex Systems with Video Narratives .................................... 412
Weiqin Chen, University of Bergen, Norway
Nils Magnus Djupvik, Mindlab AS, Norway
Chapter 24
Physical Education 2.0 ........................................................................................................................ 432
Rolf Kretschmann, University of Stuttgart, Germany
Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 455
About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 509
Index ................................................................................................................................................... 520

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. xx
Preface ..............................................................................................................................................xxiii
Section 1
Introduction
Chapter 1
Future Media Adoption in Learning and Teaching: Current Study Design from the Perspective
of Cultural Studies .................................................................................................................................. 1
Sandra Schaffert, Salzburg Research, Austria
Christina Schwalbe, University of Hamburg, Germany
A lot of effort is put into studies to find more elaborated forecasts of future media adoption in learning
and teaching. In this chapter, some methods of futurology, such as the Delphi method or the scenario
technique will be sketched. Afterwards, this current study design will be critically considered from the
perspective of cultural studies. For this, the terms of media and culture will be introduced and Debray’s
approach of mediology and the adaptation on education will be discussed. Through this, we aim to il-
lustrate that the current study designs could be enhanced by a bigger awareness of the insights of the
cultural studies and their adaptations for education, the pedagogical media theory. The presented approach
does not explicitly deal with the processes of adoption of new educational media systems on a practical
level. But pedagogical media theories and studies on cultural and social changes and media provide a
basic framework for various specific approaches dealing with the future of technology enhanced learn-
ing: Just as we can hardly understand how it feels to live in an oral culture, we are not able to imagine
how we will think, act and communicate in the future of the evolving new “mediosphere”.
Section 2
Learner and Teacher
Chapter 2
Students, Internet, eLearning and Web 2.0 ........................................................................................... 13
Rolf Schulmeister, University of Hamburg, Germany
Detailed Table of Contents

An investigation into the students’ use of internet services, media types and e-learning preferences tried
to find out if students today are interested in the use of Web 2.0 methods for learning. More than 2.000
students participated in the survey conducted by the international architecture company DEGW and the
author. The data of the survey are compared to the results of a parallel study by HIS GmbH that was
answered by 4.400 students. The results of both studies throw a critical light on the popular discussion
about the net generation or the so-called digital natives and may lend themselves to a more cautious
or careful introduction of Web 2.0 methods in teaching and learning accompanied by instructional and
tutorial assistance.
Chapter 3
How to Improve Media Literacy and Media Skills of Secondary School Teachers in Order
to Prepare Them for the Next Generation of Learners: A New Type of In-Service Training
for Teachers ........................................................................................................................................... 37
Silke Weiß, Institute of Didactics of Chemistry, Germany
Hans Joachim Bader, Institute of Didactics of Chemistry, Germany
Students in schools should acquire media literacy and the development of new media can promote self-
directed learning and so enhance the quality of the learning process. It has been assumed that teachers
lack sufficient media literacy. Therefore, we developed a new chemistry teacher in-service training based
on blended-learning. These courses should familiarize teachers with the application of new media and
acquaint them with their students’ world, the world of the so-called “digital natives”. Three studies were
performed to explore its acceptability, suitability and effectiveness. Participants’ ratings on self-report
measures of self-rated skills and perceived competence improved significantly after the training. Partici-
pants had more favorable attitudes towards the use of electronic media than subjects from a control group.
Among participants the attitudinal measure “perceived competence” predicted the use of blended-learning
at 6-month follow up. It is concluded that attitudes play an important role for promoting teachers’ media
literacy and their intention to apply new media in teaching. In addition to training programs focusing on
skills and knowledge, future interventions should target on teachers attitudes.
Chapter 4
Navigation and Visualisation Techniques in eLearning and Internet Research .................................... 55
Sue Fenley, University of Oxford, UK
Research into investigating how users navigate through Internet and multimedia resources in an edu-
cational context has revealed distinct preferences in how they approach the resource, their methods of
interrogating it and both the quantity and quality of the information they obtain. Using highly sophis-
ticated software even for digital natives involves learning a series of methods or techniques for easily
manoeuvring through the vast quantities of data and developing schemas to do this efficiently and ac-
curately. This chapter analyses methods that used for navigating through multimedia packages, explores
users’ preferences for navigation and visualisation, investigates design errors in multimedia that prevent
good navigation and details newer visualisation methods and navigational tools. The chapter should give
educational users a fresh perspective of issues of navigation and visualisation and allow them to develop
these techniques in order to improve their use of Internet and web resources and teaching materials.

Section 3
Context of Learning
Chapter 5
Building a Global E-Community: Intercultural Courses on Human Rights Education ........................ 88
Sandra Reitz, Amnesty International & Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
Traditional E-Learning programs mostly focus on disseminating knowledge. Motivation and the transfer
to behavior in everyday situations are often neglected. Human Rights Education specifically encompasses
attitudes and behavior, but the challenge is to bring this into a virtual setting. The Intercultural Courses
on Human Rights Education were conducted with 80 learners from five different countries: USA, the
Dominican Republic, Morocco, Germany, and Mongolia. The chapter first describes the practical back-
ground of these courses as well as theoretical considerations regarding computer-mediated communication
and social constructivist learning approaches. The main focus lies on giving practical examples from the
course, which include forum discussions, working with pseudonyms, internet research, and building a
human rights conformant society in a simulation. A pre- and post-test enabled a thorough evaluation for
all three learning areas: knowledge, attitudes and skills. The results of this evaluation, several lessons
learned and a future learning scenario will be shared.
Chapter 6
Technology Infused Service Learning: Changing Our World ............................................................. 107
Janet Holland, Emporia State University, USA
It seems like everyone is so busy today, it is easy to miss opportunities to reach out and make a positive
difference. Though we are all experiencing the impact of tight economic times there is one lesson we
are learning internationally. By putting our minds and actions towards mutual goals we all can benefit.
What better way to live, learn, and work together than to share our knowledge and skills to improve our
communities, both the one we live in immediately, and the one we thrive in globally. When we leave
behind a legacy, will it be one of teaching service to our students to improve both academic learning
and making valuable contributions to our communities for generations to follow? With the prevalence
of computer-based technologies and the desire of youth to be digitally connected, it is an optimal time
to share technology knowledge and skills for service learning opportunities.
Chapter 7
OLnet: A New Approach to Supporting the Design and Use of Open Educational Resources .......... 123
Gráinne Conole, The Open University, UK
Patrick McAndrew, The Open University, UK
The web 2.0 practices of user participation and experimentation have created models for social networ-
king that influence the way people communicate and interact online. This chapter describes an initiative,
OLnet, that is creating a technical environment based on web 2.0 principles to support the sharing of
experiences around the design and use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in order to facilitate closer
links between researchers and users. The aim is to combine online functionality, face-to-face events and
research activities so that research outputs can inform users and users can help steer future areas for

research work. This chapter sets out the challenges and background that have motivated OLnet before
looking at two of the tools that form part of the initial OLnet technical infrastructure; a tool for visualising
OER designs – CompendiumLD, and a social networking tool for exchange of ideas – Cloudworks.
Chapter 8
iCyborg: Shifting Out of Neutral and the Pedagogical Road Ahead .................................................. 145
Catherine Adams, University of Alberta, Canada
Teachers may no longer envision their educational technologies as powerful yet essentially neutral tools
plied to accomplish their own pedagogical ends. Rather, these technologies are more accurately theorized
as vocative objects that prereflectively engage and invite us into their world, and mimetic interventions
that scaffold, transform, and sustain new teaching and learning practices and ways of thinking regardless
of teacherly intentions. This chapter explores some of the significances and implications of a ubiquitous
technologizing of educational lifeworlds in light of this understanding.
Section 4
Learning Approaches
Chapter 9
Digital Game-Based Learning: New Horizons of Educational Technology ....................................... 158
Michael D. Kickmeier-Rust, University of Graz, Austria
Elke Mattheiss, University of Graz, Austria
Christina Steiner, University of Graz, Austria
Dietrich Albert, University of Graz, Austria
Computer games are an incredibly successful technology; due to the dynamic and active nature they are
perhaps even more successful and appealing than TV or movies. Facing this success and the significant
amount of time young people spend on playing computer games, it is a compelling idea of educators,
developers, and researchers to utilize this technology for educational purposes. In this chapter we focus
on the emerging technology of digital educational games, we attempt to give a brief summary of the
state-of-the-art, and we emphasize leading-edge research in this genre. Moreover, we discuss the psycho-
pedagogical foundations of “good” educational computer games. Finally, we provide an outlook to the
future of educational technologies.
Chapter 10
A Case Study of Augmented Reality Serious Games ......................................................................... 178
Fotis Liarokapis, Coventry University, UK
Sara de Freitas, Coventry University, UK
The study introduced in this paper examines some of the issues involved in the design and implemen-
tation of serious games that make use of tangible AR environments. Our motivation is to understand
how augmented reality serious games (ARSG) can be applied to some very difficult problems in the
real gaming world. Emphasis is given on the interface and the interactions between the players and the

