Download Open Learning Environments

European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Orchestrating interdependence in a multinational virtual learning
community
Brian Hudson
School of Education
Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield S10 2BP
United Kingdom
[email protected]
Alison Hudson and John Steel
Learning and Teaching Institute
Learning Centre
Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield S10 2BP
United Kingdom
[email protected]
[email protected]
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University
of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Abstract
In this paper we discuss the background context for this study which is the International Masters
programme in E-Learning Multimedia and Consultancy. We outline our theoretical framework
that informs the programme development and also our approach to this research. Our framework
is founded on a social perspective on teaching-learning that places emphasis on communication,
interaction and collaboration. An outline of the programme design is provided that emphasises
peer and formative assessment practices. The pedagogical approach aims to foster group
collaboration in international teams. The specific context for this research is described.
Following an overview of the research methods adopted some emerging themes from the initial
data analysis based on student diaries are discussed, including issues of language, culture and
identity. In conclusion we offer some reflections on the issues to emerge so far and discuss the
underpinning assumptions in relation to assessment practices in particular that will give direction
to our ongoing research and development.
Introduction
The background context for this paper is the International Masters programme in ELearning Multimedia and Consultancy that was developed from the TRIPLE M
(Multimedia Education and Consulting) Advanced Curriculum Development (CDA)
Project supported by the European Commission under the SOCRATES programme
(1998-2001). The programme has involved an active partnership between ArnhemNijmegen University of Professional Education (HAN) in the Netherlands, the University
of Oulu in Finland and Sheffield Hallam University in the UK. The experience of tutors
and students involved in the first unit of the programme Open and Flexible Learning
Environments (OFLE) is outlined in Owen, Hudson and Tervola (2001). In this paper we
D:\886450087.doc
-1-
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
draw on that experience but focus on the second unit of the programme Digital Media
Applications (DMA) that took place during the second semester of 2000-01. This unit
involved ten students working together based at two local study centres in Nijmegen and
Sheffield.
The programme seeks to develop the profile of the ‘problem solver’/team co-ordinator at
the interface of pedagogical, technological and cultural dimensions of development.
Learner
pedagogical aspects
social/cultural aspects
Technology
Culture
appropriate technologies
In particular the programme will aim to support the development of individuals who are
able to:








demonstrate and communicate knowledge and critical understanding of pedagogical
issues as applied to the use of multimedia in new learning environments
critically understand the social, organisational and cross-cultural phenomena related
to on-line learning environments in trans-national and cross-cultural contexts
appreciate and be responsive to the social and cultural impact of the Information
Society in relation to values and working practices
act as effective mediators and facilitators at the interface between the needs of users
and providers
co-ordinate the efforts of multi-disciplinary teams in terms of problem analysis,
design and implementation issues
be aware of the staff development needs of new users and appreciate the support
structures and strategies for continuing development
demonstrate a critical understanding of educational research and its role in a context
of rapid change
remain open to critiques of the Information Society with particular regard to the
social and cultural implications
The programme is made up of six units/modules that together make up 90 European
Credits (ECTS). These are as follows:






Open and Flexible Learning Environments (10 ECTS)
Digital Media Applications (10 ECTS)
Communication Consultancy and Change (10 ECTS)
Research Methodologies (15 ECTS)
Project Studies (15 ECTS)
Dissertation (30 ECTS)
D:\886450087.doc
-2-
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework brought to this project informs both the programme design
and also the approach to related research. This is underpinned by an emphasis on the
social aspects of computer mediated learning as discussed in Hudson (2000).
Furthermore it is informed by a perspective on teaching-learning that recognises this as
an inherently complex (and reflective) social practice that is essentially about a search for
meaning (Hudson, 2002). As a further manifestation of this complexity, our theoretical
framework is multi-faceted and is constantly being adapted within an overall approach to
the evaluation of teaching-learning based on the notion of praxis within which theory
becomes transformed into purposeful social and pedagogical action. This approach
involves deep prior Didaktik analysis and deep hermeneutical reflection on action within
an action research mode of working.
The theoretical framework as a whole owes its influence to the ideas of Vygostsky
(1962), Lave (1988 and 1996) and Lave and Wenger (1991). This point of departure is a
perspective on learning that can be characterised by communication, interaction and
collaboration together with a belief that modern information and communication
technologies have much to offer in realising such goals. A key assumption underpinning
such a perspective is that socio-cultural factors are essential in human development.
Intellectual development is seen in terms of meaning making, memory, attention,
thinking, perception and consciousness which evolves from the interpersonal (social) to
the intrapersonal (individual). In discussing the influence of such a perspective, Lerman
(1996) describes language as providing the tools for thought. He argues that language is
not seen as giving structure to the already conscious cognising mind; rather the mind is
constituted in discursive practices. Another important aspect of Vygotsky’s work is the
notion of the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD) - the distance between the actual
developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of
potential problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers (Cole, 1988).
Also of significance is the work of Forman and Cazden (1985) who note that when we try
to explore Vygotskian perspectives in relation to teaching and learning, we immediately
confront questions about the role of the student peer group. They emphasise Vygotsky’s
notion of internalisation, by which the means of social interaction, especially speech, are
taken over by the learner and internalised. These ideas are echoed in the work of Jones
and Mercer (1993) who draw attention to social aspects and the vital role that language
plays. They base this on Vygotsky's proposition that acquiring a language enables a child
to think in new ways i.e. that a new psychological tool for making sense of the world
becomes available. They also draw attention to the significant implications of such a
perspective for our conceptions of the role of the computer in the learning process,
proposing the notion of the computer as a medium for communication.
D:\886450087.doc
-3-
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Activity theory arises from a Vygotskian perspective and derives from within the Russian
language. In discussing the nature of activity theory Crawford (1996) highlights how
activity denotes personal (or group) involvement, intent and commitment that is not
reflected in the usual meanings of the word in English. She draws attention to the fact
that Vygotsky wrote about activity in general terms to describe the personal and
voluntary engagement of people in context - the ways in which they subjectively perceive
their needs and the possibilities of a situation and choose actions to reach personally
meaningful goals. The work of Vygotsky was built on by thinkers such as Leont'ev
(1978) and Davydov and Markova (1983) leading to clear distinctions between conscious
actions and operations which are relatively unconscious and automated. Operations are
seen as habits and automated procedures that are carried without conscious intellectual
effort. So that activity corresponds to a motive, action corresponds to a goal and
operation depends upon the conditions. In relation to this Tulviste (1991) has argued that
thinking develops according to the types of activity learners in a given culture engage in,
so that through engagement in culture-specific activities learners develop higher mental
processes that are appropriate in solving culture specific tasks. This idea is resonant with
that of situated cognition as outlined by Lave (1988) and situated learning (Lave and
Wenger, 1991).
