SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  72
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
eLearning
Paperswww.elearningpapers.eu
2010
Special edition
Breaking down the silos
Transforming education through innovation
and technology
Imagining future Learning: Mapping major changes to
education and training in 2025
The evolution of knowledge economies and innovation
societies through learning
A new web 2.0 learning environment: Concept,
implementation, evaluation
Networked Learning: A response to new challenges?
Special edition
eLearning
Papers
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers
eLearning Papers is a digital publication created as part of the elearningeuropa.info portal.
The portal is an initiative of the European Commission to promote the use of multimedia
technologies and Internet at the service of education and training.
The articles provide views regarding the current situation and e-learning trends in different
contexts: schools, universities, companies, civil society and institutions. As such, the journal
adds a new dimension to the exchange of information on e-learning in Europe and stimulates
research. eLearning Papers provides authors with an opportunity to have their texts published
throughout Europe. Through these articles, the journal promotes the use of ICT for lifelong
learning in Europe.
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010 edited by:
ISBN: 84-8294-664-1
Muntaner 262, 3º, 08021 Barcelona (Spain)
www.paueducation.com
Design: Mar Nieto
Phone: +34 933 670 406
editorial@elearningeuropa.info
www.elearningpapers.eu
Mission Statement
eLearning Papers aims to make innovative ideas and practices in the field of learning more
visible by highlighting different perspectives involving the use of technology.
Legal notice and copyright
By elearningeuropa.info and eLearning Papers.
The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European
Commission.Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of the information
contained in the present publication.The European Commission is not responsible for the external web sites referred to in the present publication.
The texts published in this journal,unless otherwise indicated,are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 3.0
Unported licence.They may be copied,distributed and broadcast provided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them,eLearning Papers,are
cited.Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted.The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Contents
Special edition
2010
eLearning
Papers
www.elearningpapers.eu
Breaking down the silos
Transforming education through
innovation and technology
Editorial Board ........................................................................................................4
Guidelines for submissions ................................................................................................. 5
Editorial ...................................................................................................................6
In-depth ...................................................................................................................8
Imagining future Learning: Mapping major changes to education
and training in 2025.............................................................................................................. 9
The evolution of knowledge economies and innovation
societies through learning ................................................................................................. 24
A new web 2.0 learning environment: Concept, implementation, evaluation .............. 33
Networked Learning: A response to new challenges?..................................................... 45
From the field........................................................................................................56
Playing with Science. Hands-on and High-Tech Learning
in a Portuguese Kindergarten ............................................................................................ 57
Defining Quality. Hellenic Evaluation tool for School Internet Sites.............................. 59
Understanding the stakeholders. A key to the successful
implementation of adult learning projects....................................................................... 61
Interview ...............................................................................................................65
The Editor’s Selection ..........................................................................................70
4eLearningPapers
Editorial Board
Peer-reviewers
Secretariat
Tapio Koskinen, www.elearningpapers.eu,
Director of the Editorial Board, Head of RD,
Lifelong Learning, Institute Dipoli, Aalto
University, Finland
Maruja Gutierrez-Diaz, European Commission,
Advisor to the Director, Education and Culture,
Belgium
Pierre-Antoine Ullmo, Director of P.A.U.
Education
Antonio Bartolomé, Audiovisual Communication
Professor, University of Barcelona, Spain
Claire Bélisle, CNRS Research Engineer, France
Jean Underwood, Professor of Psychology,
Nottingham Trent University, UK
Alfredo Soeiro, University of Porto, Portugal
Ana Landeta, Madrid open University, Spain
Anabela Mesquita, School of Accountancy and Administration of
Porto, Portugal
AvgoustosTsinakos, University of Kavala Institute ofTechnology,
Greece
Axel Schwarz, Saxon Ministry of Social Affairs - Dresden,
Germany
Barbara Jones, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research 
PREST, UK
Bulent Cavas, International organization for Science and
Technology Education,Turkey
Carlos Morales, Lock Haven University, US
Cengiz Hakan Aydin, open Education Faculty, Anadolu University,
Turkey
Christopher Douce, Institute of EducationalTechnolgy, open
University, UK
Claudia Panico, UniversitàTelematica “Leonardo da Vinci”
TorrevecchiaTeatina, Italy
Eduardo de Gregorio-Godeo, University of Castilla-La Mancha,
Spain
Emmanuel Bellengier, UI Learning, France
Evangelos Marinos, University of Athens - Medical School,
Greece
Giovanni Vincenti, Gruppo Vincenti, Italy
Giuliano Vivanet, University of Genoa, Italy
Guillaume Durin, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France
Guzman Mancho, University of Lleida, Spain
Karl Wilbers, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
Kay Mac Keogh, Dublin City University, Ireland
Lucilla Costra, Associazione Kelidon, Italy
Manfred Sargl, Universität der Bundeswehr, München and the
University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Margari León, i2basque, Spain
Monia Sannia, University ofYork, UK
Nuno Garcia, Magazines, International Conferences and Scientific
websites, Portugal
Pedro Maya Álvarez, Divulgación Dinámica S.L., Spain
Santiago Palacios Navarro, UPV / EHU, Spain
Paula Peres, Higher Institute of Accounting and Administration of
Porto, ISCAP, Portugal