serious games themselves. In particular, two case studies are presented, ARPuzzle and ARBreakout.
Results from both case studies indicate that AR gaming has the potential of revolutionizing the way that
current games are played and used as well as that it can help educate players while playing.
Chapter 11
Web 2.0 Meets Conference: The EduCamp as a New Format of Participation and Exchange
in the World of Education ................................................................................................................... 192
Thomas Bernhardt, University of Bremen, Germany
Marcel Kirchner, University of Technology Ilmenau, Germany
Admittedly the usual conference format stays in opposite to the thoughts of participation and equality
in Web 2.0. The EduCamp is a special Barcamp for trends in teaching and learning. It is focused on the
educational context and considers important topics like E-Learning 2.0 in schools, universities or business
and many others. The main intention of an EduCamp will become obvious which aims on conversations
and discussions about different problem areas, searching and finding solutions together and exchanging
on application scenarios or appropriate tools for education. It is based on a new concept that finally of-
fers potentials for developing a conference culture with improved participation.
Chapter 12
Authentic Tasks: The Key to Harnessing the Drive to Learn in Members of “Generation Me” ........ 205
Thomas C. Reeves, The University of Georgia, USA
Jan Herrington, Murdoch University, Australia
Regardless of whether one thinks of today’s higher education students as “digital natives” or members
of “Generation Me,” it is obvious that traditional instructional methods are failing to engage them ade-
quately in developing the kinds of higher order learning outcomes necessary in the 21st Century. These
outcomes should encompass the conative learning domain as well as the traditional cognitive, affective,
and psychomotor domains. This chapter describes a set of ten authentic tasks learning design principles
that can be used to create and support the kind of engaging learning experiences that today’s learners must
have if they are to achieve a full range of cognitive, affective, conative, and psychomotor outcomes for
the 21st Century. A case study of a graduate level online course that exemplifies these design principles
is described. Responding to the needs of Generation Me learners requires far more of a pedagogical
revolution than it does the widespread adoption of Web 2.0 technologies.
Section 5
Learning Technologies
Section 5.1
Mobile Learning
Chapter 13
Mobile Learning: Didactical Scenarios in the Context of Learning on the Job .................................. 223
Sandro Mengel, University of Dortmund, Germany
Maciej Kuszpa, University of Hagen, Germany
Claudia de Witt, University of Hagen, Germany

Mobile learning extends the media dissemination of knowledge and learning in extremely varying
educational contexts with mobility and independence of location. The chapter describes possibilities of
mobile learning for situation-oriented, personalised and collaborative learning. It explains on the one
hand existing conceptions and application scenarios with regard to learning theory backgrounds, and on
the other thematises possibilities of Web 2.0 for mobile learning. In doing this, it presents in particular
didactical scenarios for mobile learning situations in the context of learning on the job.
Chapter 14
E-Learning Challenges for Polytechnic Institutions: Bringing E-Mobility to
Hands-on Learning .............................................................................................................................. 245
Martha Burkle, SAIT Polytechnic, Canada
Mobile technology use is a major issue in higher education institutions, and one that is increasing daily.
While the new generation of students (the “digital natives”) move across programs and courses, their
learning expectations have started to emerge. It is with these expectations and needs in mind that educators
around the world are recognizing the advantages of using mobile technologies to engage with students
and make learning a more collaborative, interactive activity that can be engaged in at anytime, anywhere.
Using a case study approach, this chapter explores the challenges of transforming static curricula into a
mobile experience, and the ways in which these challenges were overcome within a polytechnic institution
where hands-on learning takes place inside the classroom or the lab. In addition to presenting a literature
review on the use of mobile technologies for teaching and learning, and an analysis of the relevance of
connectivism theory to analyze students learning in the digital age, this chapter also includes an analysis
of student surveys and interviews, as well as further opportunities for research.
Chapter 15
M-Learning in the Field: A Mobile Geospatial Wiki as an Example for Geo-Tagging in
Civil Engineering Education ............................................................................................................... 263
Christian Safran, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Martin Ebner, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Frank Kappe, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Andreas Holzinger, Graz University of Technology, Austria
In subjects such as Civil Engineering, Architecture, Geology etc., education is mostly based on visual
information. For example, in Civil Engineering every building can be seen as a unique object at a certain
location. During the education of Civil Engineers many field based studies and excursions take place,
however, not only the images but also geographical coordinates are essential. Wikis have been in use
for collaborative learning for more than ten years. Mobile phones provide access to them from nearly
everywhere. The availability of those technologies has led to rapid advances in the area of m-Learning
and the possibility to apply challenging constructive educational concepts. Consequently, in this paper
we describe the user centered design, development and evaluation of a combination of these technolo-
gies to support collaborative learning in the field: A Wiki-based mobile geospatial information system,
the so-called TUGeoWiki. The primary objective of this geowiki is to provide a user-friendly tool for
mobile collaborative learning for all areas where geo-tagged information could be useful. Moreover,
TUGeoWiki was developed in order to provide the integration of external map material via map APIs

including information such as that delivered by Google Maps. Subsequently, it is possible to provide
both highly detailed maps and satellite images without having the need to license such material. Fur-
thermore, the user interfaces used by such tools is well established, due to the increasing number of
mapping related mashups. The evaluation during an extensive field test within a large civil engineering
excursion to various large-scale construction sites in Austria demonstrated that collaborative learning
can be successfully supported by the application of TUGeoWiki.
Section 5.2
Use of Collaboration Tools
Chapter 16
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space ....................................................................................... 275
Michele P. Notari, University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Beat Döbeli Honegger, University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Based on the implications of technological progress and socioconstructivist learning theory, trends are
being developed for tools to promote learning in the information society of the 21st century. The future
promises a massive increase in information and its ubiquitous availability, along with an increase in
computer-mediated communication. It is particularly important to understand that the communication
requests placed on the individual and the range of available communication channels will increase in
coming years. Tools must therefore be conceptualized to manage the communication and information
glut of the future in an “intelligent” way permitting a collaborative way of learning. Looking ahead,
lifelong, rather informal and problem-based learning could become significantly more important than
formal learning. The characteristics of wikis will be presented as a possible representative example
and explored based on the above criteria. The chapter concludes with prognoses on the nature of ICT-
supported learning in coming years.
Chapter 17
Wikipedia in Academic Studies: Corrupting or Improving the Quality of Teaching
and Learning? ...................................................................................................................................... 295
Klaus Wannemacher, Consultant for Research and Teaching Management, HIS GmbH, Germany
Frank Schulenburg, Head of Public Outreach, Wikimedia Foundation, USA
Although Wikipedia has carved its way into the common vernacular, it faces resentments particularly in
higher education institutions and many professors say students should think twice before turning to the
free online encyclopedia for their academic work: “According to the criterion of scholarly standards,
Wikipedia is citable on no account since authorship is not verifiable, and therefore an authentification
of information is impossible.” (Haber, 2007, p. 500). In spite of perceived quality deficits, Wikipedia is
a popular information resource among students. Instructors increasingly take advantage of this student
attitude through actively integrating Wikipedia as a learning tool into university courses in accordance
with a constructivist teaching and learning paradigm. The chapter raises the question if Wikipedia is suited
to make complex research, editing and bibliographic processes through which scholarship is produced
transparent to students and to effectively improve their research and writing skills.