From such a perspective language, both written and spoken, is seen to play a central role
in the internalisation of higher mental processes. Communication is seen to be critical for
ongoing intellectual development. This communication takes place through spoken and
written language and in developing the latter aspect, the work of Hoel and
Gudmundsdottir (1999) has been particularly significant. From a Vygotskian perspective
language as seen as an important tool for thinking and problem solving. Thinking is not
seen as being merely expressed in words but rather it is seen to come into existence
through their expression and articulation. Thinking becomes explicit when expressed in
language. Through language we are able to examine our thinking, clarify it, explore
contexts and solve problems or discover a lack of connections. Language is seen to be not
only our most important mode of communication, but also our most important aid in
structuring and examining our inner worlds. Writing, as well as speaking, makes an idea
conscious. It is a way of clarifying and saving it. It is also a way of developing the idea
further by restructuring and discovering new associations and often serves as a
springboard for new ideas.
Within a tradition that owes some of its influence to Vygotsky, contemporary linguistic
theory differentiates between the two functions of language as a mode of thinking and
also as a mode of communication. It is also seen as important to keep these two functions
in mind when one is using writing as a tool in developing thinking. For example when we
are writing to develop our thoughts the reader is oneself, and writing can be exploratory
by nature as well as fragmentary, spontaneous, and unfinished. However when we are
writing for an audience the aim is to communicate ideas, beliefs and points of view. In
this mode of writing, the text needs to have internal logic, be consistent and
grammatically correct. The two different functions of language also represent different
relationships to the most important inhibiting factor for many in the writing process,
namely a critical reader. So when considering peers' use of email to each other, this will
D:\886450087.doc
-4-
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
often be explanatory and unfinished, and not always grammatically correct. Thus an
important aspect in e-learning is clarifying this for all participants. In order to realise the
potential that ICT has to offer, it is imperative that it be understand that the reader of texts
written in e-learning communities is a friendly reader and not simply a critical one.
The tradition of free-writing can be a way of opening up to inner resources and as a way
of bringing to the surface ideas that have been dormant for some time (Elbow, 1973).
Sometimes writing is can be a tool for introspection, self-discovery and therapy. On selfexpressive writing, Pennebaker (1991) claims: "it strongly encourages the expression of
individual's very deepest emotions and thoughts about personal and, often, traumatic
events and issues." Free-writing is also about conceptualisation and about finding words
to express feelings associated with particular situations - i.e. to tell a story. In the act of
writing, the author enters into two kinds of dialogue. One is these is between the author's
inner being and the words that are put down on paper, whilst the other is between the
author and an external reader. This phenomenon reflects Vygotsky's distinction between
egocentric and communicative speech. The written dialogue can be compared to what
happens in a conversation. It is a collective process where partners enter into turn-taking
roles both as senders and a receivers, in which the product is a joint product, although put
together by individual contributions, where each individual's contribution is dependent
upon other influences. A dialogue can be considered as a co-construction of ideas in
which the result is a whole that is more than the sum of the parts. In reflecting on why
dialogue and dialogism is so important, Tella and Mononen-Aaltonen (1998) highlight
the spiritual and human dimension in arguing that:
In the same spirit, Kitaigorodskaya (1992, 63-65) contends that dialogue is a tool for
satisfying the spiritual needs of the individual for the other. Dialogue is always geared
towards another human being … A teaching-learning process based on dialogue gives
one a chance to meet another person on an equal basis.
(Tella and Mononen-Aaltonen, 1998, iii)
For Freire (1970), dialogue in education is the practice of freedom. Building on such a
critical perspective, Boyce (1996) argues that dialogue is different from discussion and
that it can be characterised as a kind of speech that is "humble, open and focused on
collaborative learning". Furthermore it can be seen as communication that can "awaken
consciousness" and prepare people for collective action.
Programme Design
In designing and planning the programme considerable emphasis has been placed on
enabling collaborative activity in multinational teams. In relation to this aspect we share
the general perspective offered and the crucial distinction between co-operation and
collaboration made by Lehtinen et al. (1999). They highlight the way in which recent
research on the role of collaboration in learning has searched for more meaningful
theoretical frameworks that could better guide the development of technology-aided
learning environments. They also highlight the distinction between co-operation and
collaboration based on different ideas of the role and participation of individual members
D:\886450087.doc
-5-
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
in the activity. Co-operative work is seen to be accomplished by the division of labour
among participants, whereas collaboration involves the mutual engagement of
participants in a co-ordinated effort to solve the problem together. Our experience also
resonates with that of Salomon and Perkins (1998) who highlight the distinction between
the effects of the engagement in computer supported collaborative learning environments
and the effects with. The former concerns the lasting changes as a result of software use
whilst the latter gives recognition to the changed functioning and extended capabilities
that are afforded to the user whilst using software tools. This latter perspective is
consistent with a situated and participatory view of learning, which resonates with that,
outlined in Hudson (2000). In relation to this, we see a key role of the technology as
potentially affording new opportunities for collaborative learning and for supporting it in
the development of knowledge building learning communities. However in our
experience the keys to unlocking this potential are just as dependent on a range of other
factors as they are on the particular technology. Amongst the characteristics that we are
seeking to achieve is the purposeful engagement of autonomous and independent learners
combined with well-orchestrated interdependence. By this we mean collaboration based
upon genuine interdependence involving a shared sense of purpose, a division of labour
and joint activity that is open to examination, elaboration and change by all within the
peer group. Furthermore we see the achievement of this as involving the whole
curriculum design, the selection of appropriate tasks and activities and pedagogical
approaches.
A project and team based approach towards learning underpins each module of the
programme which involves a gradually shifting balance from more supported and
directed to more independent learning through the course of each unit (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Project based work process
This approach draws on the ideas originating back to Kilpatrick (1918) that have been recontextualised and embedded in multimedia use by Penuel and Means (1999) through the
Challenge 2000: Multimedia Project. Characteristics of this approach are that it:







Be anchored in core curriculum; multidisciplinary
Involve students in sustained effort over time
Involve student decision-making
Be collaborative
Have a clear real-world connection
Use systematic assessment: both along the way and end product
Take advantage of multimedia as a communication tool
D:\886450087.doc
-6-
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Penuel and Means (1999, 2)
The programme as a whole is framed within a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). At
this time two VLEs are being used - firstly Learning Community Profiler developed at
the University of Oulu in Finland and secondly the more widely known Blackboard. The
programme design aims to integrate three aspects of the study process as follows:
Online learning (the e-learning component)
 Project and team based on-line learning; online materials and discussion (available
through the VLE); whole group activities and discussion; use of video and audio
conferencing
Local Studies (the face to face component)
 Local group activities and discussion through seminars, workshops and tutorials etc.