Jos Beishuizen, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Matty Smith, Programme Director, European
Learning Industry Group (ELIG), UK
Nicolas Balacheff, Kaleidoscope Scientific
Manager; Senior Scientist at CNRS (National
Scientific Research Center), France
LluísTarín, www.elearningpapers.eu, Member of
the Editorial Board, Spain
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, Director of the European
Foundation for Quality in E-Learning; University
of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Wojciech Zielinski, Chairman of the Board
of MakoLab Ltd; Member of the Board of
Association of Academic E-learning, Poland
Jimena Márquez, P.A.U. Education
5eLearningPapers
Guidelines
for submissions
− Language: Both articles and
summaries must be in English.
Authors are responsible for ensuring
the correct use of English in their
texts, and translations should be
revised before submission. Please
note that the journal gives strong
preference to articles that are
correctly translated in a legible
manner.
− Title: Must effectively and creatively
communicate the content of the
article and may include a subtitle.
− Summary:This is not an executive
summary but rather should
communicate the key points and
conclusions of the article to a large
audience. It should be written in
an attractive and accessible manner.
In-Depth summaries should not
exceed 200 words. From the field
summaries should not exceed 50
words.
− Key words:Authors should include
up to 5 relevant key words.
− Conclusions: Special importance
is given to the representation of
the conclusions.Articles must go
beyond telling about a research
process and its methodology and
provide an analysis of the findings.
Conclusions should be clearly stated
both in the summary and at the end
of the article.
− Images: Please send high-resolution
JPEG files of all images you wish to
include in the article. Please include
captions for each image and indicate
where they should be placed in the
text.
− References: References must
be accurately cited following
international standards, please
consult the online guidelines for
more details: www.elearningpapers.
eu/index.php?page=collab_guide
− Author profile:Author name,
institution, position and email
address must accompany each
submission. For multiple authors,
please specify the relationship of
authors (ie, if a work is co-authored,
if there is a principal author, etc.)
Authors are encouraged to consult the website for the most recent call for papers:
www.elearningpapers.eu
In-Depth articles are full-length texts that discuss current
findings from research or long-term studies.They should
have the following characteristics:
− Academic focus:Articles must be original, scientifically
accurate and informative, reporting on new
developments and recently concluded projects.
− In good form editorially: Successful articles are clear and
precise.They should develop their argument coherently
and present a unity of thought.
− Length:Articles should range from 4,000 to 6,000
words.
In-depth
From the field articles are synopses of current practices
or studies taking place within Europe or beyond.They
should have the following characteristics:
− Brief communications:These articles should summarise
experiencies and practices in education, innovation and
technology with a focus on the applied methodologies
and impact evaluation.
− In good form editorially: Successful articles are clear and
precise, they should concisely communicate the key
points of the practice being discussed.
− Length: Should not exceed 1,200 words.
From the field
All article submissions should be in DOC format and must include the following:
Special edition
eLearning
Paperswww.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers is
inspired by the creative
role ICTs have in
transforming education.
After four years and 21
published issues, our
journal has become a
space for debate and
plurality and we look
forward to critically
accompanying future
developments in the
field of learning and
ICTs.
We have had the opportunity to
meet with European researchers and
practitioners and develop a fruitful
dialogue with them.This has led
to a new format and orientation of
eLearning Papers, which are the result
of a deep process of reflection. Every
issue explores a specific theme within
the field of learning innovation and
new technologies and now the journal
is organized to present a rigorous yet
accessible portrait of each chosen topic.
With these improvements eLearning
Papers will continue to serve as a
meeting place for formal, informal and
non-formal learning practitioners who
wish to communicate the results of
their academic work and practices to a
diverse and relevant European audience.
For this inaugural issue, eLearning
Papers focuses on innovation, networks
and collaboration.We understand
technology as a means to share, build,
inspire and transform learning practices
in our knowledge society, through
continuous innovation.
Transforming
education....
Editorial
shift that transforms communication,
knowledge and learning.
By detailing promising advances and,
in other instances, critically analysing
progress in certain areas, the research
presented here looks at our capacity
to learn in different circumstances and
elucidates the challenges and potential
of ICT for improving our ability to
develop as lifelong learners.
Today, to be successful, students and
professionals need to continually
enhance their knowledge and skills in
order to address immediate problems,
making them participants in a
process of continuing vocational and
professional development.This issue
addresses this reality by looking at new
learning strategies and technologies.
The section In-Depth presents full-
length articles that discuss current
findings from research or long-term
studies.The articles provide four
comprehensive views of innovation in
learning. Imagining Future Learning by
Slavi Stoyanov, Bert Hoogveld and Paul
Krischener, and edited by Christine
Redecker andYves Punie, summarises
the initial results from a study that maps
major changes to education and training
expected to occur by 2020-2030.
Authors Markku Markkula and Matti
Sinko share their analysis of the pivotal
and dynamic role learning has in
shaping and fuelling true knowledge
economies and innovation societies.
Ingo Blees and Marc Rittberger present
and discuss a new learning environment
model based on web 2.0 applications.
Finally,Anne Steinert and Ulf-Daniel
Ehlers ask:Are today’s new social
challenges stimulating a demand for a
new form of learning? They explore
whether or not existing theories are still
applicable to today’s learning realities.
In From the field, readers will
encounter synopses of a selection of
current practices or studies taking place
within Europe or beyond.This issue’s
From the field includes Paula Carqueja’s
results from her study that compared
technological and hands-on methods
for teaching science in Kindergarten
in Portugal. From the University of
the Aegean, Dr.Alivizos Sofos and
Aikaterini Alexopoulou Alexopoulou
relate the RD process for the creation
of a new tool to evaluate quality in
school web sites.
Finally, the consortium from the
Quality Assurance Network for Adult
Learning Centres project (Ari-Matti
Avunen, et al) reports on an approach
for evaluating formal and informal
learning in adult learning centres using
stakeholder analysis (SHA).
Each eLearning Papers will also present
an interview that will provide readers
with insightful, original commentary
from leading members of the field.
This issue’s interview with Christine
Redecker and Paul A. Kirschner,
consortium members in the project
“The Future of Learning: New Ways
to Learn New Skills for Future Jobs”
and an editor and author, respectively,
of the report Mapping Major Changes
to Education andTraining in 2025,
reveals the latest news in their ongoing
research of upcoming learning trends.
Our Editor’s Selection serves as a brief
snapshot of the latest trends in education,
innovation and technology by providing
reviews of books, blogs, websites and
commentary on recent news.
We would like to extend special thanks
to all of our contributors whose work
represents the research practices and
themes our journal is interested in
fostering and thank our readers for their
continued enthusiasm and collaboration.
We look forward to hearing from you!
LluísTarin
Member of the Editorial Board
www.elearningpapers.eu
Tapio Koskinen
Director of the Editorial Board,
eLearning Papers
With a growing amount of technology
available, coupled with an increasingly
diverse range of learning settings, new
roles for both educators and learners are
emerging.Teachers serve as guides who
help define suitable paths and strategies
for learning, leading pupils in a quest
for locating information, questioning
it, understanding it and applying it.
Additionally, they are expected to
be able to create their own course
materials online, and master new skills
related to online teaching and learning
support.
Appropriating the educational
environment and curriculum in this
manner invites students to begin
learning to learn.This implies changes in
teacher and student relationships, as well
as in the organisation and management
of learning and teaching processes.
Here we discuss the basic idea
of learning innovation, which is
transforming our schools, institutions
and learning centres; institutions
centred principally in teaching are now
becoming community-centred sites
where everybody learns and collaborates
in order to develop competences.
This development points to a cultural
In-depthFostering analysis and discussion
on Learning trends in Europe
Imagining future Learning: Mapping
major changes to education
and training in 2025
The evolution of knowledge
economies and innovation societies
through learning
A new web 2.0 learning
environment: Concept,
implementation, evaluation
Networked Learning: A response to
new challenges?
eLearningenvironment: Concept,
eLearningenvironment: Concept,
implementation, evaluation
eLearningimplementation, evaluation
eLearningNetworked Learning: A response to
eLearningNetworked Learning: A response to
new challenges?
eLearningnew challenges?
PaperseLearning
PaperseLearning
eLearning
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning
Paperswww.elearningpapers.eu
PaperseLearning
PaperseLearning
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning
PaperseLearning
2010
In-depth
9eLearningPapers
Imagining future Learning: Mapping
major changes to education
and training in 2025
Keywords
learner-centred approaches, cluster
ratings, Group Concept Mapping
To determine how education and training policy can
adequately prepare learners for life in tomorrow’s society, we
must envisage what competences will be relevant and how
they may be acquired from 2020-2030.This report presents
the findings of a structured and targeted expert consultation
exercise, which aimed to identify, cluster and rate the main
changes in education and training expected to occur over
the next 20 years.The exercise employed group concept
mapping methodology to generate, sort and rate more than
200 statements by a group of 13 experts.The objective of
this study is to contribute to the development of imaginative
visions and scenarios regarding the future of learning in
order to support priority-setting for education, training and
competency policies.
The emerging map of future changes to education and
training was divided into a set of 12 thematic clusters, ranging
from technological changes to shifting pedagogical concepts.
Anticipated changes that rated particularly high in importance
include learner-centred,flexibleandpersonalised
approachestolearning;theintegrationoflearninginto
lifeandwork;andthedevelopmentandimplementation
ofinnovativepedagogicalconcepts.When comparing the
cluster ratings on importance and feasibility, it becomes clear
that, while experts are optimistic about the development
of technology-enhanced learning opportunities, scepticism
prevails concerning the feasibility of implementing learner-
centred approaches in formal education and, in general, the
ability of formal education systems and institutions to keep
pace with change and become more flexible and dynamic.
Authors
Slavi Stoyanov, Bert Hoogveld and Paul Kirschner
Editors
Christine Redecker andYves Punie
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)
Christine.REDECKER@ec.europa.eu
Yves.PUNIE@ec.europa.eu
This article presents the results from a
Group Concept Mapping (GCM) study
conducted at the Open University
of the Netherlands.Thirteen experts
with backgrounds in technical or
social sciences, mostly from academia
and Europe, participated in the study.
They were asked first to generate
ideas individually about the future
of education.The resulting ideas
were sorted into groups according
to similarity in meaning and rated
on two scales: importance and
feasibility. Multidimensional scaling
and hierarchical cluster analysis were
applied to depict emerging structure in
the data.
As acknowledged by the Europe 2020
strategy, a fundamental transformation
in education and training will be
necessary in order to adapt to the
new skills and competences Europe
will require to remain competitive,
overcome the current economic
crisis and grasp new opportunities.To
determine how education and training
policy can adequately prepare learners
for life in tomorrow’s society, we must
envisage what competences will be
Summary
g
0
In-depth10eLearningPapers
relevant and how they may be acquired
from 2020-2030.
This study was carried out within
a larger research framework. It
contributes to the Foresight on
Learning, Innovation and Creativity
(FORLIC) project entitled “The
Future of Learning: new ways to learn
new skills for future jobs”, launched in
2009 by the Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies (of the European
Commission’s Joint Research Centre)
in collaboration with DG Education
and Culture.This work continues and
expands upon the work carried out
from 2006-2008 on “Future Learning
Spaces” (Punie et al., 2006, Punie 
Ala-Mutka, 2007, Miller et al., 2008),
and relates to ongoing work involving
different target groups ranging from
policy-makers and scientists to
educators and learners which will be
completed during 2010 and 2011.
The research process detected twelve
thematic clusters.The participants
in the focus group took part in an
intensive process in which they were
asked to gather, cluster and rate insights
on major changes to education 20 years
from now. For this study, 30 educational
experts were invited to take part, 18
accepted the invitation and, finally, 13
participated in all three phases of the
research process: idea generation,
sorting and rating.
The group of experts, with
backgrounds in technical or social
sciences, represented a balanced
sample of educational expertise and
professional orientation. Eleven
experts came from European countries
located in different geographical zones.
Two experts represented institutions
from the USA. Eleven experts were
academics and two were from industry.
The clusters indicate changes in the
nature of education, highlighting
technological and structural innovation,
trends towards professionalisation and
life-long learning, and the evolution
of our own social understanding of
the meaning of education and school.
What follows is a brief characterisation
of each cluster. For additional statistics
and data regarding the make-up of each
category, we encourage readers to visit
project website (ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
publications/ pub.cfm?id=3419).
New coordinates,
new paths:
the 12 clusters
Technology in education: the title
of this cluster strongly represents the
content of the grouping. Statements
in this cluster reflect a wide-held
belief in the potential of technology
to continue providing new tools and
learning environments in schools.
Representative statements from
this cluster include: practice will be
captured through mobile devices and
integrated with cloud-based portfolios;
services on the Internet will serve as a
study environment; augmented reality
applications will be a major tool for
learning.
Tools and services enhancing
learning: includes references to the
development of possible learning
facilitators, in terms of tools, materials
and services, and led to the following
statements: the growing role of media
for improving cognitive performance
will support the learner with facts
and simulation outcomes; drugs that
enhance learning effectiveness will be
widely (legally?) available and used;
systems and services will be developed
to allow mutual peer group learning
among groups of interested learners.
Open education and resources:
gathers the possibilities surrounding
open education, including its
construction, as well as general access
to free learning resources. Expert
contributions garnered such statements
as: open educational resources will
become widely adopted; there will
be Internet and access all around the
globe, allowing learning to flow in all
directions; text books will be replaced
In-depth
11eLearningPapers
The clusters indicate changes in the nature of education,
highlighting technological and structural innovation,
trends towards professionalisation and life-long learning,
and the evolution of our own social understanding of the
meaning of education and school.
Figure 1. Cluster label map.
9
Life-long learning
6
Roles of institutions
8
Roles of teacher
7
Individual
and profession
driven education
10
Formal education goes
informal
11
Individual
and social
nature of
learning
5
Globalisation of education
4
Assessment, accreditation
and qualifications
3
Open education and
resources
1
Technology in
education
2
Tools and services
enhancing learning
12
Epistemological
and ontological
bases of
pedagogical
methods
In-depth12eLearningPapers
by electronic multimedia publications;
lecture capture will be omnipresent.
Assessment, accreditation and
qualifications: this title is also
highly representative of its content.
Statements included: different types of
certifications will emerge that are not
related to formal learning institutions;
ways will be found to align assessment
with how people actually learn and
to make it more meaningful; we will
recognise people for what they do
rather than what qualifications they
have.
Globalisation of education:
encompasses trends related to the
internationalisation of education in a
broad sense, looking at education from
a global rather than local perspective.
Statements in this cluster included: all
educational systems in Europe will