Section 5.3
Virtual Environments and Virtual Worlds
Chapter 18
Instructional Design for Virtual Worlds: Basic Principles for Learning Environments ..................... 312
Nadine Ojstersek, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Michael Kerres, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany
This paper gives an overview of the didactic elements relevant to learning opportunities in virtual worlds.
Moreover, the specific requirements of virtual worlds are investigated in more detail using the C3-model of
didactic components. Following this model, the specifications of virtual worlds are illustrated with regard
to components content, communication and construction. The use of virtual worlds is often connected
with the hope for stronger immersion, which is encouraged by the possibility of three-dimensionality
and the representation of the learner by a virtual representative. However, learning-/teaching processes
are not automatically improved by the use of virtual worlds. The possibilities offered by potential virtual
worlds can only be honoured when a dedicated didactical concept is carried out. This means a complex
composition process which has to take the specific features of virtual worlds into consideration.
Chapter 19
Principles of Effective Learning Environment Design ....................................................................... 327
Stephen R. Quinton, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
New thinking on the design and purpose of learning solutions is needed where the focus is not only on
what to learn, but also the strategies and tools that enhance students’ capacity to learn and construct
knowledge. The vision underpinning this chapter is to extend the notion of advanced learning environ-
ments that support learners’ to construct and apply knowledge to include the capacity to understand
how and why they learn as individuals. The purpose of this chapter is not to argue the need for ‘virtual’
learning environments – the literature abounds with positive endorsement for such applications. Instead,
the strategies and factors that afford learners greater opportunities to engage in rewarding, productive
learning experiences are examined with a view to laying down the groundwork and design principles
to inform the development of a model for devising educationally effective, multi-modal (face-to-face
and online) learning environments.
Chapter 20
Lecturing Tomorrow: Virtual Classrooms, User Centered Requirements and
Evaluative Methods ............................................................................................................................ 353
Thomas Czerwionka, Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
Michael Klebl, FernUniversität in Hagen / University of Hagen, Germany
Claudia Schrader, FernUniversität in Hagen / University of Hagen, Germany
This chapter presents a survey methodology addressing learners’ requirements, their expectations and
experiences regarding challenges in the implementation process of new educational technology in
educational institutions. The presented methodology was devised and applied during the pilot use of
a web conferencing system (in its educational form as a virtual classroom) in distance education, and

combines the evaluation of usability, acceptance and expected benefits in order to generate statements
and to substantiate decisions on educational technology at an early stage of its institutional introduction.
The methodical procedure, survey instruments and results from its exemplary exertion are described.
The overall objective of this chapter is to prove the appropriateness of this multi-perspective and user
centered approach towards the examination of utility, resulting in a pragmatic and transferable tool for
the evaluation of the three named factors.
Chapter 21
Virtual Experiments in University Education ..................................................................................... 373
Rob J.M. Hartog, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Hylke van der Schaaf, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Adrie J.M. Beulens, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Johannes Tramper, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
A university curriculum in natural and engineering sciences should provide students enough time and
adequate facilities to design and carry out experiments and to analyze and interpret experimental results.
However, laboratory facilities require considerable investments, and the experiments themselves can
also be very expensive. Furthermore, in many universities, scheduling laboratory practice can be quite
constrained. It is often difficult to realize learning scenarios in which experimentation is an integral
component. Finally, alignment of actual laboratory classes and assessment is seldom satisfactory.
This chapter discusses potential benefits of and limitations to virtual experiment environments or virtual
laboratories in university education. In addition, we aim to identify feasible objectives for faculty-based
projects on design, realization and use of virtual experiments in university education.
Chapter 22
Virtual Learning Environment (ClassSim) Examined Under the Frame of Andragogy ..................... 394
Lisa Carrington, University of Wollongong, Australia
Lisa Kervin, University of Wollongong, Australia
Brian Ferry, University of Wollongong, Australia
ClassSim, an online simulation, was developed to support existing teacher education programs by
providing pre-service teachers with access to additional classroom experience. This research reports
on how pre-service teachers make use of the virtual learning environment to link knowledge from
university coursework with field experiences and through this, we are able to examine affordances the
virtual environment offers pre-service teacher learning. Andragogy provides a theoretical framework to
review and make assumptions about the nature of learning for the participants. A comparative case study
approach allows for in-depth comparison of two cohorts of pre-service teachers (first and final year) as
they interact with the ClassSim environment.
Chapter 23
Supporting the Comprehension of Complex Systems with Video Narratives .................................... 412
Weiqin Chen, University of Bergen, Norway
Nils Magnus Djupvik, Mindlab AS, Norway

A university curriculum in natural and engineering sciences should provide students enough time and
adequate facilities to design and carry out experiments and to analyze and interpret experimental results.
However, laboratory facilities require considerable investments, and the experiments themselves can
also be very expensive. Furthermore, in many universities, scheduling laboratory practice can be quite
constrained. It is often difficult to realize learning scenarios in which experimentation is an integral
component. Finally, alignment of actual laboratory classes and assessment is seldom satisfactory.
This chapter discusses potential benefits of and limitations to virtual experiment environments or virtual
laboratories in university education. In addition, we aim to identify feasible objectives for faculty-based
projects on design, realization and use of virtual experiments in university education.
Chapter 24
Physical Education 2.0 ........................................................................................................................ 432
Rolf Kretschmann, University of Stuttgart, Germany
Thinking of subjects at school and integrating digital media and technology, one might not think of
looking at physical education first. But the pedagogical potentials of digital media integrated in physical
education can easily be outlined. Therefore, the concept of Physical Education 2.0 is developed that
posits a framework for designing pedagogical scenarios after informing about the old-fashioned Physical
Education 1.0, technical devices, software and internet offers, and categorizing pedagogical scenarios
by literature review. The imagination of future pedagogical scenarios leads to a deeper awareness of
possible physical education developments. Moreover, implementation premises for Physical Education
2.0 in different areas are displayed. Furthermore, future research directions in this special research field
with almost tabula rasa character are given. Shortly, the aim of the paper is to give an introduction and
overview of the wide scope of digital media within physical education.
Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 455
About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 509
Index ................................................................................................................................................... 520

xx
Foreword
As its title suggests, ‘Looking toward the future of technology-enhanced education’ is a book that sets
itself a very important – but very difficult – brief. Commenting on the future of education and technol-
ogy is a perilous pastime. Even the most informed commentators find technological forecasting to be a
tricky business. Take, for instance, the assertion in 1943 that there only would ever be ‘a world market
for maybe five computers’ (a quotation attributed to Thomas J Watson - then Chairman of IBM). Or fifty
years later when the internet was dismissed by Bill Gates as ‘a passing fad’. It seems that even those
who are involved deeply in the development of new technology are reduced to guessing games when
it comes to predicting the near future. In the same vein, the nature of educational change has proved to
be just as difficult to forecast accurately – as is now evident in the many extravagant depictions of the
‘classroom of 2000’ offered throughout the second half of the twentieth century. All told, predicting the
future forms and features of technology-enhanced education can be a thankless task.
This is not to say that efforts should not be made by education technologists to look forward toward
the future. Indeed, all of the contributors to this book should be commended for engaging with the dif-
ficult questions that such forward thinking entails and providing a well-rounded and well-informed set of
responses. The chapters in this collection manage to cover an impressive range of what could be considered
to be ‘state-of-the-art’ education technologies – from virtual learning environments, wiki technologies
and virtual conferencing, to open resources, mobile learning and serious games. Pleasingly, many of the
chapters also pay attention to human aspects of education technology use. In this sense, the book offers
a varied perspective on education, covering subjects such as civil engineering, physical education and
cultural studies considering the learning that takes place in schools, colleges and universities, as well as
episodes of ‘informal’ learning that occur outside the aegis of any education institution. This focus on
the ‘wetware’ as well as the ‘software’ aspects of education technology is also apparent in chapters on
user-centred design, new information competencies, media literacies, and using technology to engage
with upcoming generations of young learners (or as one of the final chapters terms it, ‘harnessing the
drive to learn in members of ‘Generation Me’’).
This reference to Generation Me highlights an important theme that runs throughout the book – i.e.
the notion that the education establishment is facing a growing disconnection from those that it seeks
to work with. The potential distancing between institution and individual is perhaps the most important
question that this book raises, and is certainly an issue that should be at the forefront of any reader’s
mind when reviewing these chapters. In particular, much of this book’s content chimes with the general
concerns within educational circles over new generations of learners who could be characterised as
‘digital natives’ – i.e. individuals who are seen to be natural technology users as a result of their early
development and immersion in all things digital. These are learners, as Palfrey and Gasser (2008) put it,

