Page 1 of 15

eTwinning Learning Event ‘Exploiting web 2.0 – eTwinning and collaboration’

Brian Holmes, University of Lancaster, 4 July 2010

Abstract

eTwinning Learning Events (LEs) offer teachers the possibility to develop specific skills and competences in an

informal, collaborative way, online over a short period of time, with their peers and a domain expert. This paper

presents the results of research carried out within the context of a specific LE entitled Exploiting web 2.0 –

eTwinning and collaboration involving some 200 European teachers over a period of 12 days. Using an online

questionnaire to solicit the views of the participants, the paper discusses the findings in relation to the current

literature on online learning communities. It suggests that the LE offered a good opportunity to develop

participants’ awareness of the benefits of web 2.0 technologies, to introduce them to relevant tools and to give

them an initial experience of online collaboration in groups. It notes that the use of profile pages, working in small-

groups and offering quick supportive feedback increased participants’ social presence and their awareness of

each other. Whilst this engendered a feeling of togetherness, it posits that the short time allowed for the LE and

the lack of opportunity for social activities, in parallel with the cognitive activities, did not encourage the

development of a community or support the development of teachers’ competence in managing online

collaboration in groups. It suggests that a longer LE, perhaps in stages, together with some social activities and a

stronger teaching presence at key points, would help to address these apparent shortcomings.

~~ // ~~

1 Introduction

Within the eTwinning virtual environment for

teachers1, Learning Events (LEs) bring together

groups of teachers to address a particular topic with a

domain expert, over a short period of time2. The aim

is to offer continuous professional development on

topics related to the pedagogical use of ICT for

learning in schools, in general, and the use of the

eTwinning environment, in particular. Launched in

2009, the LEs are proving to be very successful and

popular with the teachers (eTwinning, 2010), as they

support collaborative learning in contexts that are

directly linked to teaching practice.

1 http://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/index.htm 2 http://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/professional_development/learning_events.htm

Figure 1 – The eTwinning Learning Labs environment

Page 2 of 15

This paper concerns research that was conducted on an LE entitled Exploiting web 2.0 – eTwinning and

collaboration that took place between 12 and 24 April 2010 in the eTwinning Learning Labs environment3.

Participation was limited to 200 volunteer teachers, of which 156 started and around 110 fully completed at least 8

out of 10 tasks (Sarisalmi, 2010). The research was conducted as part of a PhD by the author4, under the

supervision of Dr. Julie-Ann Sime of Lancaster University in the UK5.

This paper is based upon a questionnaire created specifically for this event and made available online6 from 1 until

7 May – participants were invited to respond through an email from Ann Gilleran of the eTwinning Central Support

Service (CSS) and the response was high with some 130 replies (approximately 65% of registered participants).

2 Results

Skills and competences

A clear majority of the participants (87%) felt

more confident and competent about their use

of web 2.0 tools and techniques after the event

(Figure 2). Similar results were found for using

ICT and the internet (75%), communicating in

online groups (77%) and collaborating in online

groups (80%). It is hard to ascertain if this

reflects competence or confidence, though the

comments suggested it relates mainly to

confidence.

I think any practical experience in using web 2.0 and in communicating and collaborating in online groups

can only give you more confidence, but the learning event I attended was something special , very useful

... very well organized , and its beneficial effect in this fields , will be felt - I'm sure! - by all participants.

Several people noted that it would take more time to become competent in collaborating.

I wish I had more time to experiment more with the tools and communicate and collaborate in online

groups

collaborating is very important and in a short time it is difficult to develop it in the group

If the learning event is too fast I cannot follow it

Indeed, the lack of time and intensity of the event seemed to be an issue for quite a few participants.

The time must be more, is not enough to do and to learn what we pretend to

3 http://learninglab.etwinning.net 4 http://holmesbrian.blogspot.com/ 5 http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/edres/ 6 The survey is now closed, however a test version remains available at

http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=bm0tjbzx95hf1eg747773

45%

42%

10%

2%

2%

Positive changeN

egative change

45%

42%

10%

2%

2%

Positive changeN

egative change

Figure 2 – Results of question on using web 2.0 tools and techniques

Number of replies

Page 3 of 15

All Learning Events are very very useful but the main problem is in a short time we have to choose our

partners and then begin to work together

For many participants this was their first LE (49%) and of these the clear majority (81%) indicated that they felt

more competent and confident (about their use of web 2.0 tools and techniques) after the event – suggesting that

it was equally beneficial for both newcomers and the more experienced.