be connected in a central system to
identify the best students in order
to support them regardless of their
country of origin; in Europe (EU),
many students will learn with and
from each other through international
collaboration; we will cease to rely on
experts as the source of knowledge and
curricula and will move towards quality,
based on use and endorsement through
Internet systems.
Role of institutions: another cluster
whose label strongly represents its
content. Representative statements
included: the main roles of educational
institutions will be about providing
learners with guidance on how
to shape their personal learning
trajectories, how to choose learning
formats and resources needed, and how
to assess their progress and outcomes;
educational institutions will be
reinvented as community knowledge
centres serving both local communities
and more widely dispersed learner
groups; government-funded higher
education will start to privatise.
Individual and profession-driven
education: speaks of individualisation,
learner locus of control and
professionalisation. Statements included:
classmates will be matched on the basis
of their knowledge, skills and preferred
teaching and learning styles rather than
their age; learners will choose their
own learning paths; the responsibility
for learning will be with an individual,
not outsourced to an external
institution.
Role of teacher: statements included:
the natural role of the teacher will
be that of a mediator of learning;
teachers will need to develop
coaching/mentoring skills; teachers
will be natural learners; the majority
of teachers will work online from
home, either freelance or for an online
educational organisation.
Life-long learning: led to the
following statements: learning will
be integrated and absorbed into
everyday activities, and it will become
common for people to move between
occupations, with learning being key
to supporting such moves; students will
choose to learn with people from their
own network; professional networks
will be one of the main means of
education; we will have to develop
skills to pick up relevant learning
resources from an overwhelming wealth
and variety of material and build our
own learning trajectories around them.
Formal education goes informal:
addresses, as the title suggests, the shift
of focus to, and the increasing role
of, informal learning.The following
statements exemplify the experts’
response on the topic: education will
leave the classroom;There will be a
lowering of the school leaving age as
it is recognised that other contexts for
learning may be more effective and
more motivating than school; secondary
education will shift towards creative
authenticity and social-mindedness.
Individual and social nature of
learning: refers to cognitive and
social aspects of learning. It led to
such statements as: different learning
styles and adapted teaching methods
for the same courses will be available
for individual and social learning; the
The very central position of the life-long
learning cluster was an important result
of the data sorting.
In-depth
13eLearningPapers
learner will invest more in the cerebral
aspects of learning: strategic, problem-
oriented, situational and creative;
learners will teach each other in the
process of learning.
Epistemological and ontological
bases of pedagogical methods: this
cluster considers pedagogical methods
and their theoretical and empirical
foundations. Examples of statements
include: social and cognitive processes
and convergences will become part of
the pedagogical methods; information
will be manipulated [and] anchored
in specific creativity techniques to
facilitate synthesis and creativity;
guided learning in a group will be
complemented with learning in and
from loosely knit networks; cross-
curriculum (inter-disciplinary) project
activities will dominate the course
design; constructivism will still be there,
but new paradigms will have arisen.
As we know from experience and
practice, the issues represented by
these clusters relate closely to one
another.These relationships are
represented by the borders between
clusters on the map (Figure 1). Data
sorting clearly reveals that there were
more technology-oriented clusters, such as
technology in education or tools and services
enhancing learning. Importantly, the
map provides information about how
clusters relate and intersect with these
technological concerns. Open education
and resources, for example, bridges the
more technology-oriented clusters
and the globalisation of education and
assessment, accreditation and qualifications
clusters.Technology facilitates the
access of people to open education and
resources. Open educational resources
require adequate forms of assessment
and accreditation on both national and
international levels.
In our initial reading of the
map, we can see that there
were four clusters that
suggest a shift of responsibility
for education from institutions
to individuals: role of
teachers, role of institutions,
individual and profession-
driven education and formal
education goes informal.
In addition, there were two
clusters, individual and
social nature of learning and
epistemological and ontological
bases of pedagogical methods,
which were learning-oriented.
They included issues related to
cognitive and social aspects of learning
as a basis for the design of effective,
efficient and appealing learning
environments.
The very central position of the life-
long learning cluster was an important
result of the data sorting.This cluster
was a connection point for all the other
clusters.This implies that life-long
learning processes are closely linked to
issues related to technology, learning
and teaching, and change in the role of
institutions, teachers and learners.
Navigating between
boundaries
The statements on which the clusters
were based were generated in response
to a focus or trigger statement that was
given to each participant.The focus
statement was as follows:
We all have the feeling that education in
20 years’ time will have to be different
from education today. Education then will
possibly deal with a new set of skills and
competences, new curricula or types of
curricula, innovative ways of learning and
assessment, different roles for teachers and
educational institutions, different impacts
of technology, to mention just a few of the
possible differences.We ask you to generate
statements about your thoughts about
education in 20 years, and to do this using
the following format: One specific change in
education in 20 years’ time will be that: …
In addition to the focus statement,
experts received suggestions to better
In-depth14eLearningPapers
illustrate the type of outcomes that
were expected.These examples were:
learning will not be restricted to traditional
educational institutions; teachers will become
mediators between students, knowledge and
technology; learning will be much more
driven by Internet-based social networking;
life-long learning will be the norm; class size
will not matter; and learning methods will
take into account cognitive structures and
processes.
Each expert was prompted to think
outside the box and not edit his/
her ideas for fear of writing down
something ridiculous. Furthermore,
participants were reminded that GCM
brainstorming differs from classical
brainstorming, in that it is not an
“anything goes” moment but rather a
targeted exercise of eliciting all possible
ideas and issues in response to the
context and the focus statement.
Surprisingly, 203 unique ideas were
generated, a quantity that exceeds
the number of ideas produced in any
other GCM study.This effect may be
explained by the sample of experts, the
instructions provided and the openness
of the topic (the future of learning)
in general. Practice suggests that if
the number of resulting ideas exceeds
150, a pre-selection by a small group
of analysts is needed to assist with the
sorting and rating (Trochim, 2007).
However, we decided not to carry out
a pre-selection procedure. First, we
believed that the participants in this
study were experts in this domain, and
we felt that it did not make much sense
to invite experts and then do the job
for them. Second, by avoiding pre-
selection, we also hoped to minimise
the effect of researcher bias on the
validity of the study.
Connecting the dots
The GCM methodology is a process
that applies a structured, participative
approach to facilitate groups of experts
in reaching a consensus about a
particular issue, e.g. characteristics of
learning in 2020 (Kane, 2008; Quinlan,
Hall,Tuzzio, McLaughlin,Wagner,
Brown, Yabroff, 2008; Stoyanov
 Kirschner, 2004;Trochim, 1989;
Wopereis, Kirschner, Paas, Stoyanov 
Hendriks, 2005). GCM uses experts’
original intact respondent statements
as units of analysis to help participants
later sort and then quantitatively
aggregate their contributions, so that
structures in the data emerge.This
research method, by its hybrid nature,
can easily integrate any qualitative
method for data collection and analysis,
such as individual interviews, surveys,
focus groups or the Delphi method.
After the individual brainstorming
procedure, the experts were asked to
sort and rate a final list of all responses
according to two idea-structuring
activities, first based on meaning
and then based on importance and
feasibility.The instructions for sorting
contained standard guidelines (Concept
System, 2004).The participants’ initial
action was to group all the statements
by similarity in meaning, judging
personal criteria and associations,
thus creating their own cluster map.
Having allocated each statement, the
participants were then expected to pick
any one group of statements and write
a short phrase or title describing that
group’s content.
The data from the participants’ idea
generation, sorting and rating was
subsequently aggregated and analysed
by the project consortium. Specifically,
multidimensional scaling and
hierarchical cluster analysis were used
to depict the emerging structure of the
data. Each statement was placed on a
map in accordance with the experts’
sorting, reflecting the proximity or
distance of each statement to the
others. Based on the position of the
statements and the clusters proposed by
the experts, the statements were finally
clustered into 12 groups, which were
labelled using titles suggested by the
experts (Figure 1).
Input for the multidimensional
scaling (MDS) generates a total
In-depth
15eLearningPapers
Surprisingly, 203 unique ideas were generated, a
quantity that exceeds the number of ideas produced in
any other GCM study. This effect may be explained by
the sample of experts, the instructions provided and the
openness of the topic.
Figure 2.The Future of Education point map resulting from MDS analysis
3
42
65
16 13
82
87
4
14
28
30
10
80
49
180
108
193
133
148
116114
192
175
115
181
77
17
3851
66
166
119
156
110
131
158 191 189
112 151
123
79
200
142
29
201
25
78
52
33
194
22
70
137
96134
117
85
165
187
143
74
64
17
26
100
152
59 202
153
8 177
50
63
81
40
144
31
111
163
129
140
159
93
107
136
47
9
6
2
99
67
87 84
113
88
145
184
72
118
20
48
147
57
149
69 102
68
37
43
55
135
141
124
122
109 176
196
120
24
15 56
36
12
45
21
99 139
174
92
11127
184
161 188
162
146
145
172
125
58
60
94
53
32
101
183
121
107
190
182
128
178
185
35
167
90 157 138
75
198
170
38
73
150
83
130
166
132
203
98
34
105
1
126
27
154
168
62
103
195
164
76
61
179
173
44
18
41
98
23
54
957
5
171
186189 180
162
19
In-depth16eLearningPapers
square similarity matrix, based on the
outcomes of the participants’ sorting.
The methodology transforms the
similarity matrix into a map depicted
as a coordinated matrix. From the
coordinates, MDS can compute the
distances between all pairs of statements
(points) and show this as a graph of
distances between points. Figure 2
shows the results of the MDS analysis
performed on the data collected, where
each point represents one of the 203
statements generated.The closer the
statements are to each other, the more
people identified these statements as
being related, pointing to similarities in
their meaning.
It should be noted that FORLIC is the
first foresight study to employ GCM.
Predicting the future of education with
this method brings more complexity
to the data and perhaps increases the
variability in the way people group
statements. However, one may question
whether the point map actually
represents the original similarity input
matrix.The extent to which each of
the distances between the statements on
the map deviates from the values of the
total similarity matrix, which is used as
input to the map, is measured with the
stress index (Kruskal  Wish, 1978).
In principle, the lower the value of the
stress index, the better the overall fit
between the map and the input matrix.
A meta-analytical study across a broad
range of concept mapping projects
indicated that around 95% of concept
mapping projects would produce a
stress index value ranging between
0.205 and 0.365.The stress value of the
FORLIC project GCM study is 0.355,
falling within the expected range.
The hierarchical cluster analysis
(HCA) applies Ward’s agglomerative
algorithm and uses the values of the
coordinates of the two-dimensional
MDS to partition the statements on
the map in areas that are contiguous
but do not overlap (Trochim, 2007).
Ward’s hierarchical cluster analysis uses
the coordinate values of the MDS,
rather than the similarity matrix, and
it was chosen because it is more adept
than other hierarchical cluster analyses
at interpreting distance data.This is
especially useful when deciding on the
number of clusters.
The procedure for determining the
number of clusters in the FORLIC
GCM applies the heuristic known as
20-to-5, which is based on the fact
that most of the participants in GCM
projects make between five and 20
clusters.We began with the 20-cluster
solution, checking at each step whether
the solution from the merging of
clusters made sense, until we arrived at
the five-cluster solution.
We recorded all our
judgements (“yes” or “no”)
about the merging of clusters
and, after finishing the
procedure, we looked only at
the few “yes” judgements for
a deeper analysis of the cluster
content.
To come to a decision, we also looked
at the bridging/anchoring values of
the statement in a particular cluster.
The bridging/anchoring statistics
have a value between 0 and 1.A low
bridging/anchoring value means
that more people have grouped the
statement together with others in
its vicinity. Statements with a low
bridging/anchoring value represent
the meaning of a particular cluster’s
content better than those with a higher
value.This analysis determined that a
12-cluster solution fits the FORLIC
data in the best possible way. Figure 3
presents this solution.
In addition to determining the
clusters, we tried to identify a label
that would best reflect the content
of each particular cluster.We applied
two criteria: (a) statements with a low
bridging/anchoring value represent
the content of a cluster better than
statements with a high bridging value;
In-depth
17eLearningPapers
Figure 3.The 12 cluster solution
3
42
65
16 13
82
87
4
14
28
30
10
80
49
180
108
193
133
148
116114
192
175
115
181
77
17
3851
66
166
119
156
110
131
158 191 189
112 151
123
79
200
142
29
201
25
78
52
33
194
22
70
137
96134
117
85
165
187
143
74
64
17
26
100
152
59 202
153
8 177
50
63
81
40
144
31
111
163
129
140
159
93
107
136
47
9
6
2
99
67
87 84
113
88
145
184
72
118
20
48
147
57
149
69 102
68
37
43
55
135
141
124
122
109 176
196
120
24
15 56
36
12
45
21
99 139
174
92
11127
184
161 188
162
146
145
172
125
58
60
94
53
32
101
183
121
107
190
182
128
178
185
35
167
90 157 138
75
198
170
38
73
150
83
130
166
132
203
98
34
105
1
126
27
154
168
62
103
195
164
76
61
179
173
44
18
41
98
23
54
957
5
171
186189 180
162
19
In-depth18eLearningPapers
Figures four and five represent the outcome of this rating
process. In these diagrams, each cluster is shown to have
between one and five layers, these layers represent the average
score experts gave the cluster during the rating exercise.
Figure 4. Cluster rating map on importance
9
Life-long learning
6
Roles of institutions
8
Roles of teacher
7
Individual
and
profession
driven
education
10
Formal education goes
informal
11
Individual
and social
nature of
learning
5
Globalisation of
education
4
Assessment,
accreditation and
qualifications
3
Open education and
resources
1
Technology in
education
2
Tools and services
enhancing learning
12
Epistemological
and ontological
bases of
pedagogical
methods
In-depth
19eLearningPapers
Figure 5. Cluster rating map on feasibility
9
Life-long learning
6
Roles of institutions
8
Roles
of
teacher
7
Individual
and profession
driven education
10
Formal education goes
informal
11
Individual
and social
nature of
learning
5
Globalisation of education
4
Assessment,
accreditation
and
qualifications
3
Open education and
resources
1
Technology in
education
2
Tools and services
enhancing learning
12
Epistemological
and ontological
bases of
pedagogical
methods
In-depth20eLearningPapers
and (b) the labels originally proposed
by experts.
Priorities and
perspective
Once clusters were determined,
participants rated them according
to which ideas about the future of
education were deemed important
and which were considered feasible
to achieve in 20 years’ time. During
this final stage, experts were asked to
rate the statements on a scale of one
to five, and it was made clear that the
emphasis should be on relative rather
than absolute rating.The instructions
prompted the experts to use the
full range of ratings values (i.e. one
through to five) in order to avoid
the participants considering all ideas
equally important because they were
generated by experts. Figures four
and five represent the outcome of this
rating process. In these diagrams, each
cluster is shown to have between one
and five layers, these layers represent
the average score experts gave the
cluster during the rating exercise.
Specific numerical values for each
layer are listed in the diagram Key.
What emerged from this sorting was
an overarching vision that the most
important innovations will be the most
difficult to achieve.
Generally speaking, the learning-related
clusters scored higher in importance
than the technology-oriented clusters.
The individual and social nature of
learning and individual and profession
driven education clusters got the
highest score in importance (it is
shown with 5 layers in the diagram,
Figure 4).The life-long learning,
epistemological and ontological bases
of pedagogical methods and formal
education goes informal clusters all had