xxi
who many people consider to have been ‘born digital.’ As some of the contributors to this book imply,
many educators feel that significant divisions that are arising between current generations of learners and
their educational institutions. Some of the chapters in this book echo Marc Prensky’s (2001, p.1) warning
from the beginning of the century that “today’s students are no longer the people our educational system
was designed to teach”. Thus one of the main questions that any reader of this book should bear in mind
is how the described forms of technology-enhanced education may work to lessen this perceived gap.
In other words, what is being suggested in these chapters that offers a break from the perennial cycles
of hype, hope and disappointment which have blighted the institutional use of education technologies
over the last thirty years? What is it about the technologies and practices described in this book that may
help future education technologies buck the trend described so deftly in Larry Cuban’s (1993) prognosis
of ‘computer meets classroom: classroom wins’? How will the use of these particular technologies in
educational settings play out in practice as well as in potential?
In fact, once having read these chapters I would encourage any reader to move their attention away
from the state-of-the-art and back towards what could be termed the ‘state-of-the-actual’. As an academic
‘tribe’, education technologists certainly thrive on taking a forward-looking and fast-changing perspec-
tive – asking questions that are concerned primarily with what should happen, and what could happen
once new technologies and digital media are placed into educational settings. Whilst these concerns
are all well and good, the job for any reader of this book is to give some serious thought to how these
artefacts and activities may be best integrated into the present-day realities of educational institutions
and learners. In short, it seems appropriate that readers of this book are inspired to also ask questions
concerning what is actually taking place when these education technologies meet education institutions
– to look beyond the future of technology-enhanced education and back towards the present.
From this perspective there are many questions that need to be asked of the present state of technology-
enhanced education. For instance, basic questions of equality and diversity remain concerning who is
actually able to do what with these technologies, why and with what outcomes. Similarly, questions
can be raised about the ends as well as the means of these forms of technology-enhanced learning. For
example, what learning can actually be said to result from the use of these technologies and tools in educa-
tion settings? What are the unintended and unexpected consequences of technology-enhanced education
– its seductions and pleasures as well as its problems and anxieties? Above all, serious thought needs
to be given to what really can be said to be ‘new’ about these emerging forms of technology-enhanced
education – i.e. what are these artefacts and activities making possible that were not possible before;
how are social relations being altered (if at all)? Can these forms of technology-enhanced education
really be seen to constitute a new educational landscape, or do they more accurately represent a set of
continuities from previous eras?
I expect that ‘Looking toward the future of technology-enhanced education’ will provide much to
inspire and interest any reader. Of course, no-one will agree with everything that is written in the book
– there would surely be something wrong with either the reader or the book if this were the case! Yet
agreeable or not, I am sure that these essays will provoke much thought and further discussion about
technology-enhanced education.
Neil Selwyn
Institute of Education, University of London

xxix
Once again, the editors would like to thank all the authors and reviewers, all who contributed to
making this book worthwhile, and all who will read it. The education of tomorrow is one of the most
important topics today and we hope that this book will provide food for thought as well as suggestions
as to how to integrate technology into education both appropriately and effectively.
Martin Ebner & Mandy Schiefner
Editors
REFERENCES
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: A critical review of the evidence.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 775-786.
Lorenzo, G., & Dziuban, C. (2006). Ensuring the Net generation is Net savvy. ELI Paper 2. Retrieved
October 8, 2009, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3006.pdf
Oblinger, D. D., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net generation. Retrieved October 8,
2009, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Schulmeister, R. (2008). Is there a Net-gener in the house? Dispelling a mystification. Online journal
eLeed. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://eleed.campussource.de/archive/5/1587/

275
Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 16
Learning in an Active,
Collaborative Space
Michele P. Notari
University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Beat Döbeli Honegger
University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
The current search for new educational funnels must
be reversed into the search for their institutional
inverse: educational webs which heighten the op-
portunity for each one to transform each moment of
his living into one of learning, sharing, and caring.
(Illich, 1970, p. 2)
1. iNTRoduCTioN
In this section a number of prognoses are pre-
sented concerning the future characteristics of
ICT-supported learning tools based on current trends
towards an information society. The discussion
will address technological developments as well as
their technological and social consequences while
also the exploring the competences required for
living in an information society. After describing
abSTRaCT
Based on the implications of technological progress and socioconstructivist learning theory, trends are
being developed for tools to promote learning in the information society of the 21st century. The future
promises a massive increase in information and its ubiquitous availability, along with an increase in
computer-mediated communication. It is particularly important to understand that the communication
requests placed on the individual and the range of available communication channels will increase in
coming years. Tools must therefore be conceptualized to manage the communication and information
glut of the future in an “intelligent” way permitting a collaborative way of learning. Looking ahead,
lifelong, rather informal and problem-based learning could become significantly more important than
formal learning. The characteristics of wikis will be presented as a possible representative example
and explored based on the above criteria. The chapter concludes with prognoses on the nature of ICT-
supported learning in coming years.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61520-678-0.ch016

276
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
a possible conception of learning and showing a
didactic method that can be derived from it, some
characteristics that learning tools may possess in
the future will be inferred.
This section attempts to extrapolate these
characteristics to their logical limits. Despite this
fundamental approach, certain important aspects
of living and learning in the 21st century will not
be explored in depth. The discussion will not be
extended, for example, to the consequences of
globalization and dwindling natural resources,
nor to the challenges posed by these develop-
ments (e.g., living and working in multicultural
societies; sustainable development).
Figure 1 provides a structured overview of
the considerations in this section in the form of a
concept map (Novak, Gowin 1985). An enlarged
version of the presented map can be found at the
following url: http://beat.doebe.li/publications/
liaacs/. The elements of the map discussed in the
individual subsections are displayed in enlarged
resolution. An introductory caveat is appropriate at
this juncture: Although the concept map – which
graphically displays the key aspects of each
section – may convey a picture of reality that is
highly deterministic, the authors do not endorse
this conception. Reality is extremely complex,
and eludes accurate schematization in a concept
map. This form of presentation is useful, however,
and has been selected in order to shed light on key
developments and interrelationships.
In addition, as the goal of this section is to
infer the future characteristics of learning tools,
no attempt has been made incorporate reciprocal
effects and feedback mechanisms between the
displayed concepts, despite the fact that such
mechanisms and effects do surely exist. Please
try to keep in mind the concept map presented
as figure 1 while reading the whole section. The
map figures as leitmotiv, all terms, descriptions
and definitions mentioned in the subsections refer
to elements and connections of the map. Even if
parts of the map are shown in the related subsec-
tions the ‘whole picture’ is crucial to understand
the presented ideas.
2. hoW iCT ChaNgES EduCaTioN
goaLS aNd EduCaTioNaL TooLS
2.1 Moore’s Law
In 1965, Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, the
world’s largest manufacturer of semiconductors,
predicted in the magazine Electronics that, in
coming years, it would be possible to double the
number of transistors in an integrated circuit every
year (Moore 1965). Moore pointed out that, on
average, transistor counts had doubled every year
in previous years and that the laws of physics did
not prevent this trend from continuing unabated
(Figure 2). While the amount of time required to
double the density of transistors on a microchip
has increased over past decades (up to about 18
months), Moore’s law has remained valid to this
day. According to experts, computing power will
continue to grow at a nearly exponential rate until
about 2020, when physical and economic limita-
tions will be reached.
2.2 Technological Consequences
of Moore’s Law
With the increasing availability of computing
power for the storage, processing, and transmis-
sion of digital data, information and communi-
cation technology (ICT) is playing an ever-more
prominent role in our lives. Data are available in
digital format everywhere and can be processed
automatically.
The universal coding of data in binary format
is leading to the convergence of previously distinct
tools and media (Negroponte 1995): the computer,
for example, combines the typewriter, adding
machine, and file cabinet in one device, while
the internet unites the traditional media of the

277
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
Figure 1. Outline of the section as a concept map

278
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
newspaper, radio, and television in a new medium.
Therefore Kay and Goldberg call the computer a
metamedium (Kay & Goldberg, 1977).
There are four possibilities as to how new
digital tools and media can impact existing tools
and media:
Extinction: The new digital tools and media •
replace existing tools and media. Digital
photography, for example, has largely re-
placed analog photography.
Convergence: ICT combines previously •
distinct tools and media in a new, unified
format.
Coexistence: The new possibilities offered •
by ICT are used in tandem with existing
tools and media.
Evolution: While new tools and media are •
typically used at first as an imitation of
existing tools and media, with time new
and previously unknown forms of use can
develop.
To the present day the computer remains a
visible emblem of the trend towards an increas-
ingly information-based society. Yet as early as
1991, Marc Weiser was using the term ubiquitous
computing to prophesize a future in which com-
puters would become an omnipresent but hidden
feature of our environment, as they would be
integrated in everyday items (Weiser 1991). The
future envisioned by Weiser is already becoming
a reality: A modern passenger car boasts more
computing power than the first desktop computer,
yet no one would view their car as a computer on
wheels. State-of-the-art cellular telephones also
have massive data processing and storage capacity,
but are not perceived as computers in a standard
sense. The majority of experts also see a trend in
the direction of mobile computing. In a survey of
578 experts, 77% agreed that the mobile phone
is the primary connection tool for most people in
the world (Anderson & Rainie 2008).
The computer scientist Klaus Haefner pos-
tulated in 1982 that the increasing availability
of information and communication technologies
would lead to ever-greater automation. For eco-
nomic reasons, everything that can be automated
will be automated (Haefner 1982). This viewpoint
– originally formulated in the early 1980s – is
still shared by experts such as Thomas Friedman
(Friedman 2005).
2.3 The Effects of Technological
development on professional
and private Life
The developments described above are leading to
a situation in which all of the world’s information
is increasingly available at any time, from any
Figure 2. Technological change