The feedback indicates that the main focus of participants, in such a short event, was gaining more knowledge

and first hand experience of specific tools rather than developing skills or competence, as the following comments

highlight.

In this learning event I got to know many Web 2.0 tools and techniques. It was my main focus of interest

and I achieved my goal.

I have learnt about and familiarized with many innovative, stimulating and time-saving ICT tools and I

intend to implement them in my daily teaching and in my students' future activities

The Learning event helped me see the usefulness of web 2.0 tools in the classroom and not simply for

personal use

As for online groups, I'm experienced enough and this LE didn't change things that much (maybe it was

more useful for beginners)

Learning, collaboration and dialogue

The feedback reflected a preference

of the participants to collaborate with

others (47%) rather than learn on their

own (17%, Figure 3). Yet in reality, a

slight majority of participants indicated

that they had in fact learned on their

own (35%) as opposed to having

learned with others (24%). This

disparity between preference and

reality does not seem to have been

linked to the activities, which

encouraged collaboration (according

to 59%). It may have been linked

more to the availability of other

participants, as the following comments suggest.

Availability of the others made the individual learning effective and faster, in some cases

We had different timing, so it was difficult to "meet" online

It was a real challenge to try in such a short period of time to find a common period of time for our group

to meet and collaborate on the assignments.

17% preferred the independence 47% preferred the collaboration

C: I preferred the independence D: I preferred the collaboration

Num

ber o

f rep

lies

36%

4%

13%

20%

27%

Num

ber o

f rep

lies

36%

4%

13%

20%

27%

Figure 3 – Results of question on learning independently or in collaboration with others

Page 4 of 15

While collaborating on line, our problem was the time zone.

The course was very short and availability of group members was sometime a problem

That said there were some interesting comments that reflected an awareness of the benefits of combing self-

learning with group-learning.

In carrying out my daily assignments with a new tool, first I learnt about its use watching a suitable video

tutorial on the Internet and then I discussed with my colleagues its application, thus learning from their

personal skills

I prefer individual learning because I can keep more in my head. It is more difficult to read all the

instructions but the results are better. Then I can explain something to my colleagues. And I did it in this

learning event. And we worked later on our common docs

I think that the organisation of tutorials and design of activities are planned to help both individual and

collaborative learning. The question of personal availability/circumstances influences most times the fact

that you have to "learn" individually, at least, that was my case although I must say that I got some very

useful advice from some of my partners/tutor when I asked for help.

This desire to receive feedback was

clearly evident when participants were

asked for their preference in terms of

dialogue. Most enjoyed receiving

feedback and reading the comments of

others, with fewer indicating enjoyment

for posting messages or replying to

others (Figure 4).

Similarly, given the choice between

posting messages to individuals, to their

sub-group or to the whole learning event

the participants preferred posting to

individuals (first choice 39%, second choice 25%), but otherwise preferred posting to their sub-group (first choice

32%, second choice 59%). The comments reflected a reluctance to post messages in general forums.

I am not ready for any public performances and know that these learning labs activities can be read by

everyone

We see a preference for dialogue in situations where one is more likely to receive feedback, where giving

feedback is more personal and where it is more practicable to respond to other messages.

I enjoyed to comment upon the others' comments in order to appreciate their interesting messages

Again, small groups make possible more feedback, comments for the others

Preference for receiving feedback rather than giving feedback

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I enjoyed posting my comments

I enjoyed giving feedback

I enjoyed asking questions

I enjoyed socialising (chit-chat)

I enjoyed reading the comments of others

I enjoyed receiving feedback

1st choice2nd choice3rd choice4th choice5th choice6th choice

Figure 4 – Results of question on giving and receiving feedback

Page 5 of 15

Community

Given the preference for posting to individuals

and for receiving feedback, it is perhaps not

surprising to also see a clear preference for

working in small groups (51%) rather than in the

general forum (22%). Here participants saw

relationships develop both between individuals

(43%) and in the whole community in general

(27%).

When asked about the feeling of community

within this LE compared with that in eTwinning in

general, the participants indicated that it was

either roughly the same (27%) or stronger (49%,

Figure 5). Similarly the comments reflected a stronger sense of community.

There was a stronger feeling of community in the Learning Event than I've experienced before in

eTwinning

eTwinning community is something really different from other learning events. HERE YOU CAN

EXPERIENCE THE "COPYLEFT" RATHER THAN THE "COPYRIGHT"

Learning events community is a special garden of teachers. it is far away from etwinning

Social aspects

Participants found social interaction important,

with a majority indicating that it was necessary

to get to know people personally, that the

profile pages were really useful (61%) and that

it was helpful to see a face (51%, Figure 6).