only one layer less.The participants
in the study deemed the technology
in education and open education and
resources clusters least important.
One probable explanation for this
result is that the participants viewed
technology and open education as
merely means for learning.Technology
alone is neither the problem nor the
solution for education and training, but
a good understanding of the cognitive
and social aspects of learning is a
basis for designing effective learning
environments and materials.
The cluster map showing their
feasibility (Figure 5), on the other hand,
clearly shows that the technology-
oriented clusters (technology in
education, open education and
resources and tools and services
enhancing learning) were seen
as easy to achieve. However, the
more learning-oriented clusters,
such as informal learning, self-
directed learning, personalisation
and professionalisation of education
and training were seen as difficult
to implement.The results from the
feasibility ratings also seem to suggest
that it is easier to understand learning
than to use this knowledge to design
learning environments (individual and
social nature of learning had three
layers; epistemological and ontological
bases of pedagogical methods had two).
The ladder graph in Figure 6 provides
a visual comparison of the clusters.
One side shows how each cluster
rated on importance, while the
other represents a cluster’s perceived
feasibility in terms of achievement in
20 years’ time. Interestingly, there was
a very weak relationship between the
two values, and the clusters deemed
important were not deemed feasible.
The open education and resources,
technology in education, individual and
social aspects of learning and formal
education goes informal clusters had
the largest margins in scores on the
two scales.There were relatively small
differences in the scores of clusters such
as life-long learning, role of teacher,
and assessment, accreditation and
qualification.
In terms of making this data useful
in a real way, our assumption is that
statements that score high in both
The learning-related clusters scored higher
in importance than the technology-oriented
clusters.
In-depth
21eLearningPapers
importance and feasibility should be
our starting point when planning
the implementation of changes in
education and training. Following this
logic, a specific analysis comparing
the statements on importance and
feasibility within each cluster was
developed and deemed the “go-
zone”.A go-zone is a bivariate graph
that maps the average ratings for the
importance and feasibility of each
statement per cluster.The graph is
divided into quadrants based on the
mean rating values of importance and
feasibility.The upper right quadrant
represents issues that are above average
on both variables (very important and
very feasible). Figure 7 is an example
Formal education goes informal
Formal education goes informal
Open education and resources
Tools and services enhancing learning
Technology in education
Life-long learning
Assessment, accreditation and
qualifications
Individual and profession driven education
Roles of teacher
Roles of institutions
Epistemological and ontological bases of
pedagogical methods
Globalisation of education
Individual and social nature of learning
Formal education goes informal
Individual and social nature of learning
Individual and profession driven education
Formal education goes informal
Life-long learning
Epistemological and ontological bases of
pedagogical methods
Tools and services enhancing learning
Assessment, accreditation and
qualifications
Globalisation of education
Roles of institutions
Roles of teacher
Open education and resources
Technology in education
Importance Feasibility
Figure 6.Thematic clusters and their importance and feasibility ratings on a scale from 1 (high) to 5 (low)
In-depth22eLearningPapers
of a go-zone comparing the statements
in the life-long learning cluster on
importance and feasibility.
The statements in the upper-right
quadrant are rated as both important
and feasible. For this cluster, the
statements in this quadrant are: open
learning through the Internet will
become common (176); the workplace
will become a major context for
learning (25); students will combine
working and learning (194); university
students will attend courses within
their working schedule (55); we will
have to develop skills for picking up
relevant learning resources from what is
abundantly available and build our own
learning trajectories around them (29);
the learning environment will change
throughout one’s lifetime, from school
to workplace and home (124);“life-
long learning will be natural (120);
and education and learning will go on
throughout life, from the cradle to the
grave, so to speak, from pre- school to
old age (135).
The clusters with the most visible
orientation on the upper-right side of
the go-zone graphics are individual and
social nature of learning and individual and
profession-driven education. In contrast,
globalisation of education and role of
teacher each have only one statement
in the upper-right quadrant.The
lowest correlation between importance
and feasibility can be found in the
assessment, accreditation and qualification
(r = .07), life-long learning (r = .08), and
role of teacher (r = -.09) clusters. Overall,
statements located in the upper-right
quadrants of the go-zones made up
about 25% of the total ideas generated.
Annex 4, available online, lists all the
statements classified in this manner.
Inspiring debate
Group Concept Mapping within
the FROLIC project proved to be
an effective and efficient approach
for generating an initial tentative
landscape of future learning strategies
and pathways.The data have outlined
major changes to education and
training expected in the next 10-20
years, indicating the relationships that
different trends share with one another
and revealing initial insight into the
importance and feasibility of some of
the more salient foreseen changes.
Our experience has led us to conclude
that employing the GCM method was
not only appealing to participants, but
also served as a valuable tool for data
collection, aggregation and analysis.
The maps that emerge from
this analysis illustrate a vision
of future changes ranging from
technological developments to
shifting pedagogical concepts.
According to experts, anticipated
changes that rate particularly high in
importance include learner-centred,
flexible and personalised approaches
to learning; the integration of
learning into life and work; and the
development and implementation
of innovative pedagogical concepts.
When comparing ratings regarding the
importance and feasibility of perceived
changes, it becomes clear that, while
experts are optimistic about the
development of technology-enhanced
learning opportunities, scepticism
prevails concerning the implementation
of learner-centred approaches in
formal education and, in general, there
is doubt about the ability of formal
education systems and institutions to
keep pace with change and become
more flexible and dynamic.
The results from this GCM study
lay the empirical foundations for the
Future of Learning project (is.jrc.
ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/ForCiel.
html), and they will be elaborated
Figure 7. Life-long learning go-zone
70 52
196
31 78
22
46
109
79
33
r = .08
3.84 4.73
Importance
Life-long learningFeasibility
2.27
2.18
3.67
4.82
122
124
176 25
120
29135
43
142
141
200
201
19455
In-depth
23eLearningPapers
Concept System 4 [Computer Software]. (2010). Concept System, Inc. Ithaca, N.Y.
Kane, M. (2008). Engaging stakeholders to develop a research agenda for healthy aging. Concept System, Inc.
Miller, R., H. Shapiro  K. E. Hilding-Hamann (2008). School’s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: An
Imagining Exercise on the Future of Learning. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 23532 EN. Seville: European
Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf
Punie,Y., Cabrera, M., Bogdanowicz, M., Zinnbauer, D., Navajas, E. (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the
Knowledge Society. Report on a Joint DG JRC/IPTS-DG EAC Workshop held in Seville, 20-21 October 2005. JRC
Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 22218 EN. Seville: European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies.
Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22218en.pdf
Punie,Y. and Ala-Mutka, K. (2007) Future Learning Spaces: New Ways of Learning and New Digital Competences to
Learn. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 210-225.
Quinlan, K., Hall, K.,Tuzzio, L., McLaughlin, W., Wagner, E., Brown, M., Yabroff, R. (2008). Identifying Research
Priorities for the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Research Network. Concept System, Inc.
Stoyanov, S.  Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive
e-learning: ALFANET project case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 2, 41–56.
Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning
12, 1–16.
Wopereis, I., Kirschner, P. A., Paas, F., Stoyanov, S.,  Hendriks, M. (2005). Failure and success factors of
educational ICT projects: a group concept mapping approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 681–684.
References
upon as the research progresses. Given
the nature of the data collection
and analysis, the emerging landscape
provided by the data can only serve as
a starting point for further discussion.
The main value of the findings lies in
their ability to inspire debate within the
field and highlight themes and issues
that could be of particular relevance
and importance for stakeholders
involved in shaping the future of
learning.We therefore hope that the
results are considered carefully when
envisaging and addressing imminent
learning needs and strategies.
Read more
www.elearningeuropa.info/2025
In-depth24eLearningPapers
The evolution of knowledge
economies and innovation societies
through learning
Keywords
innovation strategy, learning environment,
knowledge society, systemic innovation
This article describes and analyses the pivotal and dynamic
role of learning in shaping and fuelling the metamorphosis
of current post-industrial societies and economies into true
knowledge economies and innovation societies.We start by
contrasting two contemporary expert views in Europe on the
role of learning in emerging innovation societies and then we
reflect on these views.To gather momentum, we look back at
a few classics of modern work-based learning theory to find
arguments that will show us promising ways forward.We base
our discussion on contemporary debates as well as on our vast
experience in tackling the challenges of developing complex
interfaces and joint learning environments between academia
and the work place.
Globalisation has made systems intelligence a key factor
of success, and working life will experience a marked shift
towards an emphasis on new, visionary knowledge creation.
We attempt to address the full range of issues, from generic,
global traits and trends to a specific training concept piloted
by a university outreach programme. Our main concern is
that the decisive importance of learning as the vehicle for
pulling contemporary societies out of the current crisis has
been identified but not yet fully recognised by policy-makers,
whose mindsets are constrained by past policies and beliefs.
We suggest that a departure from traditional thinking is
necessary in order to equip emerging knowledge economies
with the mastery of systemic innovation.
Markku Markkula and Matti Sinko
Aalto University
markku.markkula@aalto.fi
matti.sinko@tkk.fi
Introduction
The world is currently experiencing
the most severe economic crisis since
the depression of the 1930’s. At the
same time, the disastrous impact of
global warming on the economy is
gathering momentum.These clouds
on the horizon darken our future
prospects.At the same time, these major
challenges may prevent us from seeing
other significant trends that are also
having an impact on living conditions
in post-modern societies and emerging
knowledge economies. This article
aims to address a number of such issues,
particularly those related to learning,
which have perhaps been temporarily
overshadowed by the current economic
turmoil.There are interesting and
important technological, pedagogical
and social innovations which should be
elaborated in order to harness innovation
systems and thereby foster creativity in
tackling the challenges of reorganising
our economies and social orders.The
decision taken in Europe to dedicate this
year to innovation and creativity may be
timelier than one might think.
Summary
In-depth
25eLearningPapers
We approach the topic first through
an important recent European report
published by IPTS1
.We then juxtapose
this report against a recent national
innovation strategy adopted in Europe.
We have chosen for this the Finnish
Government’s Communication to
the Parliament on Finland’s National
Innovation Strategy2
.We will reflect
on these contributions and compare
some selected features.The decision
to focus on a national perspective
might be criticised as anachronistic
in our increasingly global economy,
but it nevertheless allows us to draw a
schematic presentation of the complexity
of the dependencies that impact
innovation processes.This approach will
help demonstrate and test some of the
important dimensions and assumptions
about societal traits and dynamics laid
out in the IPTS report.We have chosen
Finland as a case study for obvious
reasons: because we know it best, but
also because Finland has been one of
the quickest off the mark in the field of
innovation policy development, and as
one of the hot spots of the innovation
world, it has something relevant to offer
to a wider audience3
. Finally, we try to
penetrate into the internal dynamics
of learning systems and highlight some
prominent elements, again using a
Finnish case as an example.
Characteristics and
dynamics of an
innovative knowledge
society
An interesting forecasting exercise for
mapping the complex relationship
between emerging innovation
societies and learning systems has
been undertaken recently by the
Institute for ProspectiveTechnological
Studies. Miller et al. (2008) applied a
methodology which aimed to identify
the characteristics of future learning
spaces (LS) framed by the future
learning-intensive society (LIS).The
resulting construct is a scenario of how
society might function in 2020 with
open learning as the core. In the LIS
scenario, LS are “the next school”.The
scenario is based on the assumption that
the now-wavering mass production and
mass consumption of current societies
no longer prevail, or as they put it:
“... the crucial moment in industrial
society when the entrepreneur or engineer
or designer comes up with an idea that can
then be implemented by taking advantage of
economies of scale is no longer central.The
aims and organization of wealth creation
no longer take on the form of a pyramid
or hierarchy, with the genius who generates
new ideas and the technocrat manager who
implements them occupying the top floor,
while down below at end of the chain of
command is the “front-line” worker ...
Everyone is the inventor and implementer
of his or her own designs, the unique,
personalized set of artefacts, services, and
experiences.As a result, in the Learning-
intensive Society there is a profound difference
when compared to industrial society in the
relationship of knowledge to production or, in
more general terms, the activities that (re)create
daily life.” (p. 35)
This scenario is then contrasted with the
current policy assumptions about LIS,
thus providing food for the policy debate
on how to cope with the innumerable
stumbling blocks on the way towards
full-scale implementation of the LIS-LS.
The Finnish strategy proposal4
drafted
by the innovation task force set up by
1
Miller, R. Shapiro, H. and Hilding-Hamann, K.E., 2008. School’s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in
2020: An Imagining Exercise on the Future of Learning. European Commission Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf
2
www.tem.fi/files/21010/National_Innovation_Strategy_March_2009.pdf
3
Kao, J.,2009.Tapping the World’s Innovation Hot Spots. Harvard Business Review, 87 (3), 109-114.
4
Proposal for Finland’s National Innovation Strategy 2008. www.innovaatiostrategia.fi/files/download/
Nationalinnovationstrategy_EN-20080704.pdf
In-depth26eLearningPapers
the government, when considered in
conjunction with the strategic vision
put forward by the IPTS, provides an
interesting opportunity to view the issue
of enhancing innovation in the light
of both a pan-European and a national
perspective.The IPTS report’s definition
of LIS-LS is akin to the learning
environments (LE) proposed in the
Finnish Innovation Strategy, but it has
been free to stretch its intellectual wings
much further than the Finnish strategy
group, which seems to have comprised
experts more closely connected to
the realities of policy-making. Perhaps
that is the reason why the IPTS report
takes a more critical stance regarding
“yoking education to the idea of ‘national
competitiveness’ ... in the open, trusted and
connected context that makes LS work, the
imperatives that seemed so urgent in 2008 ...
have receded into an old memory.” (p. 36)
In the IPTS’s LIS scenario of 2020,
both old, industrial-style learning and
the notion of national competitiveness
are declared “passé”.The argumentation
runs as follows:
“... it is widely understood that nations are
not firms and a successful nation does not
succeed by being a better, more efficient, cost
competitive, profitable ‘firm’ than another
country, but by creating the conditions for
local, unique creation. In the LIS, the old
industrial forms of competition around
product market innovation and efficiency are
marginal, since output is not standardized but
unique. In the LIS of 2020, the largest share
of ‘wealth’ creation is sourced locally from
personal creativity – which, once again, is not
a technocratic skill. Certainly, vestiges of the
old forms of product market and investment
competition remain, but such activities are
only pertinent to a thin layer of production
that is necessary but non-central in terms of its
share of value, time, and lifestyle ...” (p. 36)
“From the perspective of learning, the
two most marked contrasts between the
vision of Learning Spaces in a Learning-
intensive Society and the current framework
for learning, are (a) the abandonment
of the technocratic, hierarchical and