279
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
place. In addition, individuals can communicate
through digital channels with increasing ease,
and automation is on the rise. Our professional
and private lives are impacted tremendously by
these trends.
The resulting challenges can be described under
the rubric of more, faster, and greater complexity
(Figure 3):
• More: With the increasing availability of
information and options for digital com-
munication, the individual is faced by the
latent danger of an information and com-
munication-request overload.
Faster: The availability of information at •
all times and places as well as the increas-
ing automation of processes are causing
developments to move at an accelerated
pace, as less time is required to complete
tasks. The free time thus attained is used to
develop new processes.
Greater complexity: The newly developed •
processes are often more complex as ex-
isting ones, as existing data and processes
form the basis for new ones. This makes
complex processes easier to manage and
attracts users.
2.4 Challenges for the individual
As a result the above, the individual is confronted
by new challenges. The ubiquitous availability of
digital information and communications poses
the threat of an information and communication-
request overload. To manage this threat, informa-
tion and communication competences are required.
Figure 3. Potentials and threats of technological change

280
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
The accelerated rate of change requires lifelong
learning and the proper handling of new and
unknown problems. To thrive in an information
society, the individual thus needs the ability to see
things from multiple perspectives and to retain an
open mind (Figure 4).
Haefner and Friedman both advance the view
that it is fruitless to resist increasing automa-
tion. Rather, it is necessary to concentrate on the
non-automatable. Haefner envisions two such
occupational groups: The first group consists of
the autonomes, who complete their work without
the use of ICT. The second group consists of the
Unberechenbaren (“non-computables”), who,
with the help of ICT, fulfill complex jobs that
rely heavily on communication and cannot be
automated (Haefner 1992, p. 192) Friedman has
formulated a similar concept and describes this
second occupational group as the “untouchables”
(Friedman 2005).
3. NECESSaRY CoMpETENCES
FoR ThE iNFoRMaTioN SoCiETY
oF ThE 21ST CENTuRY
Globalisation will increase diversity and inter-
connection within the world. Individuals need to
master changing technologies and to make sense
of large amounts of available information. In these
contexts, the competences the individuals need to
meet their goals have become more complex, re-
quiring more than the mastery of certain narrowly
defined skills (Rychen & Salganik 2001).
According to Weinert, a competence is not
reducible to cognitive skills, but instead also
contains social, emotional, motivational, and be-
havioral components (Weinert 2001). The OECD
project “Defining and Selecting Key Competen-
cies (DeSeCo)” examined which key competen-
cies would be essential in the future (Figure 5).
Three categories of competencies were identified
by the study: dealing with socially heterogeneous
groups; autonomous action and creativity; and
the interactive use of media and tools (Rychen
& Salganik 2001).
Figure 4. Challenges for learning

281
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
In pedagogy, the concept of competence goes
back to the competence-model of Klafki (2000).
Euler (2006) proposed a possible way to opera-
tionalize Klafki’s model in the form of a matrix
of competences. Table 1 shows this matrix filled
in with the concepts proposed in Figure 5.
A short description of some terms may help
understanding the importance of the different com-
petences: Self-competence is a term described by
Susan Harter (1982) referring to perceived ability
in subject areas as a whole. This makes the defini-
tion very similar to self-concept, a term associated
with Rosenberg (1965), Shavelson et al. (1976),
and Marsh (1990). However, while self-concept
also addresses students’ beliefs about academic
difficulties and student affect, self-competence
refers only to their perceptions related to suc-
cess. The term ‘social competence’ or ‘social
competences’ refer to the social, emotional and
cognitive skills and behaviors that persons need
for successful social adaptation (Fiedler, 2003).
Open mindedness has been pointed out by several
researchers as one of the most likely character-
istics associated with successful cross-cultural
adjustment (Caligiuri, Jacobs, & Farr 2000, Van
Oudenhoven, Van der Zee, & Van Kooten 2001,
Yamazaki & Kayes 2004)
4. a CoNTEMpoRaRY
uNdERSTaNdiNg oF LEaRNiNg
Nowadays, learning is described, defined, and
interpreted in very different ways. In the fol-
lowing passage a short overview of one of many
concepts of learning is presented. We have chosen
Figure 5. Required competences
Table 1. Organization of proposed competencies from the concept map (Fig. 1. and 5.) in Euler’s matrix
of competences (2006)
Dimensions of action / Areas of
competence
Knowledge Skills Attitudes
Subject competence Information competences
Learning to learn; Information
competences
Open mindedness
Social competences
Social competences; Communi-
cative competences
Social competences; Communi-
cative competences
Open mindedness; Social com-
petences; Communicative com-
petences
Self-competence Learning to learn Open mindedness

282
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
a ‘concept-mix’ we suppose to be relevant for the
evolving characteristics of future learning tools.
Of course many other understandings of contem-
porary learning concepts and theories exist.
We start from the idea that learning is a social
and active process. We then describe a motiva-
tional learning strategy and provide an overview
regarding different types of learning. From these
types of learning, we point out two learning
methods (active, collaborative learning) and a
didactic concept (problem based learning). The
acquisition of competences in a world of increas-
ing complexity and the fast-pace of change, is a
lifelong learning process. Since formal learning
occurs mostly in childhood and young adult-
hood, the role of informal learning has grown in
significance. Information technologies also offer
supplemental possibilities for informal education
during childhood and young adulthood (Sefton-
Green 2004).
4.1 Learning as active,
Constructive and Social process
Using the theoretical work of Lev Vygotsky, an
authority on socioconstructive learning theory
and Albert Bandura, representing the behaviourist
movement, learners activity and the importance
of social interaction to learning processes are
discussed:
The social cognitive theory explains how
people acquire and maintain certain behavioral
patterns, while also providing the basis for inter-
vention strategies (Bandura 1997). It emphasizes
the importance of observing and modeling the
behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of
others. Evaluating behavioral change depends
on the factors environment, people, and their
behavior.
Vygotsky’s theory of social cognitive devel-
opment is complementary to Bandura’s social
learning theory. Its major thematic thrust is that
“social interaction plays a fundamental role in
the development of cognition” (Kearsley 1994).
Vygotsky focused on the connections between
people and the sociocultural context in which they
act and interact in shared experiences (Crawford,
1996). According to Vygotsky, humans use tools
that develop from a culture, such as speech and
writing, to mediate their social environments
(Crawford, 1996). Vygotsky’s theory promotes
learning settings where learners play an active
role in learning. The role of learning manager
(teacher) and learner are therefore shifted, as the
teacher should not transmit instructions but rather
collaborate with the learners in order to facilitate
meaning construction in learners (Crawford,
1996).
The learning act is described above as an active,
social and constructive process. In contemporary
and in future learning scenarios the social interac-
tions are intended to happen directly (face to face)
or mediated by technology. Not only the interac-
tion can be enhanced or sustained by technology
but also the construction or co-construction of
knowledge and learners activity. Mechanisms
enhancing social interaction might be represented
by communication and collaboration tools. Tools
permitting and facilitating editing and sharing of
meanings enhance (co-) construction of knowl-
edge. Self determination theory and personal
motivation may help to understand and enhance
learners activity.
4.2 Self-determination and
personal Motivation
Informal learning requires a high level of intrinsic
motivation. The self-determination theory of Deci
and Ryan describes three psychological needs that
motivate one to engage in this behavior, namely,
the need for competence, need for autonomy, and
the need for relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Need for competence: refers to the need to •
actively experience oneself as competent
in controlling the environment (Deci &
Ryan 2002).