Independent study (the individual knowledge acquisition component)
 Individual research, reading, writing and reflection etc.
These options (e.g. workshops, tutor-led input, mentoring, student support groups,
including Internet supported activities and other support through e-mail, face to face
tutorials and computer/video conferencing) are offered in various combinations as
appropriate to students’ circumstances and preferences as well as in response to the
availability of resources. The exact mix of activities for each student group is decided
through tutor negotiation and collaboration across the different study centres.
Pedagogical approach
We are sensitized to the fact as highlighted by Salomon (1992) that the promotion of
collaboration amongst students is both complex and challenging and that one of the
conditions of successful group work is that it is well structured and goal-orientated
(Salomon, 1996). As Slavin (1990) notes traditional group work, in which students are
encouraged to work together but are given little structure, has been repeatedly found to
have small or non-existent effects on student learning. This is echoed by Kirkpatrick
(2001) who advocates that group work "does not occur serendipitously" and argues that it
needs to be structured. As Lowyck (2002) notes, and also illuminated by Hudson (1996),
this highlights the danger of mere communication activities, in which participants are
simply "free-wheeling” during their interaction. Accordingly we have given emphasis to
the need for well-defined group tasks (Salomon, 1996). For the potential added value of
collaborative learning to be achieved it is expected to involve challenging and intensive
interaction between participants. Furthermore we agree with Lowyck (2002) who
advocates that this means that the task has to be:
(a) multi-faceted, allowing each partner to contribute to the common task,
(b) sufficiently complex which let the group show more expertise than isolated
individuals,
(c) oriented towards social goals in order to stimulate social activities and attitudes,
and
D:\886450087.doc
-7-
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
(d) unambiguous as to elicit co-ordinated interaction.
Lowyck (2002, 9-10)
Accordingly for the tutor, the issue of "group or network management" becomes
predominant.
The specific context for the research: the DMA unit
This unit aims to enable students to develop an overview and a critical appreciation of the
development process and the potential and limitations of Digital Media Applications
(DMA). It focuses on developing up to date understanding and knowledge in the area of
DMA. The study includes relevant developments in hardware and software, the design,
development and evaluation of DMA products plus an appreciation of the application
areas in which DMA products are used. The unit enables the students to gain a critical
appreciation of the development process and also a better understanding of the potential
and limitations of Digital Media Applications through the development of practical skills
and critical analysis and evaluation.
The unit involved working in international project teams to produce a DMA prototype.
This was used as the basis for evaluation, the outcomes from which were compiled into a
digital portfolio. This evaluation focused on the following aspects:



A personal evaluation of the development process with evidence of individual
contributions to the team effort
A personal critical reflection on the learning process with reference to DMA and ICT
developments
A team report including the DMA prototype, the project aims and objectives, the
project design and development plan, technical specifications and copyright issues
and the evaluation of the prototype and recommendations for further development.
There were ten students working together based at two local study centres in Nijmegen
and Sheffield during the second semester of 2000-01. The unit leader was based in
Sheffield and directed the unit together with a local tutor in each location.
The changing emphasis in terms of roles and relationships over time is summarised in
Figure 2.
Orientation/Planning
Working/Reflecting
Evaluation
Tutor led
Tutor supported and
additional software skills
development support
Tutor guided
Student activity
Team based
Student led
Team based learning
Student activity
Mainly individual learning
D:\886450087.doc
-8-
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Figure 2: Changing emphasis in terms of roles and relationships over time
Research methodology and methods
We have taken an eclectic approach towards research methodology and methods
utlilising the idea of "constructive method synthesis" (Klafki, 1998) in drawing on the
tradition of critical-constructive Didaktik (Hudson, 2003). This tradition offers a
distinctive approach to educational research, which addresses the complexity of the
processes of teaching and learning in the methodologies and methods adopted, whilst
maintaining attention to considerations of meaning making within a wider societal
context. Essentially this approach is eclectic and is based upon the fundamental point of
departure of critical-constructive Didaktik as being concerned with the promotion of the
capacity for self-determination, co-determination, and solidarity. Accordingly research
that is intended to support pedagogical practice is seen to need to be based on a
combination of methods and methodologies. In outlining such an approach Klafki (1998)
proposes the following three method groups/methodologies and warns that the synthesis
of these is not a simple addition:
 historical-hermeneutical methods
 empirical methods, and
 methods of social analysis and ideology critique.
A fundamental assumption is that each method group/methodology will involve the
researcher being confronted by preconditions or limits that can only be overcome with
the help of the other approaches. Accordingly when the knowledge that can be acquired
through using a particular methodology has reached its limits then this process as a whole
can only be further advanced through a process of constructive method synthesis.
A further underpinning assumption of this approach as a whole is that hermeneutics,
empirical analysis and social analysis in combination with ideology critique must be
approached from the historical-hermeneutic perspective. This is consistent with
approaches to the preparation of teaching and learning within the tradition of Didaktik
based upon the view that all institutionalised processes of teaching and the learning that is
generated, always denote meaningful and purposive actions and processes. Accordingly
all the actions and processes of learners, which refer to the didactical actions of the
teachers are seen as meaningful actions whether or not they fulfil the teachers'/tutors'
intentions.
A starting point form this research has been the standard approach towards unit
evaluation through means such as end of unit questionnaires to both staff and students. In
addition we have adopted an ethnographic approach with the aim of exploring emergent
issues as they arise naturally through the process of enquiry. In relation to this aspect we
have found the approach of responsive evaluation as outlined by Stake (1973) to be
particularly relevant. This approach aims to be responsive to the concerns and issues of
the "stakeholders" involved in the evaluation.
D:\886450087.doc
-9-
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
As part of the DMA unit requirements students have kept an ongoing diary in the open
learning environment. The diary is seen as one technique for accumulating data as part of
an action learning approach. It is intended as aid for systematic reflection and as a tool
for linking theory with practice. Having agreed a statement of research ethics at outset of
the project, these diaries have been used as a source of data collection with the aim of
carrying out follow-up interviews based around emergent themes in seeking to achieve a
genuinely responsive mode of enquiry.