This was facilitated by the tools, which

encouraged participants to become familiar

(60%) rather than remain discrete (13%).

Personal information allowed people to make

choices about whether a person had similar

interests and was worth getting to know better.

I think it is important to know a bit about the personal life of people with whom we work as that allows us

to understand them, to overcome distances and to know if the person interests us or not7

Profile information helped me to see when people had my same interests/views on teaching approaches.

7 'je pense que c'est important de connaitre un peu de la vie personnel des gens avec lesquels on travail car cela permet de

prendre ses repères, d'annuler les distances et de savoir si cette personne nous intéresse ou pas'

49% felt a stronger sense of community

E: There was a stronger feelingof community

F: The feeling of communitywas roughly the same

Num

ber o

f rep

lies 27%

14%10%

26%23%

Num

ber o

f rep

lies 27%

14%10%

26%23%

61% found the profile pages really useful

K: I didn’t really use the profile pages

L: I found the profile pages really useful

7%

16% 15%

30% 31%

7%

16% 15%

30% 31%

Num

ber o

f rep

lies

Figure 5 – Results of question on the community

Figure 6 – Results of question on the profile pages

Page 6 of 15

Nevertheless there was a careful balance between discretion and openness, with most participants preferring to

say only a few personal things on their profile pages.

You don't have to expose personal details, but through your language humour etc shine through

I found out only later that messages posted on my wall are public.(:*)So I started to use my email when I

wanted to discuss something more "private".

Participants took a pragmatic approach to communicating, focusing on the tasks in hand with interactions being

mainly tasked based (67%) rather than social in nature (11%). This reaction to socialising, referred to as ‘chit chat’

in the questionnaire, may be due to a pressing need to complete the activities, as one person commented.

I didn't have much time to socialise, so I mainly centered my attention on scheduled activities

It may also be a reflection on the fact that the LE was promoted as a training event and as such socialisation, or

‘chit chat’, may be perceived as time wasting or not doing what one should (see section 3).

There was a clear preference for meeting new people (73%) rather than existing friends (5%, Figure 7) and the

majority thought that this was supported by both the tools (71%) and the activities (80%).

It was more interesting to work with

new people just because I prefer

discovering

I met lots of people I already knew.

Anyway, I preferred to focus on new

Twinners. After all, I already have

strong links with the others

More friends - more happy days

General information

There were 130 valid replies from mainly female participants (91%) representing 25 nationalities (of which 4 were

dual nationalities).

For the majority (51%) this was not their first Learning Event (LE) and most considered themselves to be

experienced eTwinners (53%). Satisfaction was high with 98% indicating that they were likely to participate in

future LEs and that they would recommend this particular LE to others.

There were only a few native English participants (3%), yet holding the LE in English was not considered to be a

problem by the majority (77%).

80 participants (62%) volunteered to give their name and email address for further interviews and research.

The feedback on the questionnaire itself was positive with lots of constructive suggestions, words of

encouragement and requests to see the results. There were suggestions to ask questions about the impact of the

LE on teachers' pedagogical practice, to look at the relationship between the participants and the domain expert,

to know more about the previous experience of the participant and to look at assessment/certification. Whereas

Num

ber o

f rep

lies

73% preferred meeting new people

A: I liked meeting new people B: I liked meeting people I knew already

5%

22%20%

53%

Num

ber o

f rep

lies

73% preferred meeting new people

A: I liked meeting new people B: I liked meeting people I knew already

5%

22%20%

53%

Figure 7 – Results of question on meeting new people or existing friends

Page 7 of 15

English is not considered to be a barrier, a few expressed a desire to see LEs offered in other languages. The

following comments are representative of the feedback received:

It's a good instrument to obtain and share the participants opinions.

I like this questionnaire and it was also very useful for me. Thank you and good luck with your work

I like the format of the questionnaire

I hope that this questionnaire will allow improvements to be made to the learning event but particularly so

that we can benefit from the same opportunities in languages other than English (French, Italian,

German, etc) I hope also that etwinning continues to offer such events that are extremely valuable for

professional development, perhaps also during summer when one has a bit more time available than

during the school year 8

3 Discussion

Social presence

One of the strongest messages to emerge from the survey is that for most participants this experience was

different to other ones in the eTwinning environment. They felt more connected and enjoyed a greater feeling of

awareness of other participants. This equates to what Short, Williams and Christie described as social presence,

which they define as the 'degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of

the interpersonal relationships' (Short et al., 1976, p.65). Or in other words, the extent to which a person is

perceived as a "real" person (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1997). Short et al. (1976) refer to the concept of

immediacy, as originally described by Wiener and Mehrabian, suggesting that communications media can impact

the level of immediacy by giving a feeling of proximity despite the distance. Gunawardena and Zittle note that

'Immediacy is a measure of the psychological distance that a communicator puts between himself or herself and

the object of his/her communication' (1997, p.9). They conclude that immediacy enhances social presence which

in turn leads to greater satisfaction when communicating online.