283
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
Need for autonomy (or • self-determination):
refers to the need to participate in deter-
mining one’s own behavior. It includes the
need to experience one’s actions as result of
autonomous choice (Deci & Ryan 2002).
Need for • relatedness: refers to need to care
for and be related to others. It includes the
need to experience authentic relatedness
from others and to experience satisfaction
in participation and involvement with the
social world (Deci & Ryan 2002).
The described needs underpin the importance
of the predictions of the future tools: relatedness
refers to the importance of being involved within
a social environment. Learning in a social envi-
ronment is a collaborative process, and the need
for competence relates to the importance of being
up to date with the changing world and induces
active lifelong learning activities. The need for
autonomy refers to independence from formal
(learning) frameworks. Autonomy and environ-
ment control also enhances learners motivation
and self determination which has an impact on
his behavior / his learning activity.
4.3 More than Formal Learning
The necessity of lifelong learning has the conse-
quence that a one-time educational program in
school and college is no longer sufficient. Instead,
continuous learning outside institutions is also
necessary. For this reason, a distinction is drawn
between two different types of learning:
• “Formal learning is accomplished in
school, courses, classrooms, and work-
shops. It’s official, it’s usually scheduled,
and it teaches a curriculum. Most of the
time, it’s top-down: learners are evaluated
and graded on mastering material some-
one else deems important. Those who have
good memories or test well receive gold
stars and privileged placement. Graduates
receive diplomas, degrees, and certifi-
cates.” (Cross 2006, p. 16)
• “Informal learning: It can happen inten-
tionally or inadvertently. No one takes at-
tendance, for there are no classes. No one
assigns grades, for success in life and work
is the measure of its effectiveness. No one
graduates, because learning never ends.
Examples are learning through observing,
trial-and-error, calling the help line, asking
a neighbor, traveling to a new place, read-
ing a magazine, conversing with others,
taking part in a group, composing a story,
reflecting on the day’s events, burning your
finger on a hot stove, awakening with an
inspiration, raising a child, visiting a mu-
seum, or pursuing a hobby.” (Cross 2006,
p.16)
The new technologies affect both formal and
informal learning. Due to the acceleration of
change (see Figure 1) the “half-life of knowledge”
— i.e. its validity in terms of being up-to-date and
accurate — decreases. To keep abreast of develop-
ments, lifelong learning is therefore indispensable.
Formal education (i.e. formal learning) normally
stops at the age of 20-25. Because of the necessity
of lifelong learning and rising life expectancy,
informal learning will increase in importance.
4.4 Collaborative Learning
The first findings concerning factors that enhance
collaborative learning evolved from the works
of Piaget (1926) and Vygotsky (1978), who
contended that learning occurs more effectively
through interpersonal interactions in a coopera-
tive rather than competitive context. Compared
to individual learning, research on traditional
face-to-face collaborative learning has revealed
numerous benefits: better performance, better
motivation, higher test scores and achievement,
the development of high-level thinking skills, as
well as higher student satisfaction, etc. (Dansereau

284
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
1983, Slavin 1987; Sharon 1990). More recent
research on computer-supported collaborative
learning (CSCL) has confirmed these benefits
and has shown that they can be enhanced even
further through adequate technological support
(see e.g. Alavi 1994, Hiltz 1995, Huynh 1999,
Suthers 2006, Hoppe et al. 2007). While these are
important and very encouraging results, a deeper
understanding of the “inside” of the collaborative
learning process is still missing.
4.5 problem-based Learning
(pbL) as an Example for
authentic Learning Situations
Problem Based Learning (PBL) is a student-
centered didactical concept to promote active
learning while learners investigate authentic
problems (David 2009). According to MacDonald
and Isaacs (2001): “The characteristic that distin-
guishes PBL (..) is that the problem comes before
the knowledge (in the broadest sense) needed to
solve or resolve it.” (p. 317) Some key principles
of a problem-based curriculum (based on Engel
1991 & 1992) are:
Active learning: Students take control of •
their own learning, pose and answer their
own questions.
Integrated learning: Students do not study •
different disciplines or sub-disciplines
separately, do not view knowledge, under-
standing, and skills as distinct elements but
rather as integrated; they put the problem
into the focus and make every attempt to
link the classroom and the real world of
practice.
Cumulative learning: No topic or problem •
is studied to the depth of the final learning
outcome in a single block; rather topics are
revisited in progressively greater depth.
Learning for understanding: For students •
the processes of inquiry are more impor-
tant than the facts delivered; knowledge
must be tested by application, feedback is
central and reflection is an integral part of
the learning process.
There is a general agreement that problem-
based learning provides an environment rich in
potential for the development of a range of skills.
Among the skills usually identified are: Problem-
solving skills; skills in posing useful questions;
thinking skills; teamwork skills; communication
skills; time management skills; research and in-
formation handling skills; and computing skills
(Figure 6).
Informal, problem-based, active, constructive,
collaborative learning in authentic learning situ-
ations may indicate characteristics of emerging
learning scenarios (see Figure 6).
4.6 The Role of Communication
in an active, Collaborative
Learning Environment
Collaboration implies an interaction between the
collaborating persons and “collaborative learning”
is not always effective (Dillenbourg 1999). Its
effects depend on the richness and intensity of
Figure 6. Properties of learning situations

285
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
interactions engaged in by group members while
collaborating (Dillenbourg et al. 1996). Based on
common theoretical backgrounds, collaborative
learning takes place when learners get involved
in knowledge-productive interactions such as ar-
gumentation, explanation, and mutual regulation
(Dillenbourg 2008). The “knowledge-productive
interactions” take place whenever the involved
persons communicate to each other. Some com-
municative actions lead to explanation, some to
argumentation, and some to mutual regulation of
the collaborating group. The most open definition
of communicative action given is that it is action
in which “the actors seek to reach an understand-
ing about the action situation and their plans of
action in order to coordinate their actions by way
of agreement. … (It is) a type of interaction that
is coordinated through speech acts and does not
coincide with them.” (Habermas 1981, p. 101).
Communicative action is based on an analysis of
the social use of language oriented to reaching
common understanding when action is coordi-
nated by the validity claims offered in speech
acts (Habermas 1981)
We will now turn to computer-mediated
human-human communication like e-mail, chat,
instant messaging, newsgroups, forums, tweets
etc. Computer-mediated communication helps
bridging spatial, social, and temporal distances
and permits the tracking of past acts of com-
munication.
Asynchronous communication gives the op-
portunity to rethink and correct the content of
a message before it is sent and so promoting
reflective learning (Hiltz and Goldman (2005).
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has
become a part of everyday life. Research suggests
that CMC is not inert as a social force, but that it
can cause many changes in the way people com-
municate with one another, influencing communi-
cation patterns and social networks (see e.g. Fulk
& Collins-Jarvis 2001). Rice & Gattiker (2001)
state that CMC limits the level of synchronicity
when interacting, which may cause a reduction
of interactivity.
What features might we expect of the next
generation of learning tools? As mentioned, ever-
greater demands will be placed on the individual to
engage in acts of communication in the future (see
Figure 7). As a result, CMC tools might evolve to
resemble face-to-face communication, including
all its stimuli. It may also be that CMC tools merge
all of the advantages of CMC with the advantages
of face-to-face communication. Communication
tools of the future will also presumably be better
at managing large numbers of communication
requests. Such tools may provide for the intelligent
selection of relevant communication requests. To
tailor such tools, further research is necessary on
communication needs (see self-determination
theory: Deci & Ryan 2002; see section above) as
well as on the communication patterns of learn-
ers in active, collaborative learning environments
Figure 7. Communication request explosion re-
quires communication competences

286
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
(Notari 2008), has described factors influencing
computer-mediated written communication;
research on communication needs and commu-
nication patterns is ongoing).
5. ChaRaCTERiSTiCS oF
FuTuRE LEaRNiNg TooLS
After elucidating some underlying principles from
learning theory and describing models that appear
applicable from our perspective, we can begin to
formulate an overview of requirements placed on
the learning tools of the future (see Figure 8).
An initial, perhaps banal and purely pragmatic
requirement that we neither dealt with in theory nor
as part of a model, but that seems nevertheless to
be quite essential is the reliability and usability of
the learning tool. Along with steady improvements
in computer hardware and applications there has
also been a concomitant increase in complexity,
which potentially leads to the increased instability
of learning tools.
In view of the latent dangers of information
overload, the implementation of learning tools
will become ever more important in the manage-
ment of information, which could be transformed
by a personal information manager (PIM) of the
future with the following requirements: intelli-
gent filtering, prioritization, and visualization of
information, as well as the ability to link associa-
tions to existing information and an intelligent
storage system for later retrieval. New concepts
for solving problems raised by the flood of new
information already exist in rudimentary fashion:
statistical methods are increasingly available to
make information management more logical, such
as self-learning spam filters, and user-generated
taxonomies (folksonomies).
Not only the quantity of information is increas-
ing, but also, in similar fashion, the volume of
communication requests directed at the individual
is rising. In the modern world, we are bombarded
by communication requests from a wide range
of channels, including telephone, mail, VOIP,
wall posts at social networking sites, and micro-
Figure 8. Required functions and properties of future learning tools