Themes to emerge from the process of data analysis and interpretation
Having collated and analysed the diary entries, the research team organised the material
according to a number of themes. What is provided in this section, are examples of
discourse arranged around five interrelated and overlapping themes; these are to be found
under the headings: listing of process; culture and language; communication and
collaboration. The themes are highlighted and explored, sometimes with examples of the
text used to illuminate the points raised. Following this, we go on to discuss of some of
the more salient issues to emerge from the texts, and the implications of these issues in
the evaluative process.
Listing of Process
A common feature of the diary entries was a listing of activity on the unit. It initially
seemed that this listing of activity was a convenient space filler in many of the diary
entries. However, it soon became apparent that this type of entry was necessary and
useful in the reflective processes. For example, a number of students would often list
their work process in what we initially perceived as an unreflective manner. However,
they would then go into long descriptions and accounts of how such activity aided their
understanding of a particular aspect of their study. For example, and as we will see, some
students felt under pressure because of the workload required within the unit, and the
listing of their activities provided them with something to look back at and then reflect on
when they had sufficient space. Clearly some ordering or listing is a necessary
component of the study process at particular stages of individuals’ learning. Also, the
activity of listing took two main forms. Firstly, it was common for students to provide a
list of individual activities that they had been involved in. This was mainly in the form of
one or two sentences specifying the activity. This type of entry was essentially selffocussed, with no obvious connection to the team. The other type of listing entry was
more focussed on group activity and communication, and as such offered more insight
into the perception of the student's comprehension of the collaborative process and their
role within it.
The listing of process activity was common across the unit as all students at one time or
another provided lists of activities rather than detailed reflection and dialogue. Moreover,
this activity may be necessary and useful within a context such as this where there is an
online space for reflection that is accessible to all members of the course unit.
Culture & Language
D:\886450087.doc
- 10 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
One of the strongest themes to emerge from the texts was the awareness of cultural
difference between the Dutch students and those from England. This awareness of
cultural difference was expressed in a number of ways and in relation to a range of
contexts. For example the notion of ‘Englishness’ was raised as an issue in relation to
discussions and debates about projects, particularly when some conflict or confusion
arose within the collaborative process. One example sees a Dutch student commenting on
the differences of approach in terms of communication with peers, noting the contrast of
the ‘direct’ style of the Dutch as opposed to the ‘polite’ and ‘reserved’ approach of the
English contingent:
‘there are cultural differences between British and Dutch in dealing with each
other. British in being very polite in giving their opinion and Dutch being
very direct and come to the point and thus maybe a bit blunt.’
Interestingly this student highlighted her own assertiveness within the project team and
often highlights the difference in culture as a component and signifier of her own
individual assertiveness. This notion of ‘politeness’ and English ‘reservedness’ from the
perspective of some of the Dutch students is seen (unsurprisingly) in a different manner
from the view of one of the English students:
‘It’s difficult knowing how assertive to be in this collaboration. I usually have
strong ideas and, for right or wrong, force them through. In this group
though I feel somehow we must find a good balance in asserting direction this is really difficult and adds immensely to the work load.’
Certain students were hesitant in asserting themselves online, in situations that they
ordinarily would in a face to face context. One possible reason for this is that they were
sensitive to the fact that they could easily give the wrong impression to their colleagues,
or that they may be seen to be going against the collaborative ethos of the unit. This
sensitivity could be due to a combination of awareness of cultural nuance and the
overarching and powerful sense of community within the unit. The above example in
particular highlights this student's sensitivity to the collaborative spirit and his reluctance
to be assertive and forceful. Thus the student notes that he is responding to a particular
issue slightly differently within the context of this unit, compared to how he would
respond ordinarily in the "non-virtual" world.
The notion of a different culture of learning also emerged in some of the diary entries that
expressed uncertainty and confusion about the learning process. The focus, detail and
level of reflection emanating from the diaries varied at different stages of the learning
process and from student to student. Initially, a number of students thought that the diary
entries were to relate to all aspects of their personal lives; descriptions of their weekend
leisure activities and shopping habits were common for some early in the diary process.
The learning element of the diary was not, in some cases clear. Indeed for some, the
learning utility of the diary was not initially ascertained and this could be down to
pedagogic culture as well as the broader notions of culture that are expressed above. For
one Dutch student in particular, the whole purpose of the diary was questioned. At times
D:\886450087.doc
- 11 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
he did not recognise the value of the diary as a learning tool or a communicative device
within the context of the unit, as he perceived that it did not fit in with his style of
learning.
Difficulties and subtleties of language were also highlighted as an issue, mainly of course
for the Dutch students, as a number were unsure of their abilities to communicate in
another language. During the working life of the groups, a number of problems and items
of confusion were put down to linguistic differences, and difficulties in getting the
message across. The following entry from a Dutch student highlights this tension when
she notes: ‘I wonder how much of the confusion in the Dutch group is caused by
miscommunication.’
Clearly when communication or collaboration broke down and meanings were becoming
obscured, the tendency to look outside the immediate team process in order to make
sense of the issues was something that emerged a number of times. Particularly when
tensions reached a height, there seemed to be a tendency to revert to polarities - the
notion of ‘us and them’, whether it be ‘us the students’ and ‘them the tutors’; or ‘us the
Dutch’ and ‘them the English’. The English students also provided examples of this
dichotomy in their entries. We will return to the issues raised by the above examples in
the discussion section of this paper.
Communication
Many diary entries exhibited reflection on the modes of communication being utilised on
the course. This was unsurprising as a number of different media were utilised: video
conferencing, both small group and whole group discussions; synchronous on-line chat
and non-synchronous email. Although some Dutch students initially expressed
embarrassment about speaking English through these media, this seemed to diminish
quickly, after some international discussions took place.
One key issue relating to the dynamics of discussion emerged when one student in
particular noted that at times on-line discussion was difficult as she noted that ‘the pace of
the dialogue can get broken up and meanings disappear or become obscured.’ The student
went on to note that sometimes ‘the online discussion can get too philosophical and it is
safer to talk face to face.’ Clearly, the confidence expressed in modes of communication
can depend greatly on the topic under discussion. The fact that sometimes ‘meanings can
become obscured’ can be perceived to be a potential threat to good communication
between team members.