In the case of this LE, immediacy was increased by supporting participants to create profiles of themselves with

personal information and an image.

(I) admit that seeing photos (of) colleagues with whom I worked, I felt closer to them

In describing social presence, Short et al. (1976) also make reference to the concept of intimacy, as proposed by

Argyle and Dean, suggesting that communications media significantly impact the degree of intimacy by the extent

to which they transmit eye contact, smiles, etc. Whereas face-to-face communication is considered to be optimal

for engendering intimacy, participants can compensate in asynchronous text-based systems by using non-verbal

8 'j'espère que ce questionnaire permettera d'améliorer les learning event mais surtout qu'on pourra bénéficier de ces memes

opportunités aussi dans d'autres langues que l'anglais (français, italien, allemand, etc...)j'espère aussi que etwinning continuera

à proposer ces évènements qui sont extrèmement bénéfique pour la formation professionelle, peut etre aussi durant l'été quand

on a un peu plus de temps a disposition que pendant l'année scolaire'

Page 8 of 15

communications to express emotions. They can also engender intimacy by revealing personal details, by being

open about their feelings and by responding quickly.

The LE sub-groups offered greater intimacy due to the increased likelihood of rapid feedback, which may in turn

explain the higher levels of satisfaction reported for their use.

I tried to reach anyone as much as I can and commented their messages… Therefore, even in my group

or not, I told them at least just a "hi" just to start communication

Whereas Short et al see social presence in terms of affordances, a ‘subjective quality of the communication

medium’ (1976, p.65), Gunawardena and Zittle see it more in terms of the perception of the participants involved.

Rettie (2003) prefers the concept of connectedness, ‘an emotional experience, evoked by, but independent of, the

other's presence’ (p.3). She posits that there may be a feeling of connectedness in an environment, supporting

psychological involvement, even when the social presence is low. ‘The concept (connectedness) may help to

focus design of new systems, which enable connectedness without imitating face-to-face communication, allowing

for devices, which facilitate intimate experience while minimising intrusiveness’ (2003, p.5).

It is clear from the survey that the participants in the LE saw a delicate balance between intimacy and

intrusiveness.

I like e-learning communities to be personal (of course, this doesn't mean to give everyone a full history

of my life)

This shows a mature approach to online privacy, which perhaps reflects that eTwinners are teachers pioneering

the use of ICT in their schools and are dealing with privacy issues on a daily basis with their pupils.

The LE was promoted as a professional development event for teachers to improve their skill with the use of web

2.0 tools for online collaboration and learning. As such the focus was clearly on training and this is reflected in the

approach of the participants who concentrated on the activities in hand and saw socialising as less important.

Notwithstanding the time constraints highlighted in the survey, their approach is consistent with most computer

supported collaborative learning (CSCL) which focuses on the cognitive activities rather than the social.

Kreijns, Kirschner and Jochems (2003) have suggested that insufficient attention has so far be paid to the

importance of socio-emotional and psychological issues in CSCL. They add that social interaction does not always

take place simply because the environment affords it. They advocate a more holistic approach to CSCL that sees

social interaction as essential for learning in groups, that ensures the necessary social affordances are present in

the environment and that embeds social activities in the learning design (Kreijns et al., 2002; Volet and Wosnitza,

2004; Kreijns et al., 2007; Zenios and Holmes, 2010). Applying this philosophy to the LE, we might conclude that

more attention could have been paid at the beginning to specific activities aimed at encouraging social interaction

and the establishment of relationships between participants, rather than the acquisition of skills per se, thereby

demonstrating their value and providing the essential ‘grounding’ for future collaboration (Stahl, 2005).

It was emphasised that socialising was essential as the ‘glue’ to hold online communities together and

that it needed to be greatly valued as an important element in online dialogues.