exclusive approach to education and skill
achievement, and (b) the marginalization of
institutionalized learning.” (p. vii)
The authors of the Finnish report seem
to think along similar lines about the
need for new modalities for defining
production and consumption, and
are ready to reject the old-fashioned
paradigm of learning, but still stick
firmly to the mantra of the supremacy
of national competitiveness as the
overarching criterion for success. On
the other hand, the IPTS report’s vision
of the primacy of local sourcing in
wealth creation leaves plenty of room
for debate on the plausible prerequisites
and interpretations regarding feasible
implementation. Finland has repeatedly
received top scores in the PISA
studies of lower secondary educational
achievements. Such success is a double-
edged sword. On the one hand, it does
not necessarily encourage one to echo
the critical comments of institutional
school education, as the IPTS report
does. On the other hand, it allows
Finnish policy-makers to consider
carefully, without resorting to panic, the
potential as well as the limitations of
reforming the system without actually
abandoning it.
Nevertheless, the summary of the IPTS
report on LIS-LS fits in perfectly with
the Finnish Innovation strategy:
“... the ‘bottom line’ is that a rich new
learning framework can be detected in the
‘learning-intensive society’ that characterizes
Europe in 2020.This framework or new
infrastructure of learning has LS at its centre
and is the main objective of institutional
enabling policies.These LS are multi-
dimensional loci for learning in all its forms:
intangible and tangible, experiential and
reflective, individual and collective. LS are the
nexus, the crossroads of all strands of learning
– both the stock of what someone knows and
the flow of action that alters what they know,
both in hierarchical terms judged by a third-
party standard and in heterarchical terms that
are self-referential, complex and transparent.”
(p. 38)
The Finnish strategy proposal is based on
four essential choices:
In-depth
27eLearningPapers
1. Innovation activity in a world
without borders: In order to
join and position itself in global
competence and value networks,
Finland must actively participate and
exert influence and be internationally
mobile and attractive.
2. Demand and user orientation:
Demand-driven innovation, paying
attention to the needs of customers,
consumers and citizens in the
operations of the public and private
sector alike, requires a market with
incentives and shared innovation
processes between users and
developers.
3. Innovative individuals and
communities: Individuals and
close innovation communities play
a key role in innovation processes.
The ability of individuals and
entrepreneurs to innovate and the
presence of incentives are critical
factors for future success.
4. Systemic approach: Exploitation
of the results of innovation activities
also require broad-based development
activities aimed at structural renewal
and determined management of
change.
The first choice contradicts the IPTS
report’s post-nationalistic credo, but the
remaining three are surprisingly close to
the views expressed in the IPTS report.
Discussing the systemic
role of learning
environments in the
society of the future
We think that the Finnish strategy
should be pushed yet another step
towards the European vision outlined
in the IPTS report.As Markkula has
suggested5
, the pivotal organising
concept in the Finnish innovation
ecology should be learning environments
(LE). LE are seen as the creative dynamos
that make the Finnish innovation system
tick.There are a myriad of learning
environments in a country; many are
national, many local, and an increasing
number are well-connected and globally
networked. Some of them need to be
big enough (mega-level) to be able to
mobilise and accelerate the frequency of
quality innovations to the levels boosting
the economy.What is important to note
is that LE are seen in this enhanced
innovation model being proposed
in Finland as being so fundamental
to innovation that they are actually
conceived as the very spaces where
innovation creation and development
take place.
To be viable, LE need to be embedded
in an innovation ecology capable of
feeding in and mediating the realities and
modalities of the surrounding world.The
intermediary mechanisms and services
need to be organised and tuned in such
a way that they optimise the interplay
between LE and the organisations
surrounding and supporting them (see
Figure 1).
LE can be seen as a concept very close
to the LS defined in the IPTS report.
The development taking place at the
work place is decisive.As suggested in
Figure 1, LE is the gravity creating the
impact and keeping the various impact
factors in their orbits.
The core success factor is the
systemic approach revealing
the underlying concepts and
processes. ICT enables the
development of procedures as
well as indicators which can
be used to enhance the ability
of organisational work cultures
to share, evaluate and reward
achievements in a result-
oriented, sustainable manner.
ICT enables the emerging work
culture to detach itself from traditional,
function-based management and move
towards collaboration, co-operation
and co-creation with shared, parallel
processes. Gains from developing
processes can be significant, but the
gains that can be achieved through
the creation of a new work culture of
What is important to note is that LE are seen in this enhanced
innovation model being proposed in Finland as being so
fundamental to innovation that they are actually conceived as
the very spaces where innovation creation and development
take place.
5
Markkula, M., 2009. Unpublished Aalto university discussion paper.
In-depth28eLearningPapers
National Innovation Strategy of Finland 2008
value networking can be gigantic. For
improved leadership and management, it
is necessary to orchestrate work inputs,
not only within one’s own organisation,
but also by developing processes and
networks with strategic partners.When
well-rehearsed, a process-orientated
operational model nourishes a working
environment inclined to continuing
improvement.The ultimate aim would
be a systemisation of professional
development anchored to the work
place’s human and social capital, as well
as a relational capital that harnesses
external resources for the organisation.
Progress in this direction will make
the organisation more resilient and
expedient.The importance of conducive
knowledge management is epitomised.
Attaining these goals calls for
emphasising the learning taking place in
work places and capitalising on concepts
like innovative milieus, creative tension
and developer networks. Different
players in the value network connect
their processes to the value-adding
chains.Technical integration alone will
not do. Instead, genuine compatibility is
required, as well as an understanding of
the kind of inter-personal knowledge
that must be communicated between
people and transferred within knowledge
systems.This calls for accuracy in
documenting the processes and interfaces
of value networks.Figure 1. Renewed Finnish Innovation Strategy
“National Innovation Bedrock”
Learning
Environment
Finland’s
Attractiveness
Finnish
RHE System
Competitive
Incentives
Management
Training
Growth
Entrepreneurship
National Ensemble
of Services
Pioneer of
Systemic
Reforms
Regional
Centres of
Innovation
Implementing
Innovation
Policy
In-depth
29eLearningPapers
How LE themselves can be optimised
will be discussed in the subsequent
chapters.
Enriching our
understanding of the
social and creative
nature of learning
Our understanding of learning has
advanced greatly in recent years, not
only through a deeper understanding
of how individuals learn, but in relation
to innovation, and particularly with
regards to how work organisations are
able to renew their processes, enhance
their capacity to learn and acquire,
accumulate and create knowledge.
Interesting new theoretical approaches
have been developed. For example,
the KP-Lab project6
researches how
knowledge creation takes place in
expert organisations seeking to solve
problems by creating new artefacts. In
the knowledge creation process, learning
is seen as neither monological nor
dialogical, but as even more complex:
trialogical7
.Attention is then given to
the specific modalities and processes
surrounding how learning discourse
changes when the task of learners or
designers is to create new artefacts
(texts, designs, products or services), as
is typically the case in schools or RD
6
Knowledge practices laboratory is a large EU project funded by the 6th
Framework IST programme; see www.kp-lab.org 2007.
7
Paavola, S. Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen, K., 2004. Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational
Research, 74 (4), 557–576.
8
FinnSight 2015 - Science and Technology in Finland in the 2010s, a joint foresight project of the Academy of Finland and Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency
for Technology and Innovation.The project was carried out in 2005-2006. www.finnsight2015.fi/
9
Aalto University is named after the renowned Finnish architect Alvar Aalto, who was an alumnus of one of the universities to be merged, the Helsinki Universi-
ty of Technology (TKK).The other two are the Helsink University of Art and Design and the Helsinki School of Economics. www.aaltouniversity.info
10
www.aaltoyliopisto.info/en/news/funding-to-aalto-university-s-aivoaalto-research-project
The inherent structure of knowledge-intensive
work is by and large changing from excessive
planning towards iterative experimentation
characterised by working together, agility and joint
spurs towards the goal.
divisions of companies, and in work
places in general.
It is, however, necessary to take into
account the changing nature of expert
work, which is increasingly organised
through professional networks and
exploits technologies developed for
such communication to facilitate
the collaboration of professional
communities.A paradigm shift is taking
place from so-called “groupware” and
“learning management systems” to
wider and more flexible self-organising
environments, generically labelled “social
software” and “web 2.0 tools”.
The inherent structure of knowledge-
intensive work is by and large changing
from excessive planning towards iterative
experimentation characterised by
working together, agility and joint spurs
towards the goal.The “scrum” method,
fashionable in software development,
is now migrating to other fields of
the knowledge economy.This trait is
perhaps manifesting a more fundamental
paradigm shift in the technology sector,
revealing a foresight that deduces the
rationale for technology policy-making
from the notion of human interaction
as the foundation for welfare.8
For
human interaction to be fully developed,
learning must be ubiquitous and lifelong.
A prime example of this kind of
development, and a very concrete one
as well, is the whole process of creating
a completely new type of university in
Finland through the merging of three
universities into Aalto University9
.
Funding has just been granted for its
very first large-scale research project:
“aivoAALTO”.This project will address
social interaction using brain visualising
methods, research on decision-making
(neuroeconomics) and the impact of film
on human mind (neurocinematics), thus
fully exploiting the unique expertise of
each of the three universities10
.
“Ba” – learning and working
together
Concepts, processes and environments
building the foundation for deeper
collaboration are the prerequisites
for innovativeness.The desired
developments can be achieved through
multidisciplinary research by integrating
new ICT with scientific understanding
of the human mind, including
neurological, cognitive, motivational and
social bases of learning.
Based on a concept that was originally
proposed in the 1930’s by the Japanese
philosopher Kitaro Nishida,“ba” is
defined as a context in which knowledge
is shared, created and utilised. In the
process of knowledge development, the
creation and regeneration of ba is key.
It can be a physical space, virtual space,
In-depth30eLearningPapers
mental space, or any combination of
these.The most important aspect of ba is
interaction11
.
The power to create knowledge is
embedded not just within an individual,
but also within interactions with other
individuals or with the environment. Ba
is a space where such interactions take
place. Knowledge held by a particular
individual can be shared, recreated, and
amplified when that person participates
in ba. Ba works as the platform for
the concentration of the organisation’s
knowledge assets, for it collects the
applied knowledge of the area and
integrates it.
In all phases of life, learners and teachers
are challenged to develop and even to
change their personal work methods,
in all work and learning environments.
Among other things, this requires the
following changes in work culture12
:
− Commitment must be emphasised.
Theory must be converted into action,
compelling people to create a shared
learning and working space – ba
will shift the focus of action onto
intellectual and virtual collaboration
and a variety of collaboration
networks.
− Action and results must be emphasised.
As part of lifelong learning support,
learners and teachers must create their
own personal knowledge management
“tool boxes”, emphasising systematic
development and the results of action.
− Predicting the future must be
emphasised. In lifelong learning,
learners and teachers must emphasise
the regeneration of knowledge.
Consequently, the capacity and skills
for critical knowledge processing will
be understood to be the most crucial
factors in learning.
− Rising to the challenges of
information and knowledge must be
emphasised. Learners and teachers
must be able to use new learning and
work methods to manage increasingly
larger information and knowledge
entities, and related sustaining
networks.
−The basic knowledge management
values – openness and trust must will
be emphasised. It is only in an open
atmosphere of trust that people can
genuinely work and develop things
together.
“Triple helix” has not failed, but
needs continuous redefining
The issue of optimising the interface
between working life organisations
and academia is crucial for enhancing
systemic innovation in a knowledge-
based economy. It addresses systemic
communication and collaboration
between parties. It is a question of how
information flows freely between these
poles. It seeks to optimise the mobility
over time of students and employees
between academia and a company. It
is all that, but it goes beyond as well,
penetrating into the issue of how the
science base of a particular knowledge
creation process, its conditions and
phases, are formed, acquired and further
enriched in a complex system of
innovation collaboration that is necessary
and beneficial to both parties.The
complexity of the innovation ecology
is further heightened by interventions
provided by third party intermediaries
complementing the picture to form the
triangle of the so-called “triple helix”
model. In that model, the third sun is
broadly named “government”.
Such government agencies are typically
involved as technology or training
funding agencies providing funding,
information, infrastructure and policy
support. Sustainability is sought through
long-term programmes, which are rather
insensitive to short-term economic
and political conjunctures.This fairly
hands-off role of government might
not be optimal and will hopefully
be evolving in the foreseeable future.
Government could and should play
an active enabler role for profound,
cross-border, large-scale networks in
11
Nonaka, I.,Toyama R. and Byosiére, P., 2001.A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Un-
derstanding the Dynamics Process of Creating Knowledge. In: M. Dierkes,A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child and
I. Nonaka, eds. Handbook of Organizational Learning  Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
491-517.
12
Markkula, M., 2007. Europe Needs to Invent its Future – Desired Changes Do Not Just Happen. In:
A. Boonen andW.V. Petegem, eds. European Networking and Learning Future,The Europace Approach.
Antwerp: Garant, 335-341.
In-depth
31eLearningPapers
which substantial numbers of experts
from companies and universities work
together. Open Innovation is the
driver of change integrating university-
level research, teaching, learning and
different collaborative multidimensional
developments.The Finnish National
Innovation Strategy is indeed calling for
new concepts for collaboration between
universities and industry that focus both
on strategic, primary research and on
innovations.
“Otafokus”
Here, we provide one example of
how an academic institution can
systematically approach the needs of
rapidly changing conditions and of
companies. It is a concept developed by
our university’s continuing education
centre, the Dipoli Lifelong Learning
Institute (TKK Dipoli), which has
coined the “Otafokus”14
model.
Otafokus has its roots inTKK Dipoli’s
long-standing provision of continuing
education services to technology-
oriented companies.We have been
privileged to become the pivot where
the professional development needs
of related companies and the real
world test-beds for technical university
knowledge creation, application and
dissemination have been put into a
melting pot, which we have been stirring
13
SP stands for study credits.
14
The name refers to the village Otaniemi where a substantial technology hub has grown around TKK
and the State research centre.We focus on the academia-industry axis. It is the backbone vitalising the
current knowledge economy in the region and spurring the national economy as well.
Figure 2.The basic structure of aTKK Dipoli professional development programme.13
Structure ofthe programme
INDUSTRY ROADMAP – Increasing General Knowledge of The Industry
DEVELOPING PERSONAL TOOLBOX
UNIVERSITY - COMPANY MODULES IN WEEKS
VIRTUL COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND NETWORKING
TKK
2
TKK
10
TKK
11 FINAL
WORK
13
Company
5
Company
10
Company
6
Building own networks
Company practices Special assignments Development projects Personal directives
Operative company visits
Participing industry events,
seminars and forums
OTAFOKUS
OTAFOKUSDIPLOMA,60sp
In-depth32eLearningPapers
Aalto University. 2009.
www.aaltoyliopisto.info/en/news/funding-to-aalto-university-s-aivoaalto-research-project
Academy of Finland andTekes. 2007. FinnSight 2015 - Science and Technology in Finland in the 2010s,