The pacing of discussion and online dialogue can also be staggered if a student cannot
access the discussions as often as their colleagues. The issue of access to technology can
of course impact on the pacing of discourse, obviously if someone only has limited
access they can only engage with discussions at certain times. This is a problem when
other members of the group, who don’t have problems with access move forward with a
topic as the following example illustrates:
D:\886450087.doc
- 12 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
‘I cannot access Profiler the entire week. I study on Profiler mainly on
Tuesday and Thursday. But in between those days, my 2 team members have
produced so much that I constantly lose track.’
This student was particularly concerned early on, that if she wasn’t party to all the
important discussion she might lose out on making some important decisions, which in
turn might affect the final product. It was therefore important for her to articulate this in
her discussions with the group as well as in her diary.
Fractures in conversation or in the thread of discussion can of course cause frustration;
however, such difficulties can also provide a catalyst for direction and the re-focussing of
aims of the group. In a sense when there were breaks in continuity of discussion, energy
was directed to reconnect with the dynamics of the discourse and this often had the effect
of refocusing team objectives and the direction of the process.
Of course at times there was a lack of focus and a lack of movement and direction within
the teams. This was expressed in a number of ways, by a number of students. The
frustration witnessed in a number of the entries at times provides the groups with a
justification to refocus and clarify outstanding issues and confusion. However, it was
evident that too much discussion and emphasis on clarification can also prove frustrating
for some team members, as the following quote highlights:
‘Much to my dismay the discussion went on too long. I was keen to move on;
this was an opportunity to talk to the team and discover exactly what we have
been able to accomplish since the last meeting.’
The value of face to face communication was of course seen as crucial, the dependence
on technology to provide anything other than rudimentary forms of communication, was,
at times seen as a risk, particularly when detailed feedback on team members' work was
required:
‘The worry is that feedback may not seen as constructive in an on-line
environment because of loss of face to face communication. Facial
expressions play a role in making sure that feelings are not misinterpreted
and this may have led to a lack of criticism and periods of waiting for much
needed comments and feedback.’
Thus as we can observe communicative nuances that are largely missing in an online
environment, are seen as necessary at crucial times of the unit. The geographical distance
between students and the media used to negotiate this distance was at times too big a
barrier. This said, the range of communicative options available to the students also
enabled many issues and problems to be worked through:
‘On Monday we began our scheduled NetMeeting. During the two and a halfhour session we used the chat, video, audio, whiteboard and file swapping
and sharing features! We know NetMeeting! This session was probably the
D:\886450087.doc
- 13 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
most exciting on-line experience I have ever had. The technology fitted our
needs like a glove. In some ways this kind of collaboration is easier than
working in person because you know that time is valuable….’
Any reservations students might have had about communicating their concerns seemed to
evaporate over time, as many students got to know each other and how to use the media
effectively.
Collaboration
Early on in the group work, there was clearly some initial confusion about roles and
responsibilities and uncertainty about how the separate groups would operate together.
After some initial uncertainty the reflective element of the diaries seemed to ‘click’ with
a number of students. One student in particular notes that ‘on reflection more energy
needs to be devoted to working with his partner’ in a sense there was a sudden realisation
of this student's collective responsibilities. This initial disjuncture also highlights the
different pedagogical focus of the role of collaboration. Rather than working on one’s
own yet within a group, with separate tasks and responsibilities, there is the emerging
awareness that collaboration across all elements of the project is a necessary component
of the course.
However, at times conflict did emerge, whether it was due to competing conceptions of
the project, in terms of aims and objectives etc. or a difference of opinion, at times the
collaborative element of the work (as one would expect) did not run smoothly all of the
time:
‘It was a very hard meeting. I felt swept between anger, joy, irritation and
amazement. I felt misunderstood all the time. Collaboration in itself is hard,
but long distance collaboration is even harder. Also our different languages
don’t make things easier. I find it very hard to explain my ideas to my team
members and even harder to find out if they understand me correctly.
Sometimes we think we agree until we find out we were talking about
completely different things altogether.’
A number of diary entries highlighted students’ understanding of the role of the diary and
the reflective process in generating and maintaining a collaborative work environment, as
the students are able to read each other's entries, the function of the diary as a
communicator is exhibited:
‘Had a short meeting with ***** in Cafe. Our diaries seem to be of big help
to create mutual understanding of ones thoughts and goals of roles and
project. So the Diary is an additional tool for teambuilding.’
Though teambuilding emerged through collaboration and communication, there was
evidence in some of the diaries that there was some pairing off, alliances were forged and
at times agendas were sought based on alliances between members of groups. This may
not be as sinister as it might sound, clearly language and culture are important issues in
D:\886450087.doc
- 14 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
relation to group dynamics, the need to ensure that what one is doing and saying has
relevance and value may not be easily achieved outside one's immediate working
environment. The formation of alliances or groups pairing-off, should therefore not
necessarily be perceived as a threat to the collaborative spirit of group work, but could be
an issue of confidence and/or personality.
Within this context where meaning can become obscured, and communicative nuance
may be lost, for effective communication there needs to be some sense of empathy or
sensitivity to other members of the group and this was often verbalised by group
members, especially when disagreements arose about the focus and direction of projects.
Clearly, when working at a distance, awareness of people's sensitivities becomes much
harder, and this can have an affect on the collaborative process. This said, a number of
group members were sensitive and aware of the problems that distance communication
on collaborative projects can engender, thus more effort is required, the notion that an
extra effort needs to be made, within this artificial and sometimes difficult environment
was referred to by nearly all the students in their diaries. Collaboration and
communication across geographical boundaries, technological hurdles and cultural and
linguistic difference was indeed difficult for most of the students and extra effort and
patience was needed by the course participants and the tutors alike. This was noted often
in the diaries.
This difficulty is compounded further when one considers that there are team goals, and
individual goals that don’t always sit easily together. In some entries the tensions
emerging from this multiplicity of aims and goals was evident:
‘I am on the one hand aware of my own concerns about being involved with a
development that I want to believe in, while trying to reconcile these ideas
with the need to work in a team. At the same time I want to find out more
about integrating or embedding multimedia in a learning environment with
which I am not necessarily that familiar. I also want to play a supportive role
in a team - certainly the idea of being a team member in an on-line situation
is of great interest in itself.’
The way that the various teams worked together varied, and this variation impacted on
the collaborative dynamic within each group. For example one team wished to progress
as a fully collaborative unit, with no single individual acting as ‘leader’. This was in
contrast to the other main group that appointed a leader:
‘On Wednesday **** posted a message to Profiler saying she wasn’t happy
with the way things were going. I totally understand her reservations about
loss of direction. We are trying to be lesser less and collective in all our
decisions. This adds to the work. Things would be a lot simpler with a leader,
but I don’t want to have to give in to this.’