(Seddon and Postlethwaite, 2007, p.195)

Page 9 of 15

Garrison (2007) cautions against seeing open

communication and socio-emotional support as an end in

itself, ‘While effective communication may be important, it

is not sufficient for educational purposes’ (2007, p.64). He

posits that social presence becomes more important as

learning moves from information acquisition to

collaboration, noting that ‘Social presence for educational

purposes cannot be artificially separated from the

purposeful nature of educational communication (i.e.,

cognitive and teaching presence)’ (p.65). Together with

Anderson and Archer, Garrison proposed a Community of

Inquiry Framework (COI, Figure 8) for educational

experiences in which social presence works alongside

cognitive presence and teaching presence - defined as the

‘exploration, construction, resolution and confirmation

of understanding through collaboration and reflection in a

community of inquiry’ (p.65) and the ‘design, facilitation,

and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and

educationally worthwhile learning outcomes’ (p.162), respectfully.

The feedback from participants suggests that the tools and the activities of the LE afforded good cognitive

presence. Similarly, the profile pages and social interaction helped to increase the social presence beyond what

had been experienced elsewhere in eTwinning. Lastly, the presence of a domain expert and the predefined

sequence of activities provided a sound teaching presence. However, in comparison with the relatively strong

social and cognitive presence, it could be argued that the teaching presence was lower; the domain expert only

intervening to answer questions when asked. Depending on one’s learning philosophy, one could either argue that

the teaching presence could have been reinforced through greater involvement of the domain expert in the

dialogue itself - orchestrating the learning through support and guidance, rather than being a guide to the side

(Dillenbourg, 2008). Or one could argue that the laissez-faire approach was indeed appropriate for peer learning in

groups, as symmetry between the participants - in terms of status, knowledge and action - engenders collaborative

learning (Dillenbourg, 1999). On the basis of the feedback, which after all was very positive, I would assert that the

general level of teaching presence was appropriate, though it could have been stronger at key times when more

guidance was perhaps necessary. This would be coherent with the view that novice learners need to be led

towards autonomy, moving from dependence on the domain expert, towards independence and finally on to

interdependence where the group sees the value of collaborating (Boud, 1988). Pedlar (1981) refers to this as ‘the

riddle of the liberating structure’ (p.77) and notes that learning communities often need some form of external

guidance to launch them in the right direction: ‘leading others to autonomy’ (p81). Such a helping hand could have

been offered, for example, by providing more support for the setting-up of the sub-groups and the initial decisions

on which topics to address – a point that a few participants raised as a source of frustration and wasted time.

Figure 8 - Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison, 2007, p.62)

Page 10 of 15

Collaboration and Community

A stated aim of the LE was to support participants to experience online collaboration, supported by web 2.0

technologies, ‘based on the idea of an active learner, doing instead of reading, working collaboratively in a group

instead of alone, sharing instead of owning’ (Sarisalmi, 2010, p.1)

Collaboration involves a group or community in meaning-making, through essentially social activity (Stahl, 2003).

Meaning is 'not merely transferred from mind to mind by activities, but … is constructed by and exists in those

activities' (p.1). A group develops common meaning through discussion and externalisation of individual

interpretations which is then re-internalised and interpreted by individuals (Goodyear, 2002; Stahl, 2005). Such

discourse is essential for higher-order learning and, if sufficiently grounded in the context of the participants, can

lead to new 'working knowledge' (Goodyear and Zenios, 2007).

The feedback from the participants showed that they were conscious of this process of individual learning and

group discourse and saw the value of it. In many ways, this is reflected in the desire expressed to learn with others

whilst in practice finding that a significant amount of individual learning was necessary. This concurs with Stahl’s

argument that meaning may be shared by groups but individuals must interpret that meaning from their own

perspective (Stahl, 2003). Wenger argues that groups, working in a community of practice, reify their practice into

a ‘congealed form’ such as documents, objects, symbols, stories, etc (Wenger, 1999, p.59). One could argue that

the feedback in the LE forums, the blogs produced, the images shared, etc are all reified outputs of the LE

community of practice.

That said, some participants suggested that whereas stronger ties developed in the LE than elsewhere in the

eTwinning environment, what they had experienced was a network of individual contacts rather than friendships or

an emerging community.

I don't consider these people "friends", but contacts.

I didn't feel or saw such a strong sense of community

We hadn't enough time to see a whole community develop.

The last comment suggests that there was a lack of time to develop a community. This conclusion concurs with

other research that highlights that communities need time to form through social negotiation (Vratulis and Dobson,

2008) and the development of trust, shared values and reciprocation (McConnell, 2006). In short, the development

of social capital (Daniel et al., 2003), which can have a significant impact on participants’ motivation and desire to

continue in an online community (Chen, 2007).