www.finnsight2015.fi
Government´s Communication on Finland´s National Innovation Strategy to the Parliament
www.tem.fi/files/21010/National_Innovation_Strategy_March_2009.pdf
Kao, J., 2009. Tapping the World’s Innovation Hot Spots. Harvard Business Review, 87 (3), 109-114.
Knowledge practices laboratory 2007.
www.kp-lab.org
Markkula, M., 2007. Europe Needs to Invent its Future – Desired Changes Do Not Just Happen. In: A. Boonen and W.V.
Petegem, eds. European Networking and Learning Future, The Europace Approach. Antwerp: Garant, 335-341.
Markkula, M., 2009. Unpublished Aalto University discussion paper.
Miller, R. Shapiro, H. and Hilding-Hamann, K.E., 2008. School’s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: An
Imagining Exercise on the Future of Learning. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf
Nonaka, I.,Toyama R. and Byosiére, P., 2001. A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Understanding the
Dynamics Process of Creating Knowledge. In: M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child and I. Nonaka, eds. Handbook of
Organizational Learning  Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 491-517.
Paavola, S. Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen, K., 2004. Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three
Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 74 (4), 557–576.
Proposal for Finland’s National Innovation Strategy 2008.
www.innovaatiostrategia.fi/files/download/Nationalinnovationstrategy_EN-20080704.pdf
References
with our own pedagogical and learning
technology recipes.
The objectives and content of each
Otafokus programme are defined to
meet the needs common to the industry
group in question, while also paying
attention to the individual needs of
participating companies. Students are
selected byTKK in close co-operation
with the recruiting companies.
TKK offers a multidisciplinary and
international environment for the
implementation of programmes in
any industry sector.As part of Aalto
University, the multidisciplinarity of
study programmes will be enhanced.
The typical structure of any Otafokus
programme is illustrated in Figure 2.
The Otafokus concept simultaneously
serves three demands long expressed
in debates on the practical course
of developments: facilitated work-
based learning, blended learning
and integrating theory into practice.
Formulating the concept and fleshing it
out has been quite a collaborative effort
involving many committed stakeholders
and organisations in a long-standing
development effort.
Read more
www.elearningpapers.eu/vol15
In-depth
33eLearningPapers
A new web 2.0 learning environment:
Concept, implementation, evaluation
Keywords
eLearning 2.0, personal learning
environments, platform, trial
This contribution presents and evaluates a new learning
environment model based on web 2.0 applications. In a
theoretical overview, we introduce the concepts of eLearning
2.0 and Personal Learning Environments, along with their
main aspects of autonomy, creativity and networking,
and relate them to the didactics of constructivism and
connectivism.The requirements and basic functional
components for the development of our particular web 2.0
learning environment are derived from these aspects.
The section describing the implementation of the
environment in a trial at the Darmstadt University of Applied
Science focuses on the specific didactic contribution made
by the particular learning modules to the overall learning
arrangement.
Our learning environment was tested and evaluated during
the “Social Software” course held in 2007/08 as part of the
information science program at the Darmstadt University
of Applied Science. A questionnaire-based survey reveals
interesting facts regarding the success of the practical
implementation of the web 2.0 arrangement with respect to
the motivation and learning outcome of students.The survey
was supplemented by some informal feedback provided in a
concluding discussion.With these results in mind, this paper
concludes with some remarks on the potential of the learning
environment in broader educational contexts.
Authors
Ingo Blees and Marc Rittberger
German Institute for International Educational Research
blees@dipf.de
rittberger@dipf.de
Concept
Changing technologies and
educational change
The web 2.0 represents a qualitative
leap in web technologies that have
made the internet more creative,
participative and social. But has
this development also triggered a
revolution in learning? Do education
and learning need to be re-thought
in view of the continuous change
to information and communication
technologies, and do we need new
concepts and designs for working and
learning environments? The thesis that
“web 2.0 instruments (social software)
become increasingly relevant as they
further the exchange of knowledge
and the development of skills in
networks and beyond the net in an
optimal way” (Erpenbeck  Sauter,
2007, p. 162) is widespread and present
in many variations amongst scholars
and educators concerned with the
design of learning environments and
eLearning.
But how can the didactic potential of
new technologies be put to use for
learning processes in the knowledge
Summary
In-depth34eLearningPapers
society, wherein increasingly important
skills, such as methodological and media
skills, must be acquired in addition to
the knowledge itself?
In his illuminating and trend-setting
lecture,“A Portal To Media Literacy”,
cultural anthropologist Michael Wesch
(2008) assumes that the information and
communication culture of students has
changed due to new web technologies.
He contrasts these new technologies
to the anachronistic conditions
and teaching concepts existing in
educational institutions, and states the
hypothesis that learners should be able
to effectively acquire the knowledge
they require by applying the media
they use anyway. However, this requires
that appropriate learning and teaching
settings enable learners to develop the
media literacy they need for knowledge
acquisition as well as methodological
competency – particularly as regards
self-governing and productive learning.
According to Wesch, the main challenge
to future learning is “creating platforms
for participation that allow students to
realize and leverage the emerging media
environment.”Wesch (2008: 27:30)
This view is also prominently held
by Downes (2005), who coined the
term eLearning 2.0, conceived as
an “interlocking set of open-source
applications [where] learning is
becoming a creative activity and [where]
the appropriate venue is a platform
rather than an application.”1
Wageneder  Jadin (2007) provide
the following extended definition
of eLearning 2.0 with reference to
Downes:
“We can talk of eLearning 2.0
applications if users apply web 2.0
media, i.e. social software, such as
wikis, weblogs or RSS in collaborative
learning activities for autonomously
producing their own learning
contents and use them for their own
learning objectives.This definition
clearly outlines a central feature of
an eLearning 2.0 setting: learners are
autonomous in acquiring knowledge.”
The implementation of collaborative
and activating applications of the
social web for eLearning 2.0 purposes
refers to the related model of Personal
Learning Environments (PLE).At a
descriptive level, a PLE allows learners
“to access, aggregate, configure
and manipulate digital artefacts of
their ongoing learning experiences”
(Lubensky, 2006).As regards web 2.0
tools, this implies a “collection of free,
distributed, web-based tools, […] linked
together and aggregating content using
RSS feeds and simple HTML scripts”
(Fitzgerald, 2006)2
. Downes postulates
that the values of web 2.0 and the idea
of PLE are essentially identical, namely
“the fostering of social networks and
communities, the emphasis on creation
rather than consumption, and the
decentralisation of content and control”
(2007. p. 19).
Hence, there is a trend in contemporary
learning towards more activity, self-
productivity and self-governing, to
networking learners and their learning
spaces and to a shift of accentuation
in the nature of learning from the
product towards the process.These
developments are expressed by the
learning theories of constructivism
and connectivism. From a constructivist
perspective, learning is a constructive,
active, emotional, self-organised, social,
situational process.3
Siemens (2004) introduces a further
significant aspect of learning in his
learning theory termed connectivism.A
focal aspect of connectivism concerns
the use of networks. Learning in
the connectivist sense requires open
learning environments that enable
connections and exchanges with other
network partners, who will build up
productive learning communities.
Requirements of a web 2.0
learning environment
The idea of “learning networks” leads
us from connectivism back to Wesch’s
demand for a concept of learning
The implementation of collaborative and activating
applications of the social web for eLearning 2.0
purposes refers to the related model of Personal
Learning Environments (PLE)
1
Emphasis by the authors of this article.
2
For a description of PLE, see also Bernhardt  Kirchner (2007, p. 27ff); further PLE sources are Downes
(2007),Attwell (2007),Wagner (2006) and van Harmelen (2006); an early model for PLE known as “Future
VLE” can be found in Wilson (2005).An overview of the different types of PLE can be found in LTC (2008).
3
See Erpenbeck  Sauter (2007, p. 157). On the relationship between theories of learning: instructional design,
cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism; cf. also the overview in Erpenbeck  Sauter (2007, p. 152),
following Baumgartner and Kalz (2004).
In-depth
35eLearningPapers
Microcontent
• Topics, Tags,
Categories
• Reports,
Disputes
• Media
RSS
Input
RSS
Output
portals.The pedagogical approach
associated with PLE results in the
notion of a portal as being a particularly
apt model for designing learning
environments (Downes 2007; Kerres,
2006).
The perspective for eLearning 2.0 lies
in the adoption of the portal concept.
An eLearning 2.0 environment would
thus be a signpost to finding proven
quality learning content on the
internet. Besides containing metadata
and references to online resources,
the learning portal or learning
environment can also deliver self-
produced learning content or online
tools suitable for learning. Furthermore,
the learning environment should offer
a “mechanism” for collecting and
integrating content and tools in a goal-
oriented way (Kerres, 2006).4
Following Kerres’ (2006a) essentials
of a web 2.0 learning portal and his
guidelines for “an eLearning scenario
following a ‘web 2.0’ approach”
(Kerres, 2007), a clustering of
characteristics results in the following
four requirement groups for a web 2.0
learning environment:
Openness, permeability:
- The learning environment is not an
isolated island, but a learning portal.
4
This integrative mechanism is also named as
essential to a well-functioning PLE by Siemens
(2004), Downes (2005; 2007) and Attwell (2007).
Figure 1. Overview of the learning environment
Social
Bookmarking
• Literature
• Web resources
• User-
Actions
• Network-
Effects
RSS-
Feed
• Tagging
• Metadata
• Folksonomy
Mashup:
Journal-Alert
RSS-Feeds
Google
News
Technorati
Journal 1 Journal 2 Journal 3
RSS-Alerting
Monotoring
Aggregation
Filtering
Knowlegde Base
Collaboratively
created reference
database
Learning Jorunal
agile information
management:
sharing experiences
and ideas
Learning Central
Wiki as the central for the formal
organisation of learning activities
as well as the content-related
integration and distribution of
learning materials and learning
cutcomes
Feed-Input
• References
• Weblog
• Journal-Alert
Planning
Organisation
Exercises
Topics
• Articles
• Dossiers
• Resources
In-depth36eLearningPapers
Participation:
- Learners and teachers actively
participate in the development of the
learning environment. Learners can
integrate known instruments that are
already in use.
- Learners and teachers work with
the same platforms and tools, for
preparing units of learning, working
on them and distributing them.
- The participants use a free choice of
tags and they incrementally develop a
“folksonomy”, reflecting their stock
of interests and knowledge – the
learning units are thus structured and
made navigable.
Motivation:
- The learning environment should
make the individual engagement of
every learner visible in a transparent
way.
- The learning environment should
promote the establishment of a
community of learners, where
learners and teachers can meet one
another in person.
- Teachers show their presence in the
learning environment: they deliver
resources and make contributions
and suggestions, for instance by
participating in discussions.
Monitoring, feedback, evaluation:
- Teachers track/pursue individual and
shared learning activities.
- Teachers offer regular feedback and
assess contributions in an appropriate
fashion for encouraging motivation.
In the course of the analysis of our
trial presented in Section 2, we will
show how these requirements are
fulfilled by the different learning
environment modules.
Functional elements of the web
2.0 learning environment
A web 2.0 learning environment can
be implemented in a variety of ways.
Decisions on implementations often
depend on one’s personal experience
with software, learning objectives and
existing media skills.The unpredictable
character of developments in the area
of specialised, stand-alone software
solutions implies that “learning
environments should be realised
independent from specific tools”
(Kerres, 2006, p. 7). Hence, it would
seem appropriate to adopt a modular
concept with more abstract definitions
of the functional areas of the learning
environment, which, in the learning
setting presented here, are applied
using exemplary applications that
are interchangeable with equivalent
functions.The functional areas of the
model web 2.0 learning environment
introduced below are presented in
Figure 1:
− Learning centre: used for the
formal organisation of learning
activities, the integration of content
and the distribution of learning
material and outcomes.The learning
centre is implemented in a wiki
platform, in this case a MediaWiki.
− Knowledge base: all kinds of
resources, including texts and
audiovisual media, are collected
here.The tagging process results
in a folksonomy for the domain of
interest.The common use leads to
networking effects.The knowledge
base is implemented by means of a
social bookmarking service, in this
case CiteULike.
− Learning journal: here, the
learners can record interesting
encounters with the thematic areas
without having to meet the formal
requirements of working in the
learning centre and the knowledge
base.This area is suitable for any
kind of short contribution, such
as announcing interesting links or
texts or inserting audio and video
contributions, with the option of
commenting on or tagging them
using the folksonomy terminology.5
5
The total number of tags on a bookmarking
platform is known as a folksonomy (folk +
taxonomy).
In-depth
37eLearningPapers
6
For the problem orientation and closeness to
reality of learning and skills acquisition, see
Erpenbeck  Sauter (2007, p. 163).
− Alerting service: a number of
different information providers are
continually checked for updates,
which are aggregated and filtered
by certain thematic areas.The RSS
format functions as a descriptive
language for the exchange of data.
RSS also offers the integrative
mechanism necessary for a learning
portal.
To improve integration into the
learning arrangement and promote
motivation: 1) elements of the web
2.0 learning environment, particularly
the wiki platform, are used in both
the online phases and the face-to-
face sessions (Cubric, 2007 and 2)
the learners are actively involved
in conceptualising, developing
and implementing the learning
environment – hence one of the
requirements, namely participation, is
already put into practice.
Implementation
This section explains the four
functional areas of our web 2.0
learning environment introduced
above, wherein the wiki is described in
more detail. It describes how the wiki
can be used as an instrument for the
active, flexible and social construction
of knowledge, thus allowing for
problem-oriented, explorative
learning6
.
The wiki platform constitutes
the learning portal that
integrates content from all of
the learning modules into the
learning environment, making
it accessible in a structured
way. It serves not only as a
knowledge repository, but also
as a working environment.
Learning matters in the wiki
The wiki can be designed as a
comprehensive and complete
document and media repository
providing all of the learning material
in a clear and freely accessible way
(Kepp et al., 2008; Himpsl, 2007).
These kinds of learning material
consist of learning resources that are
available on the Internet (as elucidated
above), including literature, web
resources and audiovisual media.The
media can be directly played in the
wiki itself once the respective technical
extensions have been installed, which,
like the wiki as such, are available as
Open Source products (Reinhold
 Abawi, 2006; Blees, Reinhold 
Rittberger, 2008).The widespread
opinion that wikis are exclusively or
predominantly limited to working
with texts is ill-founded (Erpenbeck
 Sauter, 2007); wikis have
developed so that they are suitable
for implementation in multimedia
learning environments.
The outcomes of the learning
processes themselves, i.e. the (interim)
results of learning activities, are
aggregated in the wiki in the form
of an e-portfolio (Salzburg Research,
2006; Schaffert et al., 2006).The
wiki presents test tasks and solutions,
presentations, graphical images,
minutes, reports and transcripts of
interviews the learners have conducted
themselves as well as tests carried out
in projects, all categorised by field.
The distinction between external
learning content and that contributed
by the users themselves corresponds
to the difference between static and
dynamic content.While static content
includes all the items accessible by
external links and uploaded items
linked to wiki documents and media,
the dynamic content constitutes the
actual wiki sites themselves, where
collaborative writing processes are
taught and “learning content” is
practised. Owing to the principles of
dynamic generation and change, the
wikis are highly interactive at both
levels of individual objects and their
organisation, thus “making a crucial
Figure 2.Wiki portal homepage


eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010
eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010

Contenu connexe

En vedette

Are Schools Equipped to Address Online Safety in the Curriculum and Beyond?
Are Schools Equipped to Address Online Safety in the Curriculum and Beyond? Are Schools Equipped to Address Online Safety in the Curriculum and Beyond?
Are Schools Equipped to Address Online Safety in the Curriculum and Beyond? eLearning Papers
 
This time it's personal
This time it's personalThis time it's personal
This time it's personaleXact learning
 
Learning insight report_2012; Courtesy: Kineo
Learning insight report_2012; Courtesy: KineoLearning insight report_2012; Courtesy: Kineo
Learning insight report_2012; Courtesy: KineoGuru Dutt Bharadwaj
 
AVATAR – The Course: Recommendations for Using 3D Virtual Environments for Te...
AVATAR – The Course: Recommendations for Using 3D Virtual Environments for Te...AVATAR – The Course: Recommendations for Using 3D Virtual Environments for Te...
AVATAR – The Course: Recommendations for Using 3D Virtual Environments for Te...eLearning Papers
 
Developing Serious Games: from Face-to-Face to a Computer-based Modality
Developing Serious Games: from Face-to-Face to a Computer-based ModalityDeveloping Serious Games: from Face-to-Face to a Computer-based Modality
Developing Serious Games: from Face-to-Face to a Computer-based ModalityeLearning Papers
 
ETM 2nd Project Meeting
ETM 2nd Project Meeting ETM 2nd Project Meeting
ETM 2nd Project Meeting Imede
 
Presupuesto Abdiel
Presupuesto AbdielPresupuesto Abdiel
Presupuesto Abdielguest097f24
 
R O D O P I N T U R A S Web
R O D O  P I N T U R A S WebR O D O  P I N T U R A S Web
R O D O P I N T U R A S Webrodolfo alfredo
 
Catalogo Esbit 2012-2013 Deutsch
Catalogo Esbit 2012-2013 DeutschCatalogo Esbit 2012-2013 Deutsch
Catalogo Esbit 2012-2013 DeutschFerreHogar
 
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk klSibylle Ambs-Keller
 
Algoritmos Genéticos - Trabalho de Inteligência Computacional
Algoritmos Genéticos - Trabalho de Inteligência ComputacionalAlgoritmos Genéticos - Trabalho de Inteligência Computacional
Algoritmos Genéticos - Trabalho de Inteligência ComputacionalLucas Damasceno
 
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk klSibylle Ambs-Keller
 
201104 slideshow textwerkstatt_ohne
201104 slideshow textwerkstatt_ohne201104 slideshow textwerkstatt_ohne
201104 slideshow textwerkstatt_ohneSibylle Ambs-Keller
 

En vedette (20)

Are Schools Equipped to Address Online Safety in the Curriculum and Beyond?
Are Schools Equipped to Address Online Safety in the Curriculum and Beyond? Are Schools Equipped to Address Online Safety in the Curriculum and Beyond?
Are Schools Equipped to Address Online Safety in the Curriculum and Beyond?
 
This time it's personal
This time it's personalThis time it's personal
This time it's personal
 
Learning insight report_2012; Courtesy: Kineo
Learning insight report_2012; Courtesy: KineoLearning insight report_2012; Courtesy: Kineo
Learning insight report_2012; Courtesy: Kineo
 
E learning and design conceptspresentation
E learning and design conceptspresentationE learning and design conceptspresentation
E learning and design conceptspresentation
 
Term Paper TKLR
Term Paper TKLRTerm Paper TKLR
Term Paper TKLR
 
AVATAR – The Course: Recommendations for Using 3D Virtual Environments for Te...
AVATAR – The Course: Recommendations for Using 3D Virtual Environments for Te...AVATAR – The Course: Recommendations for Using 3D Virtual Environments for Te...
AVATAR – The Course: Recommendations for Using 3D Virtual Environments for Te...
 
Developing Serious Games: from Face-to-Face to a Computer-based Modality
Developing Serious Games: from Face-to-Face to a Computer-based ModalityDeveloping Serious Games: from Face-to-Face to a Computer-based Modality
Developing Serious Games: from Face-to-Face to a Computer-based Modality
 
ETM 2nd Project Meeting
ETM 2nd Project Meeting ETM 2nd Project Meeting
ETM 2nd Project Meeting
 
Proyectos
ProyectosProyectos
Proyectos
 
Presupuesto Abdiel
Presupuesto AbdielPresupuesto Abdiel
Presupuesto Abdiel
 
R O D O P I N T U R A S Web
R O D O  P I N T U R A S WebR O D O  P I N T U R A S Web
R O D O P I N T U R A S Web
 
201104 slideshow textwerkstatt
201104 slideshow textwerkstatt201104 slideshow textwerkstatt
201104 slideshow textwerkstatt
 
Catalogo Esbit 2012-2013 Deutsch
Catalogo Esbit 2012-2013 DeutschCatalogo Esbit 2012-2013 Deutsch
Catalogo Esbit 2012-2013 Deutsch
 
B O L E R O S
B O L E R O SB O L E R O S
B O L E R O S
 
Tango Fruta Amarga
Tango Fruta AmargaTango Fruta Amarga
Tango Fruta Amarga
 
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
 
Coleção de piadas
Coleção de piadasColeção de piadas
Coleção de piadas
 
Algoritmos Genéticos - Trabalho de Inteligência Computacional
Algoritmos Genéticos - Trabalho de Inteligência ComputacionalAlgoritmos Genéticos - Trabalho de Inteligência Computacional
Algoritmos Genéticos - Trabalho de Inteligência Computacional
 
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
201104 slideshow textwerkstattk kl
 
201104 slideshow textwerkstatt_ohne
201104 slideshow textwerkstatt_ohne201104 slideshow textwerkstatt_ohne
201104 slideshow textwerkstatt_ohne
 

Similaire à eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010

Thoughts on Future University in 2030
Thoughts on Future University in 2030Thoughts on Future University in 2030
Thoughts on Future University in 2030Diana Andone
 
E learning papers special edition 2011
E learning papers   special edition 2011E learning papers   special edition 2011
E learning papers special edition 2011eLearning Papers
 