287
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
blogging comments. The escalating frequency
of requests from an ever-increasing variety of
communication channels requires a new form of
communication management. Today, there are
already services available that merge different
communication channels. This helps raise effi-
ciency by reducing the number of channels: the
same quantity of communication may no longer
be experienced as a flood of communication,
because each communication channel no longer
has to be checked individually. Adequate, active
engagement in communication is an additional
help for managing the flood of communication
requests. Today, this kind of active “commu-
nication agent” already exists in the form of
intelligent-email absence announcements. Some
agents, for example, are able to limit announcing
the absence of the message recipient to one occa-
sion per message sender. Obviously, an additional
aspect of communication management includes
enhanced learning tool features such as filtering,
prioritization, visualization, association and the
integrated storage of new data.
A reliable learning tool must enable a high
level of collaboration, and must make collabo-
ration easier (Figure 8). We will speak in more
depth about collaboration as a characteristic of
learning tools with reference to wikis in the next
section. As additional requisite properties we
would postulate flexibility and organizational
independence. Flexibility consists of actions that
do not depend on time or place, and in the ability
to use the same tool to tackle different problems
in different ways. Organizational independence
must be promoted in order to facilitate informal
learning, which is becoming of such paramount
importance to lifelong learning. Flexibility and
organizational independence are also important
characteristics of wiki tools, which will be de-
scribed in the following section.
6. WiKi aS a REpRESENTaTiVE
ExaMpLE
In order to substantiate the theoretical consider-
ations we focused, we will look at a tool that is
currently available and used for learning purposes
both in formal and informal settings. Our goal is
to examine which of the projected requirements
the selected tool satisfies.
Because of the fast pace of technical develop-
ments, tools will develop and change. Therefore
the properties of a tool, but not the tool itself are
relevant in the following discussion!
We have chosen wiki as example because it is
well known, has a long and documented history of
educational use (Guzdial 1999, Guzdial et al. 2000,
Guzdial et al. 2001, Leuf & Cunningham 2001,
Guzdial & Rick 2006, Schwartz et al. 2004, Bruns
& Humphreys 2005, Forte & Bruckman 2006,
Schaffert et al. 2006, Richardson 2006, Konieczny
2007, Parker & Chao 2007), and because several
properties of wikis can be found in other tools like
weblogs, Google Docs, sketchpad etc. There even
exists a book called “Wikinomics” (Tapscott &
Williams 2007), which tries to explain develop-
ments in economy and society with properties
and the philosophy behind wikis.
As wiki is only a representative for a group of
already existing of new and innovative tools, we
will only provide one example of wikis in educa-
tion. Much more and extended descriptions can
be found in the literature cited above.
6.1 potentials of Wikis
A wiki is the simplest form of content management
system, and were invented by Ward Cunningham
in 1995 (Leuf 2001). It didn’t take long until their
potential for education was discovered (Guzdial
1999). A wiki may be defined as follows: A wiki is
a web server with version control on the Internet,
where everybody can create, change, and link web
pages without additional tools and without HTML
knowledge (Döbeli Honegger 2007).

288
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
Using this definition, we can describe some of
the potentials of wikis (Döbeli Honegger 2007):
Create: creating content activates and mo-•
tivates learners, two important prerequi-
sites for learning
Change: Wikis ease the modification of •
content (like all computer-based editors).
This allows more revisions of a text which
fosters re-reading and re-thinking the text
and therefore can enhance the learning
effect.
Link: Wikis allow links between different •
parts of a text (like all hypertext systems).
This requires that learners read and under-
stand the parts they want to link and find
fitting relationships. This enhances the dis-
cussion about the topic.
Everybody: Wikis ease collaborative con-•
tent creation and therefore ease working in
interest-groups.
• Revision control: The integrated revision
control of wikis not only lowers the dan-
ger and damage of vandalism. The revi-
sion control can also be used to look at
the creation process by the teacher and the
students. This can foster reflection about
working and learning strategies (so called
history pages).
On the internet: As wikis can be hosted •
on a server on the internet, schools don’t
have to install hardware in their own build-
ings and the wiki can be accessed from
everywhere
Without additional tools: As wikis only •
need a web browser as a tool, there is no
need for software installation on the learn-
ers’ computers. This lowers the barriers for
using wikis as a learning tool.
6.2 Wikis and the Needs
of Future Learners
In the following we will examine which of the
required characteristics of future learning tools are
already available in today’s wikis. Table 2 shows
a comparison between the rudimentary properties
of existing wikis and the required properties of
future learning tools.
The openness of wikis reflects the requirement
for institution-independent tools. Unlike other
groupware tools or learning management sys-
tems, wikis do not try to reproduce organizational
structures. In addition, little about the architecture
of the tool would stand in the way of broad uses
across multiple organizations. The requirement for
auto-reflection is supported by wikis in a number
of respects. In wikis, revision control enables
the documentation of the development process
and thereby enables historical reflection. In a
similar fashion, discussion pages on certain wiki
engines promote meta-reflection on the part of the
authors, as an explicit place is provided for such
levels. The ‘lack of predefined structures’ may
rise questions about effectiveness of the tool for
active collaborative learning purposes. Following
Jadin and Batinic (2006) students working with
structured tools like a forum or a weblog worked
more effectively than people using a wiki. The
results of Jadin and Batinic relate to a formal
university learning unit where the wiki was used
for the first time. Tools used in the future might
consider this fact and offer ‘intelligent’ structuring
possibilities following specific learners needs or
users might learn how to cope with the freedom
of unstructuredness.
Wikis are rightly considered the most flexible
content management systems, because they im-
pose only the most minimal structure and leave the
rest to the users. Wikis also fulfill the requirement
for collaborative tools to a considerable degree,
as Wikis were designed from the beginning to be
multi-user systems. Correspondingly, it has been a
fundamental goal of Wikis to promote and simplify

289
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
the process of collaborative work. The situation
with respect to personal information management
is more ambiguous. On the one hand, wikis could
certainly be used for this purpose, but offer very
little automation toward this end. Current research
in the area of semantic wikis and the visualiza-
tion of wikis (see, for example, Schaffert et.al.
2006, Stickel, Ebner & Holzinger 2008), could
ameliorate this deficit in the near future. Wikis
offer hardly any practical support for personal
communication management. In this respect, it is
important to recall that no single tool is likely to
be able to meet all requirements placed on future
learning tools.
6.3 Example: Collaborative
authoring of Wikipedia articles
as a Learning process
The previous theoretical considerations can now
be illustrated by the exercise of collectively
composing a Wikipedia article. The creation of
a Wikipedia article can be conceptualized as a
problem-oriented collaborative learning situation
(Lawler 2006). The authors of a Wikipedia article
can learn something themselves, even if they
originally approach the situation with the idea of
documenting something already known to them.
On the one hand, the process of writing can itself
lead to a deeper level of understanding, because
implicit knowledge must thereby be made explicit.
In particular, however, the collaboration and criti-
cism of other authors can lead to the “perturbation”
of one’s own understanding and, as a result, to a
learning process (Lawler 2006).
Writing a Wikipedia article can relate to formal
and also informal learning. Learners can have the
assignment to create or revise a Wikipedia article
in a formal learning setting (Konieczny 2007). It
is also possible that something is learned in the
course of writing an article in an informal context.
Finally, there are also Wikipedia authors who
deliberately write articles in the hope of learn-
ing something about the topic involved (Forte,
Bruckman 2007).
Revision control in Wikipedia permits an au-
thor to follow the evolution of the articles. With
articles that have multiple authors, established
modifications may be rescinded from time to
time following consultation with the original
authors.
Communication between Wikipedia authors
most often takes place within the confines of
Wikipedia itself, since for every article there
also exists an associated discussion page. Within
this discussion site, individual comments and
viewpoints of the authors are debated. An enor-
mous learning potential can be attributed to this
process of discussion and debate (see the section
on Collaborative learning). Even when individual
authors do not have the impression that they have
learned from creating or modifying their articles,
in the process of discussion one’s own perspective
is necessarily juxtaposed with other viewpoints.
Ideally, the confrontation leads to compromise and
the article will be adapted accordingly. This adap-
Table 2. Requirements placed on future tools
Required properties of future tools Properties of existing Wikis
Institutional independence wiki architecture is open and allows institutional independence
Supporting auto-reflection version control and discussion pages support auto-reflection
Flexible Lack of predefined structures fosters flexible use
Collaborative wiki architecture is designed for collaboration
Personal information management Is only supported to a limited extent by wikis at present
Personal communication management Is hardly supported at all by wikis at present