There was evidence from the feedback that participants had started to encounter some of the challenges

associated with group work in terms of group dynamics, the need for reciprocity and what to do when people don’t

pull their weight.

I found it difficult to work with others in the group

I found it difficult that one member of our team wasn't willing to work collaboratively and just hanged on

us.

It all depends on the group you are in I suppose. My group didn't work but I wish it would - so I made a

lot of the activities on my own but and it was good there was this opportunity

Page 11 of 15

However, the comments also suggest that there was little opportunity to reflect upon the implications (in terms of

time or activity) and hence some participants may have found the experience somewhat frustrating. McConnell

suggests that groups that exhibit successful collaboration have a high self-identity. They have ‘a strong ongoing

narrative, which they keep active throughout the collaborative project’ (McConnell, 2006). This relates back to the

point about the need for cognitive interactions to be supported by social activities, in an environment with the

necessary social affordances (Zenios and Holmes, 2010). However, McConnell also warns that it can be counter-

productive for a group to ruminate on why things are not working, as they can easily become the focus of the

group rather than the activity itself.

We may therefore conclude that shorter events may be appropriate for learning specific skills and for collaboration

based upon weak ties. However, if we really wish to see a community develop and thereby foster collaborative

learning, we need to have longer LEs.

Competence in online collaboration and moderating

The LE was both an opportunity for teachers to learn about collaborating online and experience it first hand, and to

acquire some of the key skills necessary to subsequently teach their own pupils online. In defining the needs of

citizens for a modern society, and in particular of children in schools, the European Union preferred the term

competence to skill:

The terms ‘competence’ and ‘key competence’ are preferred to ‘basic skills’, which was considered too

restrictive as it was generally taken to refer to basic literacy and numeracy and to what are known

variously as ‘survival’ or ‘life’ skills. ‘Competence’ is considered to refer to a combination of skills,

knowledge, aptitudes and attitudes, and to include the disposition to learn in addition to know-how.

(EU, 2004)

They consider key competences to be essential for three aspects of life: personal fulfilment and development

throughout life (cultural capital): active citizenship and inclusion (social capital) and employability (human

capital) (EU, 2004, p.3). Of the eight key competences defined, digital competence is perhaps most relevant to the

use of eTwinning and the LE, and is defined as the ‘confident and critical use of electronic media for work, leisure

and communication’ (2004, p.7). It includes knowledge about the potential offered by ICT to support critical

thinking, the differences between the real and the virtual world, and the essential ethical issues associated with its

use in dialogue. This essential knowledge should be complemented by the skills necessary to effectively use ICT

for learning, at home and for work, and the necessary positive attitude for responsible and ethical use.

One can argue that knowledge, skills and attitude need time to develop and that a short LE on web 2.0

technologies could only ever be the start of a process of learning that should continue well beyond the event. In

this respect, it should set the necessary ground work by raising awareness to the key issues involved and provide

the right motivation for the teachers to develop further. Having launched the teachers on the path to learning, it

would be useful to bring them back together from time to time to share their experience and reflect on the lessons

learnt.

Page 12 of 15

Salmon (2001) believes that

teachers need to learn to become

e-Moderators is they are to be

effective in supporting pupils and

students to work online. She

proposes a five stage model for

learning e-Moderating (Figure 9)

that, in each stage, starts gradually

reduces the amount of support they

receive (teaching presence)

encouraging them to become

autonomous learners. Key to this

model is stage 2, on-line

socialisation, which involves the

participants in an exchange of

views about their feelings of

working online and a group

reflection of the implications for

collaboration. In this critical stage,

Salmon believes in the essential role of an e-Moderator to guide the participants: ‘E-moderators really do have to

use their skills to ensure that participants develop a sense of community in the medium’ (Salmon, 2001, p.29).

This critical stage of social negotiation on the process of collaborating online, between the members of the group,

supported by a competent e-Moderator, was missing from the LE. Or at least it could be argued that it may have

been more effective, in groups where collaboration was less successful, if there had been greater teaching

presence (Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007), activities designed specifically to address this particular topic (Goodyear,

2002) and orchestration of the discussion by a moderator (Dillenbourg, 2008).

4 Lessons learned and future research

This section highlights some implications for future LEs and for my research.

For Learning Events on the topic of exploiting web 2.0

° The results suggest that this LE was effective at developing participants’ awareness of the benefits of web 2.0

technologies, at introducing them to relevant tools and at giving them an initial experience of online

collaboration in groups.

° The participants experienced a greater feeling of closeness and of togetherness than they had previously

experienced within the eTwinning environment. A greater awareness of each other and a stronger social

presence was facilitated by the use of the profile pages, the opportunity to work in small sub-groups and the

possibility to receive rapid personal, supportive feedback.