D:\886450087.doc
- 15 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
The entry above highlights the difficulties in collaboration and direction within the
context of a leaderless group. However, by ensuring that decisions are made on an equal
basis, the collaborative ethos is strengthened.
Discussion
The various ways in which the diaries have been used throughout this unit tells us quite a
lot about the learning potential of the diary, especially within the context of a
collaborative community of learners. Whether some form of listing of process and
interaction, or being used to vent frustration or anxiety, the range of entries display the
ways in which the students on the unit have got to grips with their projects and engaged
in the process of reflection. What we see in the diary entries are snapshots of the
students’ learning experiences, which are in turn utilised as study aids. The reflective
component of the diary is one that has attempted to force students to think and reexamine their actions and activities, their obligations, and their sense of identity as
students working together within this international and virtual context. Of course the
emergence of what we might call meta-issues as prominent as those highlighted above,
cannot and should not be seen as unconnected and unrelated to each other. The overlap or
interconnectedness of these meta-themes throws up other issues that span across the
content of the learning diaries, and it is worth examining these themes separately.
Actions/Activities
Given the nature of the collaborative exercise, with students being in possession of a
range of abilities and levels of expertise, the activities that the students were required to
undertake were intended to both get them to share there own experiences and expertise,
and enable them to learn new skills and levels of understanding of the field. At times, as
we have seen, the balance between sharing expertise and learning new skills is difficult
to attain. This difficulty is most starkly exposed when we consider that the technical
expertise of some students was well beyond that of others, and at times their expertise
was relied upon to complete the project. This said, those students who were not as
technically proficient as some of their colleagues, did acquire new skills and levels of
expertise. It was also evident in a number of the diary entries that even those who were
technologically proficient were able to develop skills and acquire new levels of technical
competence. It is unclear, however, from the diary entries whether those students who
had more expertise in developing pedagogical aspects of the projects achieved the same
sort of outcomes in terms of the pedagogical aims of the unit. Planned future work will
hopefully reveal this aspect of the students' experience.
As briefly discussed above, the reflective value of listing activities and actions was not at
first apparent. Only when students referred back to the activities in later diary entries,
was the reflective value of ‘merely ‘ listing activities apparent. However, some students’
diary entries only exhibited this form of listing of activity, this seemingly almost forced
type of entry exposed one of the weaknesses of the diary as a learning tool. To be
effective, the participants in the process need to be fully aware of the purpose of the dairy
and the way in which it can benefit their learning. Also, the communicative component
D:\886450087.doc
- 16 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
of the diary was clearly important in this collaborative learning community, yet a number
of students felt that it was sufficient to list activity, with little reflective comment.
The way in which the diaries were used at different times also reflects the range of
learning opportunities that are provided in the use of such a strategy. The sense that a
diary is generally perceived as a personal and private thing, yet in this context was
available for everyone to see and comment on, provided an interesting insight into how
the diary is perceived at different times, and the specific functions it performs. The value
of being able to air one's concerns or grievances to the whole group, in a sense not only
provided space for a release of frustration, but was instrumental in prompting other team
members and tutors to engage in discussion about the problem or attempt to clarify
issues. The diary thus performs a variety of different functions at different stages of the
working life of the team, depending on the progress of the team. The entries were less
likely to have listing entries if there were difficulties, or tensions within the working
process of the team. The reflective aspect of the diary seemed to be more evident when
there was a difficulty of some sort that the student was attempting to overcome. Whether
this difficulty was related to specific issues or broader concerns about the direction of the
team. Thus the diary seems to be being used as a means not only for reflecting and
communicating, but also as a release valve for students who need to ‘get things off their
chests’.
Obligation
Clearly the collaborative component of the unit sets out to imbue students with a sense of
obligation and commitment not only to themselves as learners, but their colleagues and
other team members. This overt sense of obligation is more evident in some entries than
others. This does not seem to be related to geography or culture, rather the individual
learning styles of the students themselves. Some students were happy to solely
concentrate their energies on noting their own individual experience of the unit, whilst
others were less self-referential and more outwardly oriented. It was evident from a
number of students that they were focussing their reflective energies on themselves as
individual learners within a group rather than how their input, and the input of their
colleagues impacts on the goals of the team as a whole. Some diaries were essentially
expressive of self-referential commentary and exhibited little sense of obligation to the
group or the team. This is in contrast to other diaries that expressed as sense of obligation
in that they were less self-referential and more focussed on an individual's activity within
the group, and the impact of this activity within the team itself.
Identity
The way that identity was expressed within the diary entries also shifted depending on
the focus of discussion. One way in which identity was asserted for example was the way
in which a certain times the notion of ‘us’ and ‘them’ arose in the discourses. This
identification strategy manifested itself in various ways, from the use of ‘us’ to describe a
national grouping of students; ‘us’ as a specific team of students, and more generically,
‘us’ as the students - ‘them’ being the other nationality, the other teams, or the tutors.
The sense of identity being expressed as a reflection of national, linguistic and cultural
difference was the most common explicit identity marker within the diary entries.
D:\886450087.doc
- 17 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
However, there were other markers that expressed identification to specific national,
linguistic and cultural forms. As we have seen, the notion of Britishness, or Englishness
was pointed out by a number of Dutch students who thought that their own particular
‘direct style’ was in contrast to the more ‘polite’ and reserved style of the English.
In focussing on identity reflected in the diaries, we also noted that in some diaries in
particular, sense of the personality of the student showed through more in some students
than others. The detail and depth of some students’ entries allowed us the opportunity to
get a sense of who this person is (at least online) and how they operate and think in a
given situation. Strong personalities seemed to emerge through the diary discourses,
while other people were less inclined to allow aspects of their personality to show
through. It must be noted that of course, an aspect of a person's face to face personality,
cannot be gauged within an online context, however, at times there was a strong sense of
certain individuals ‘sense of self’ showing through.
Concluding comments
The evaluation of the previous OFLE unit highlighted a number of issues that included a
wish from the students for even greater international collaboration than had been their
experience to date. This was expressed by one student in particular who argued that
collaboration in any environment is about needing each other and with reference to
Salomon (1992) drew attention to the notion of orchestrated interdependence".
To open a discussion, to publish work or ask a question, in short to let people
know where you are in knowledge, thinking and questions is the only way to learn
and get the support you need. The feedback and comments are essential to
learning … I am wondering in what way more collaboration is going to develop
in coming units, as is suggested. Is collaboration a result of building a community
or is a community built on the need of collaboration? The need to be each other’s
teachers and learners? And where does this need of collaboration come from?