290
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
tation of texts may lead to a transformation of the
mental model held by all participants. According
to Piaget, this would constitute an accommodation
in response to a discordant perturbation caused by
a different perspective (Piaget 1937).
Over time, a Wikipedia article is linked to a
number of related articles. This process of linking
is in and of itself a learning process: an existing
concept (content and meaning of a concept or
facts relating to an article) is connected to an-
other similar and already established concept.
In addition, linking may lead to perturbations
and related discussions that ultimately lead to a
learning process.
A paper which has been often cited as of late,
Studying cooperation and conflict between authors
with history flow visualizations, by Viégas et al.
(2004), quite clearly visualizes the never-ending,
collaborative, generative process of creating Wiki-
pedia articles described above, and, at the same
time, is an example of a needed tool for the future,
one that eases the individual’s management of the
challenges posed by a flood of information.
7. CoNCLuSioN
Due to the rising complexity of problems in the
future and the increasing capacity of the technical
tools available, the importance of communication
and collaboration will rise and informal learning
will become more important. Instruction-based ap-
proaches will decrease and constructivist methods
like PBL will become more popular. The tools of
the future will render many repetitive work pro-
cesses obsolete. They will also help us manage
complex problem-solving activities, while easing
collaborative and communicative tasks.
Competences that allow us to manage infor-
mation- and communication-based environments
will become more important considering the rising
tide of information and communication requests
we will be forced to manage Tools sustaining
information- and communication management
in different learning settings should optimize the
following properties: First of all collaboration and
flexibility are crucial due to the complexities of
upcoming problems to solve. We also predict the
importance of institutional independence due to the
increasing importance of informal learning. Such
informal problem solving activities also call for
tools improving auto reflection mechanisms.
In the dynamic and interdependent world in
which we live, learning and communication ca-
pabilities are becoming as crucial as knowledge.
A main goal of institutional design should be to
increase the learning and communication capabili-
ties of the system and its constituents.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collab-
orative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS
Quarterly, 18(2), 159–174. doi:10.2307/249763
Anderson, J. Q., & Rainie, L. (2008). The future
of Internet III. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.
pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/
PIP_FutureInternet3.pdf.pdf
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise
of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bruns, A., & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in
teaching and assessment. In The M/Cyclopedia
Project, WikiSym 2005. New York: ACM Press.
Caligiuri, P. M., Jacobs, R. R., & Farr, J. L. (2000).
The Attitudinal and Behavioural Openness Scale:
Scale development and construct validation. In-
ternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24,
27–46. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00021-8
Crawford, K. (1996). Vygotskian approaches
to human development in the information era.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, (31): 43–62.
doi:10.1007/BF00143926

291
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
Cross, J. (2006). Informal Learning: Rediscover-
ing the natural pathways that inspire innovation
and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Dansereau, D. F. (1983). Cooperative learning:
Impact on acquisition of knowledge and skills (Re-
port No.341). Abilene, TX: U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
David, T., Patel, L., Burdett, K., & Rangachari,
P. (2009). Problem- based learning in medi-
cine: A practical guide for students & teachers.
London:Royal Society of Medicine Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook
of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by
collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),
Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Com-
putational Approaches (pp.1-19). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley,
C. (1996). The evolution of research on collab-
orative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.),
Learning in humans and machine: Towards an
interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechan-
ics of CSCL macro scripts in computer-supported
collaborative learning. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
3(1). doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1
Döbeli Honegger, B. (2007). Wiki und die starken
Potenziale: Unterrichten mit Wikis als virtuel-
len Wandtafeln. In Web 2.0 - Internet Interaktiv
(Journal Computer und Unterricht) (pp. 39-41).
Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://beat.doebe.
li/publications/2007-doebeli-honegger-wiki-und-
die-starken-potenziale.pdf
Engel, C. E. (1991). Not just a method but a way
of learning. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.), The
Challenge of Problem Based Learning. London:
Kogan Page.
Engel, C. E. (1992). Problem-based learning. Brit-
ish Journal of Hospital Medicine, 48, 325–329.
Euler, D., Hasanbegovic, J., & Kerres, M. Seufert,
S. (2006). Handbuch der Kompetenzentwicklung
für E-Learning Innovationen. Bern, Switzerland:
Huber.
Fiedler, D. (2003). Soziale Kompetenz - Ein
unvollständiger Begriff. Verhaltenstherapie &
Psychosoziale Praxis, 35, 87–95.
Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia
to the classroom. In Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference of the Learning Sciences.
Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www-static.
cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/ForteBruckmanFromWiki-
pedia.pdf
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief
history of the globalized world in the twenty-first
century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fulk, J., & Collins-Jarvis, L. (2001). Wired meet-
ings: Technological mediation of organizational
gatherings. In L.L. Putnam & F.M. Jablins (Eds.),
New handbook of organizational communica-
tion (2nd ed.) (pp. 624-703). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Guzdial, M. (1999). Teacher and student authoring
on the Web for shifting agency. Retrieved May 01,
2009, from http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/papers/
aera99/default.html
Guzdial, M., Kehoe, C., Realff, M., & Morley,
T. (2000). A catalog of CoWeb uses. Retrieved
May 1, 2009, from http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/
squeakers/coweb-catalog.pdf
Guzdial, M., & Rick, J. (2006). Situating CoWeb.
International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 1(1).

292
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kehoe, C. (2001).
Beyond adoption to invention. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 10(3). doi:10.1207/
S15327809JLS1003_2
Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communica-
tive Action. London: Beacon Press.
Haefner, K. (1982). Die neue Bildungskrise. Basel,
Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence
scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87–97.
doi:10.2307/1129640
Hiltz, S. R. (1995). The virtual classroom: Learn-
ing without limits via computer networks. New
York: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (2005). What are
asynchronous learning networks? In Hiltz, S. R.,
& Goldman, R. (Eds.), Learning together online:
Research on asynchronous learning networks
(pp. 3–18).
Hoppe, H. U., Ogata, H., & Soller, H. (Eds.).
(2007). The role of technology in CSCL: studies
in technology enhanced collaborative learning.
New York: Springer.
Huynh, M. Q. (1999). A critical study of computer-
supported collaborative learning. Unpublished
PhD, SUNY Binghamton, New York.
Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York:
Harper and Row.
Jadin, T., & Batinic, B. (2006, May 23-24). Social
Skills durch Social Software. In Interdisziplinäre
Fachtagung zu Bildungs- und Arbeitstechnologien
im Semantic Web, Salzburg. Retrieved May 1,
2009, from http://www.hotel-virgil.at/fileadmin/
user_upload/downloads/jadintrack_1-3.pdf
Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal dynamic
media. Computer, 10(3), 31–41. doi:10.1109/C-
M.1977.217672
Kearsley, G. (1994). Social learning theory.
Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.gwu.
edu/~tip/bandura.html
Klafki, W. (2000). Kritisch-konstruktive Päda-
gogik. Herkunft und Zukunft. In Eierdanz, Jürgen
/ Kremer, Armin (Hrsg.): Weder erwartet noch
gewollt – Kritische Erziehungswissenschaft und
Pädagogik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
zur Zeit des kalten Krieges, Baltmannsweiler,
Germany (pp. 152-178).
Konieczny, P. (2007). Wikis and Wikipedia as a
teaching tool. International Journal of Instruc-
tional Technology And Distance Learning, 1.
Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.itdl.org/
Journal/Jan_07/article02.htm
Lawler, C. (2006). Wikipedia as a learning com-
munity: content, conflict and the ‘common good’.
In B. Lutterbeck, M. Bärwolff, & R. A. Gehring
(Eds.), Open Source Jahrbuch 2006 - Zwischen
Softwareentwicklung und Gesellschaftsmodell.
Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media. Retrieved
May 1, 2009, from http://www.opensource-
jahrbuch.de/portal/articles/pdfs/osjb2006-06-04-
en-lawler.pdf
Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki
way. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
MacDonald, D., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Developing
a professional identity through problem-based
learning. Teaching Education, 12, 315–333.
doi:10.1080/10476210120096579
Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic
self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 623–636.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.623
Moore, G. (1965). Cramming more components
onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38(8).
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.

294
Learning in an Active, Collaborative Space
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Van der Zee, K. I., &
Van Kooten, M. (2001). Successful adaptation
strategies according expatriates. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 467–482.
doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00018-9
Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004).
Studying cooperation and conflict between authors
with history flow visualizations. In Proceedings
of SIGCHI, Vienna, Austria (pp. 575-582). New
York: ACM Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinert, F. E. (2001). Leistungsmessung in
Schulen – Eine umstrittene Selbstverständlich-
keit. In Leistungsmessung in Schulen. Weinheim,
Deutschland: Beltz.
Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the 21st
Century. Scientific American, 65(3), 94–104.
Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. (2004). An experien-
tial approach to cross-cultural learning: A review
and integration of competencies for successful
expatriate adaptation. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 3, 362–379.