° Whereas the intensive 12 days of the LE engendered a clear cognitive focus on learning the web 2.0 tools, it

was less conducive for the development of a community and for effective collaboration in groups. The

Figure 9 – Five stage model for learning e-Moderating competence

(Salmon, 1999)

Page 13 of 15

implication is that a longer LE would be needed, or a LE offered in stages, to allow participants to apply what

they are learning (ideally in their everyday teaching practice), to reflect on their experiences and to share their

reflections with others. This in turn would help to develop their ability to manage online collaboration in the

future.

° The intensity of the LE and its asynchronous nature led participants to focus on the cognitive activities.

Consequently, the opportunity to socialise within the LE and to talk informally about the experience of working

collaboratively was limited. The implication is that the cognitive activities concerned with trying out the web 2.0

tools could be usefully supplemented by social activities in which participants are asked to share experiences,

feeling and concerns.

° The involvement of the domain expert was greatly appreciated and the hands-off approach to tutoring and

guidance was effective for encouraging interactions between participants, by ensuring symmetry of status,

knowledge and action. The initial experience of collaborating in groups, however, was not always successful

with some participants experiencing frustration with the time taken to set up sub-groups, to decide the

objectives and to effectively collaborate. Whereas this experience was useful at raising awareness of the

issues involved with online collaboration, it was perhaps less useful for the development of the competence

needed to manage things better next time. The research literature on this topic suggests that it may have been

useful to have had a stronger teaching presence at certain points; for example, to help with the setting up of

the sub-groups and agreement on the objectives, and after each key activity to support guided reflection on the

learning points. The implication is that a tutor could be useful at certain times to guide the group and support

reflection on the process.

For Learning Events in general

Some of the observations and implications from the previous section would appear to apply to LEs in general:

° The cognitive activities associated with a LE could be usefully augmented by social activities, either as part of

the structure of the LE or in parallel as an ongoing background activity. This could be facilitated, for example,

by having a virtual staff room in the LE environment where participants could drop in and chat about their

experiences.

° The teaching presence in LEs could be reinforced at key points to support and guide reflection, sharing of

feelings and experiences, and identification of learning points.

For my research

This exercise has been very instructive for me personally and I take away some lessons that I may use in the

future for my research.

° The way a question is expressed in a questionnaire clearly dictates the nature of the answer, which may be

quite different to that expected by the researcher. The implication is that the researcher must try out the

questionnaire before it is deployed; ideally with a representative of the target audience, to see if the questions

are clear, to test interpretations and to see if the answers are as intended. This may also help identify

unintended bias, on the part of the researcher, in the way the questions are asked. In this respect it may also

be helpful to ask another researcher working in the same domain to peer review the questionnaire before use.

Page 14 of 15

° There is a danger of presenting false dichotomies in questions that oblige respondents to choose between two

extremes that they see as existing in parallel. Again, testing may help identify these.

° It is tempting within questionnaires to ask mainly focused, closed questions and to collect quantitative data.

Whereas this may be useful for identifying trends and the opinion of the group on average, it does not help with

deeper understanding and with answering the question ‘but why?’ In this respect I would like to carry out more

qualitative research in the future using, for example, open interviews and semi-structured focus groups to

tease out the meaning and to encourage unexpected answers to emerge, where they exist.

° The development of competences takes time and it is not feasible to ascertain the impact of a LE on

competence development during the event itself or immediately afterwards. Rather the participants need time

to apply what is being learned in their everyday practice and to reflect. The implication is that a more

longitudinal study is necessary for understanding competence development and its impact on teaching

practice, in which opinions are sought and evidence is collected after a suitable period of use.

° I need to read more of the latest research literature on online learning communities and, in particular, some of

the emerging results on the potentially negative impact of learning in such groups.

My future research is likely to focus on the influence of social presence and social ties on online collaboration, and

on the development of teachers’ competence in managing online communities. I have been struck by the apparent

need for a stronger teaching presence in learning communities, compared with their more informal counterparts

Communities of Practice. I would like to work with the eTwinning community to further develop these ideas within

LEs and, in doing so, follow up some of the contacts that I have made with the teachers in this LE who expressed

an interest in my research.

5 Acknowledgements

I wish to thank my university supervisor, Dr Julie-Ann Sime, for her guidance in carrying out in this work and the

colleagues at European Schoolnet, Anne Gilleran, Riina Vuorikari and Donatella Nucci, for their invaluable support

and inspiration. Last but certainly not least, Tiina Sarisalmi for agreeing to allow me to participate in this LE, and

witness her enthusiasm and dedication in action.