Collaboration in any environment is about needing each other, or as Salomon
(1999) says: “collaborative learning requires much and well orchestrated
interdependence”. How interdependent are we? How are we going to investigate
this interdependence? And how are we going to orchestrate this interdependence?
In responding to this agenda our experience makes it clear that promoting collaboration is
both complex and challenging. This point of departure combined with the outcomes of
this early stage of our research has given rise to several ongoing research questions
related to aspects of assessment practices in particular.
The issues around aspects of culture and in particular those of cultural differences
highlight rich experiences on which to base reflection and subsequent action. As Jager
and Collis (2000) have pointed out in providing guidelines for designers of cross-cultural
Web-based learning environments we need to be aware of cultural differences in terms of
how people teach and to what extent they accept reactions from different people. For
example they note that "in some cultures, it is normal to criticise others …, in other
cultures it is not." Our experiences suggest that it is not a simple dichotomy, but rather is
D:\886450087.doc
- 18 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
as much about social norms and quite subtle nuances. However differences do not relate
simply to ways of behaving but also to histories and traditions. Furthermore it is not
simply a matter of what we learn about or from others but even more significantly what
we learn about ourselves as highlighted by Kawanaka et al (1999):
Over time, each culture has developed norms and expectations for teaching and learning
that are passed along from one generation to next. Since these norms and expectations
are so widely shared and familiar, they become nearly invisible to members within a
culture. When we observe classroom practices in other countries, these accepted and
unquestioned cultural models are revealed.
Kawanaka et al (1999, p. 86)
In this regard we see approaches to assessment as revealing quite distinct differences in
terms of emphasis. In our emphasis on the importance of ongoing peer and formative
assessment through the programme design, and in foregrounding attention to the notion
of orchestrated interdependence, we are implicitly emphasising the notion of assessment
for learning in contrast to assessment of learning. This is a central cornerstone of our
practice and is based on our core professional beliefs about teaching and learning. This
distinction is also highlighted by Lowyck (2002) through the parallel comparison
between "the instructional agent as coach" and "the instructional agent as assessor". He
notes that this distinction is already well established in some countries and cites
Sluijsmans, Dochy & Moerkerke (1999) in highlighting the following aspects about the
former:
Assessment is in line with the characteristics of constructive learning and learner’s
support. Students are responsible for their learning, including formative evaluation of
both processes and outcomes. Especially for the assessment of performances in authentic
situations, self-evaluation as well as peer-assessment are highly complex in terms of
setting the right criteria, judgement of performances and creation of meaningful feedback
to control subsequent learning. Students need explicit training in self- and peerassessment skills in order to reach an acceptable level of learning and performance.
Lowyck (2002, 13)
In recent years "quality assurance" has become a highly centralised and regulated
mechanism within a culture of "managerialism" in UK Higher Education. At the same
time ideas about "students as customers" are widely promulgated and as Elliott (1998)
highlights Higher Education reforms are "pressurising Higher Education Institutions to
transform themselves into business production units". As professionals we see real
tensions and contradictions for our practices in terms of the assumptions underpinning
some of these notions.
On the aspect of "quality assurance" Broadfoot (1999) focuses on English assessment
policy as a driver of education policy itself over recent decades and notes that this may
come to be seen as the "defining principle of English education policy in the late
twentieth century". She highlights the "pervasive climate" of "quality assurance" which is
characterised by a whole culture of target-setting, performance indicators and league
D:\886450087.doc
- 19 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
tables which can now be observed at the very heart of Higher Education. Furthermore she
highlights the situation in which a range of powerful assumptions have become so
dominant in relation to current policy making that their validity has become
unquestioned. Amongst these are "that decisions concerning curriculum (inputs),
pedagogy (process) and assessment (outcomes) should be centralised; that there are
standards of ‘quality’ that can be objectively measured; that it is necessary and desirable
to assess institutional quality according to externally-defined ‘performance indicators’;
that the punitive use of league tables and other publicly-shaming devices will help to
drive up educational performance and that assessment is a ‘neutral’ measuring instrument
which only requires further technical developments to make it more effective." Broadfoot
(ibid)
In considering such assessment practices, it can be seen how these have their roots in
fundamental assumptions about teaching and learning. As highlighted in Hudson (2002a)
the dominant idea the US curriculum tradition is organisational. This involves an
emphasis on the tasks associated with the building of systems of schools. These systems
have a curriculum-as-manual as a central part of their overall organisational framework.
This curriculum contains the templates for coverage and methods that are seen as
guiding, directing, or controlling the routine classroom work of a school, or of an entire
school system. Such an approach results in a view of the role of the teacher as an
employee of the school system, who is concerned with implementing the system’s
curricula in a relatively mechanical fashion. On the other hand, within the German
tradition the state curriculum, i.e. Lehrplan, has not been seen as something, which could
or should explicitly direct a teacher’s work. Although a Lehrplan does outline prescribed
content for teaching, this is seen to be an authoritative selection from cultural traditions
that can only become educative as it is interpreted and given life by teachers. Within this
tradition there is an emphasis on teachers’ relative professional autonomy and on their
freedom to teach without control by a curriculum in the US sense.
In contrasting the performative and managerial competitive culture with the professional
and interpretative collaborative culture it can be seen how the former emphasises the
individual and external forms of incentive and control. The individual may be an
individual learner who is seen to be motivated by ever more external assessments, the
individual teacher "incentivised" by performance related pay or even the individual
institution aiming to achieve higher rankings in the league tables and hence attract ever
more students. The increasing competitive drive is reinforced by notions of institutions
of higher education as "knowledge businesses", with an increasing focus on
commercialisation of intellectual property.
In reflecting upon such tensions we can see how they reflect "conflicting logics of
development" (Elliott, 1998) i.e. those premised on neo-liberal economistic assumptions
about the nature of society and those based upon principles of democracy, justice and
equality. These tensions can also be seen at the level of institutions as highlighted in
Hudson (2002b) and in relation to educational research in general (Elliott, ibid). It seems
clear that the challenge posed for educational researchers "to face up and position
ourselves" (Elliott, ibid) in relation to such conflicting research paradigms applies just as
D:\886450087.doc
- 20 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
well to our teaching, learning and assessment practices. Furthermore our choices will
have consequent implications for the quality of the experiences of our students.