Attribution This license lets you distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this work, even

commercially, as long as you credit the author for the original creation.

6 References

Boud, D. (1988) 'Moving Towards Autonomy ', in Boud, D. (Ed.), Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, pp.17-39, London: Kogan Page

Chen, I. Y. L. (2007) 'The factors influencing members' continuance intentions in professional virtual communities a longitudinal study'. Journal of Information Science, 33 (4), pp.451-467

Daniel, B., Schwier, R. & McCalla, G. (2003) 'Social capital in virtual learning communities and distributed communities of practice'. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29 (3), pp.113-139

Dillenbourg, P. (1999) 'What do you mean by collaborative learning', in Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches, pp.1-16, Oxford, Elsevier. (ONLINE - http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/02/40/PDF/Dillenbourg-Pierre-1999.pdf - accessed 26.12.2008)

Page 15 of 15

Dillenbourg, P. (2008) 'Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems'. Distance Education, 29 (2), pp.127 - 140

eTwinning (2010) Beyond school projects - a report on eTwinning 2008-2009, Brussels, eTwinning Central Support Service. (ONLINE - http://resources.eun.org/etwinning/25/EN_eTwinning_165x230_Report.pdf - accessed 26.01.2010)

EU (2004) Key Competences for Lifelong Learning, a European Reference Framework Brussels, European Commission. (ONLINE - http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/basicframe.pdf - accessed 13.06.2009)

Garrison, D. (2007) 'Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11 (1), pp.61-72

Garrison, D. R. & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007) 'Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions'. The Internet and Higher Education, 10 (3), pp.157-172

Goodyear, P. (2002) 'Psychological foundations for networked learning', Networked learning: perspectives and issues, pp.49-75, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

Goodyear, P. & Zenios, M. (2007) 'Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency'. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55 (4), pp.351-368

Gunawardena, C. & Zittle, F. (1997) 'Social Presence as a Predictor of Satisfaction within a Computer-Mediated Conferencing Environment'. American Journal of Distance Education, 11 (3), pp.8-26

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W. (2002) 'The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments'. Educational Technology & Society, 5 (1)

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W. (2003) 'Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research'. Computers in Human Behavior, 19 (3), pp.335-353

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W. & van Buuren, H. (2007) 'Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments'. Computers & Education, 49 (2), pp.176-192

McConnell, D. (2006) E-Learning Groups and Communities. Maidenhead, Open University Press. Pedler, M. (1981) 'Chapter 5: Developing the learning community', in Boydell, T. & Pedler, M. (Eds.), Management

Self-development: Concepts and Practices pp.68-84, Aldershot, Gower Publishing Company Ltd Rettie, R. (2003), 'Connectedness, awareness and social presence', Proceedings of PRESENCE 2003. (ONLINE -

http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/2106/1/Rettie.pdf - accessed 25.06.2010) Salmon, G. (1999), 'Reclaiming the territory for the natives', Online Learning: Exploiting technology for training,

23rd & 24th November 1999. (ONLINE - http://atimod.com/research/presentations/London99.doc - accessed 27.06.2010)

Salmon, G. (2001) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, Kogan Page. Sarisalmi, T. (2010) Exploiting web2.0 - eTwinning and collaboration. Unpublished report by Sarisalmi, Tina for the

eTwinning CSS Seddon, K. & Postlethwaite, K. (2007) 'Creating and testing a model for tutors and participants to support the

collaborative construction of knowledge online'. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16 (2), pp.177 - 198

Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. London, John Wiley & Sons.

Stahl, G. (2003), 'Meaning and interpretation in collaboration', Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL'03), pp.523-532. (ONLINE - http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~gerry/cscl/papers/ch20.pdf - accessed 30.11.2008)

Stahl, G. (2005) 'Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning'. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (2), pp.79-90

Volet, S. & Wosnitza, M. (2004) 'Social Affordances and Students' Engagement in Cross-National Online Learning: An Exploratory Study'. Journal of Research in International Education, 3 (1), pp.5-29

Vratulis, V. & Dobson, T. M. (2008) 'Social negotiations in a wiki environment: a case study with pre-service teachers'. Educational Media International, 45 (4), pp.285 - 294

Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press. Zenios, M. & Holmes, B. (2010), 'Knowledge creation in networked learning: combined tools and affordances',

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010, Copenhagen, pp.471-479. (ONLINE - http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/Zenios.html - accessed 24.06.2010)