References
Boyce, M. E. (1996) Teaching Critically as an act of praxis and resistance, Electronic
Journal of Radical Organisation Theory,
http://newton.uor.edu/FacultyFolder/MBoyce/1CRITPED.HTM (Visited 7 Mar 2002)
Broadfoot, P. (1999) Empowerment or performativity? English assessment policy in the
late twentieth century. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association
Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2-5 1999.
Cole, M. (1988) The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create
each other. In Wertsch, J.V. (Ed): Culture, communication, and cognition:
Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, p 146-161.
Elbow, P. (1973) Writing without teachers. NY: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, J. (1998) Living with ambiguity and contradiction: the challenges for educational
research in positioning itself for the 21st century, European Conference for Educational
Research, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, September 1998.
Freire, P. (1973) Pedagogy for Critical Conciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
Hoel, T. L. and Gudmundsdottir, S. (1999) The Reflect project: Interactive pedagogy
using information technology, Journal of Information Technology in Teacher Education,
8, 1, 89-110.
Hudson, B. (1996) Group work with multimedia in mathematics: contrasting patterns of
interaction, British Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 3, 171-190.
Hudson, B. (2000) A social perspective on teaching and learning in the context of
Computer Mediated Communication in teacher education, Journal of Information
Technology in Teacher Education, 8, 3, 345-356.
Hudson, B., El-Gamal, A., Gouda, A., Knutsen, E., Ruotsalainen, M., Peltonen, A.,
Pesonen, M. and Tervola, T. (2000) A European Learning Environment: Reflections on
Teaching and Learning in a Multinational Virtual Learning Community, International
Conference on Computers in Education / International Conference on Computer Assisted
Instruction: ICCE 2000, November 21 - 24 2000, Taipei, Taiwan, 991-998.
http://icce2000.nthu.edu.tw/Proceedings.hi (Visited on 10 September 2001)
D:\886450087.doc
- 21 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Hudson, B. (2002a) Holding complexity and searching for meaning - teaching as
reflective practice, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 1, 43-57.
Hudson, B. (2002b) Competition or Collaboration: Conflicting Paradigms of TeachingLearning, Assessment and Institutional Development? EDEN 2002 - European Distance
Education Network, University of Granada, 16-19 June 2002.
Hudson, B. (2003) Approaching educational research from the tradition of criticalconstructive Didaktik, Pedagogy, Culture and Society (Forthcoming)
International Masters Programme in E-Learning Multimedia and Consultancy
http://www.shu.ac.uk/msce-learning/
(Visited 15 April 2002)
Kawanaka, T., Stigler, J.W. and Hiebert, J. (1999) Studying mathematics classrooms in
Germany, Japan and the United States: Lessons from TIMSS videotape study. In G.
Kaiser, E. Luna and I. Huntley (eds) International comparisons in mathematics
education, London: Falmer Press.
Klafki, W. (1998) Characteristics of critical-constructive Didaktik. In Gundem, B. and
Hopmann, S. (Eds) Didaktik and/or Curriculum: An International Dialogue. Peter Lang,
New York, 307--330.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The Project Method. Teachers College Record. Also reprinted
in Schultz, F.(Ed.) Sources: Notable Selections in Education. Guilford, CT: The Dushkin
Publishing Group Inc., pp.26 - 33.
Kirkpatrick, D. (2001) Promoting Online Collaboration. Paper to ONLINE EDUCA 7TH
International Conference on Technology Supported Learning & Training, Berlin, 120123.
Kitaigorodskaya, G. A. (1992) Intensivnoe obuchenie inostrannym yazykam: teoriya i
praktika (Intensive foreign language teaching: Theory and practice). Moscow: Russki
yazyk.
Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1996) Teaching, as learning, in practice, Mind, Culture and Activity, 3, 3, 149164.
Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikaianen, M. and Muukkonen, M.
(1999) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: A Review
http://www.kas.utu.fi/clnet/clnetreport.html (Visited on 10 September 2001)
D:\886450087.doc
- 22 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Lerman, S. (1996) Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: a challenge to the radical
constructivist paradigm, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27,2,133-150.
Lowyck, J. (2002) Teaching methods, knowledge, technology and assessment: an
interlinked field? Paper to the Tuning-project, line 4.
Owen, D., Hudson, B. and Tervola, T. (2001) Learning in, about and with open and
flexible learning environments: an evaluation of student and tutor experiences in a
European learning community, ITTE 2001, Annual Conference of the Association of
Information Technology for Teacher Education, University of Wales Swansea, 17-19
July 2001.
Pennebaker, J.W. (1991) Self-expressive writing: Implications for health, education and
welfare. In J.W. Pennebaker, Nothing begins with N: New investigations of
free writing.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Penuel, W. R. and Means, B. (1999) Observing Classroom Processes in Project-Based
Learning Using Multimedia: A Tool for Evaluators.The Secretary's Conference on
Educational Technology, Center for Technology in Learning SRI International
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/whitepapers/paper3.html (Visited on 12
March 2002)
Salomon, G. and Perkins, D. (1998) Individual and Social Aspects of Learning. In
Pearson, D. and Iran-Nejad, A. (Eds) Review of Research In Education, Volume 23.
http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~gsalomon/indsoc.htm (Visited on 10 September 2001)
Salomon, G. (1992) What does the design of effective CSCL require and how do we
study its effects? Spring '92 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning, http://www.cica.indiana.edu/cscl95/outlook/62_Salomon.html
(Visited on 10 September 2001)
Salomon, G. (1996) Studying novel learning environments as patterns of change. In S.
Vosniadiou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the
psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 363-377).
Mahwah, NL: Erlbaum.
Slavin, R. (1990) Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Hillsdale, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F. & Moerkerke, G. (1999). Creating a learning environment by
using self-, peer- and co-assessment, Learning Environments Research, 1(1), 293-319.
Stake, R. (1973) Program Evaluation Particularly Responsive Evaluation, Occasional
Paper No. 5 presented to Conference on New Trends in Evaluation, Goteborg, Sweden,
October 1973.
D:\886450087.doc
- 23 -
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Steel, J. and Hudson, A. (2001) Educational technology in learning and teaching: The
perceptions and experiences of teaching staff, Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 38, 2, 103-111.
Tella, S. and Mononen-Aaltonen, M. (1998) Developing Dialogic Communication
Culture in Media Education: Integrating Dialogism and Technology, University of
Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/mep7.html (Visited 12 Mar 2002)
Tulviste, P. (1991) The cultural-historical development of verbal thinking. Commack,
NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Vygotsky L. (1962) Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
D:\886450087.doc
- 24 -