2016-11-16 OER for Quality Inclusive Education - EBE-EUSMOSI Event Zagreb by ...
2016-11-16 OER for Quality Inclusive Education - EBE-EUSMOSI Event Zagreb by ...2016-11-16 OER for Quality Inclusive Education - EBE-EUSMOSI Event Zagreb by ...
2016-11-16 OER for Quality Inclusive Education - EBE-EUSMOSI Event Zagreb by ...Christian M. Stracke
 
Europe presentation
Europe presentationEurope presentation
Europe presentationluguardia
 
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 2 February 2021
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 2 February 2021IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 2 February 2021
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 2 February 2021ijlterorg
 
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 8 August 2021
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 8 August 2021IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 8 August 2021
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 8 August 2021ijlterorg
 
Quaity of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
Quaity of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"Quaity of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
Quaity of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
 
Opening Learning Horizons: eLearning Papers Special Edition 2012
Opening Learning Horizons: eLearning Papers Special Edition 2012 Opening Learning Horizons: eLearning Papers Special Edition 2012
Opening Learning Horizons: eLearning Papers Special Edition 2012 eLearning Papers
 
Quality of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
Quality of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"Quality of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
Quality of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
 
European team presentation_1
European team presentation_1European team presentation_1
European team presentation_1luguardia
 
CfP Bremen-2010-12-07
CfP Bremen-2010-12-07CfP Bremen-2010-12-07
CfP Bremen-2010-12-07Klaus Rummler
 
2017-04-27 IEEE EDUCON Open Education Learning Quality Stracke
2017-04-27 IEEE EDUCON Open Education Learning Quality Stracke2017-04-27 IEEE EDUCON Open Education Learning Quality Stracke
2017-04-27 IEEE EDUCON Open Education Learning Quality StrackeChristian M. Stracke
 
Opal case study 46 educa next austria
Opal case study 46 educa next austriaOpal case study 46 educa next austria
Opal case study 46 educa next austriaOPAL2010
 
Open Educational Resources for Global Collaboration: Introduction, Guideline...
Open Educational Resources for Global Collaboration: Introduction, Guideline...Open Educational Resources for Global Collaboration: Introduction, Guideline...
Open Educational Resources for Global Collaboration: Introduction, Guideline...Jan Pawlowski
 
Open research open education stracke with results christian m stracke ignasi ...
Open research open education stracke with results christian m stracke ignasi ...Open research open education stracke with results christian m stracke ignasi ...
Open research open education stracke with results christian m stracke ignasi ...EIFLINQ2014
 
Report ICDE : Quality models in online and open education around the globe: S...
Report ICDE : Quality models in online and open education around the globe: S...Report ICDE : Quality models in online and open education around the globe: S...
Report ICDE : Quality models in online and open education around the globe: S...eraser Juan José Calderón
 

Similaire à eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010 (20)

Thoughts on Future University in 2030
Thoughts on Future University in 2030Thoughts on Future University in 2030
Thoughts on Future University in 2030
 
E learning papers special edition 2011
E learning papers   special edition 2011E learning papers   special edition 2011
E learning papers special edition 2011
 
Social Media Learning
Social Media LearningSocial Media Learning
Social Media Learning
 
2016-11-16 OER for Quality Inclusive Education - EBE-EUSMOSI Event Zagreb by ...
2016-11-16 OER for Quality Inclusive Education - EBE-EUSMOSI Event Zagreb by ...2016-11-16 OER for Quality Inclusive Education - EBE-EUSMOSI Event Zagreb by ...
2016-11-16 OER for Quality Inclusive Education - EBE-EUSMOSI Event Zagreb by ...
 
CALICO 2015 ODOWD
CALICO 2015 ODOWDCALICO 2015 ODOWD
CALICO 2015 ODOWD
 
Europe presentation
Europe presentationEurope presentation
Europe presentation
 
Europe presentation
Europe presentationEurope presentation
Europe presentation
 
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 2 February 2021
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 2 February 2021IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 2 February 2021
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 2 February 2021
 
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 8 August 2021
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 8 August 2021IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 8 August 2021
IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 8 August 2021
 
Future of e-Learning
Future of e-LearningFuture of e-Learning
Future of e-Learning
 
Quaity of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
Quaity of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"Quaity of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
Quaity of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
 
Opening Learning Horizons: eLearning Papers Special Edition 2012
Opening Learning Horizons: eLearning Papers Special Edition 2012 Opening Learning Horizons: eLearning Papers Special Edition 2012
Opening Learning Horizons: eLearning Papers Special Edition 2012
 
Quality of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
Quality of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"Quality of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
Quality of MOOCs - Results of "The MOOC Quality Project"
 
European team presentation_1
European team presentation_1European team presentation_1
European team presentation_1
 
CfP Bremen-2010-12-07
CfP Bremen-2010-12-07CfP Bremen-2010-12-07
CfP Bremen-2010-12-07
 
2017-04-27 IEEE EDUCON Open Education Learning Quality Stracke
2017-04-27 IEEE EDUCON Open Education Learning Quality Stracke2017-04-27 IEEE EDUCON Open Education Learning Quality Stracke
2017-04-27 IEEE EDUCON Open Education Learning Quality Stracke
 
Opal case study 46 educa next austria
Opal case study 46 educa next austriaOpal case study 46 educa next austria
Opal case study 46 educa next austria
 
Open Educational Resources for Global Collaboration: Introduction, Guideline...
Open Educational Resources for Global Collaboration: Introduction, Guideline...Open Educational Resources for Global Collaboration: Introduction, Guideline...
Open Educational Resources for Global Collaboration: Introduction, Guideline...
 
Open research open education stracke with results christian m stracke ignasi ...
Open research open education stracke with results christian m stracke ignasi ...Open research open education stracke with results christian m stracke ignasi ...
Open research open education stracke with results christian m stracke ignasi ...
 
Report ICDE : Quality models in online and open education around the globe: S...
Report ICDE : Quality models in online and open education around the globe: S...Report ICDE : Quality models in online and open education around the globe: S...
Report ICDE : Quality models in online and open education around the globe: S...
 

Plus de eLearning Papers

OER in the Mobile Era: Content Repositories’ Features for Mobile Devices and ...
OER in the Mobile Era: Content Repositories’ Features for Mobile Devices and ...OER in the Mobile Era: Content Repositories’ Features for Mobile Devices and ...
OER in the Mobile Era: Content Repositories’ Features for Mobile Devices and ...eLearning Papers
 
Designing and Developing Mobile Learning Applications in International Studen...
Designing and Developing Mobile Learning Applications in International Studen...Designing and Developing Mobile Learning Applications in International Studen...
Designing and Developing Mobile Learning Applications in International Studen...eLearning Papers
 
From E-learning to M-learning
From E-learning to M-learningFrom E-learning to M-learning
From E-learning to M-learningeLearning Papers
 
Standing at the Crossroads: Mobile Learning and Cloud Computing at Estonian S...
Standing at the Crossroads: Mobile Learning and Cloud Computing at Estonian S...Standing at the Crossroads: Mobile Learning and Cloud Computing at Estonian S...
Standing at the Crossroads: Mobile Learning and Cloud Computing at Estonian S...eLearning Papers
 
M-portfolios: Using Mobile Technology to Document Learning in Student Teacher...
M-portfolios: Using Mobile Technology to Document Learning in Student Teacher...M-portfolios: Using Mobile Technology to Document Learning in Student Teacher...
M-portfolios: Using Mobile Technology to Document Learning in Student Teacher...eLearning Papers
 
GGULIVRR: Touching Mobile and Contextual Learning
GGULIVRR: Touching Mobile and Contextual LearningGGULIVRR: Touching Mobile and Contextual Learning
GGULIVRR: Touching Mobile and Contextual LearningeLearning Papers
 
Reaching Out with OER: The New Role of Public-Facing Open Scholar
Reaching Out with OER: The New Role of Public-Facing Open ScholarReaching Out with OER: The New Role of Public-Facing Open Scholar
Reaching Out with OER: The New Role of Public-Facing Open ScholareLearning Papers
 
Managing Training Concepts in Multicultural Business Environments
Managing Training Concepts in Multicultural Business EnvironmentsManaging Training Concepts in Multicultural Business Environments
Managing Training Concepts in Multicultural Business EnvironmentseLearning Papers
 
Reflective Learning at Work – MIRROR Model, Apps and Serious Games
Reflective Learning at Work – MIRROR Model, Apps and Serious GamesReflective Learning at Work – MIRROR Model, Apps and Serious Games
Reflective Learning at Work – MIRROR Model, Apps and Serious GameseLearning Papers
 
SKILL2E: Online Reflection for Intercultural Competence Gain
SKILL2E: Online Reflection for Intercultural Competence GainSKILL2E: Online Reflection for Intercultural Competence Gain
SKILL2E: Online Reflection for Intercultural Competence GaineLearning Papers
 
Experience Networking in the TVET System to Improve Occupational Competencies
Experience Networking in the TVET System to Improve Occupational CompetenciesExperience Networking in the TVET System to Improve Occupational Competencies
Experience Networking in the TVET System to Improve Occupational CompetencieseLearning Papers
 
Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case Study
Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case StudyLeveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case Study
Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case StudyeLearning Papers
 
Innovating Teaching and Learning Practices: Key Elements for Developing Crea...
Innovating Teaching and Learning Practices:  Key Elements for Developing Crea...Innovating Teaching and Learning Practices:  Key Elements for Developing Crea...
Innovating Teaching and Learning Practices: Key Elements for Developing Crea...eLearning Papers
 
Website – A Partnership between Parents, Students and Schools
Website – A Partnership between Parents, Students and SchoolsWebsite – A Partnership between Parents, Students and Schools
Website – A Partnership between Parents, Students and SchoolseLearning Papers
 
Academic Staff Development in the Area of Technology Enhanced Learning in UK ...
Academic Staff Development in the Area of Technology Enhanced Learning in UK ...Academic Staff Development in the Area of Technology Enhanced Learning in UK ...
Academic Staff Development in the Area of Technology Enhanced Learning in UK ...eLearning Papers
 
The Ageing Brain: Neuroplasticity and Lifelong Learning
The Ageing Brain: Neuroplasticity and Lifelong LearningThe Ageing Brain: Neuroplasticity and Lifelong Learning
The Ageing Brain: Neuroplasticity and Lifelong LearningeLearning Papers
 
Checklist for a Didactically Sound Design of eLearning Content
Checklist for a Didactically Sound Design of eLearning ContentChecklist for a Didactically Sound Design of eLearning Content
Checklist for a Didactically Sound Design of eLearning ContenteLearning Papers
 
The International Student and the Challenges of Lifelong Learning
The International Student and the Challenges of Lifelong LearningThe International Student and the Challenges of Lifelong Learning
The International Student and the Challenges of Lifelong LearningeLearning Papers
 
Fostering Older People’s Digital Inclusion to Promote Active Ageing
Fostering Older People’s Digital Inclusion to Promote Active AgeingFostering Older People’s Digital Inclusion to Promote Active Ageing
Fostering Older People’s Digital Inclusion to Promote Active AgeingeLearning Papers
 
eLearning and Social Networking in Mentoring Processes to Support Active Ageing
eLearning and Social Networking in Mentoring Processes to Support Active AgeingeLearning and Social Networking in Mentoring Processes to Support Active Ageing
eLearning and Social Networking in Mentoring Processes to Support Active AgeingeLearning Papers
 

Plus de eLearning Papers (20)

OER in the Mobile Era: Content Repositories’ Features for Mobile Devices and ...
OER in the Mobile Era: Content Repositories’ Features for Mobile Devices and ...OER in the Mobile Era: Content Repositories’ Features for Mobile Devices and ...
OER in the Mobile Era: Content Repositories’ Features for Mobile Devices and ...
 
Designing and Developing Mobile Learning Applications in International Studen...
Designing and Developing Mobile Learning Applications in International Studen...Designing and Developing Mobile Learning Applications in International Studen...
Designing and Developing Mobile Learning Applications in International Studen...
 
From E-learning to M-learning
From E-learning to M-learningFrom E-learning to M-learning
From E-learning to M-learning
 
Standing at the Crossroads: Mobile Learning and Cloud Computing at Estonian S...
Standing at the Crossroads: Mobile Learning and Cloud Computing at Estonian S...Standing at the Crossroads: Mobile Learning and Cloud Computing at Estonian S...
Standing at the Crossroads: Mobile Learning and Cloud Computing at Estonian S...
 
M-portfolios: Using Mobile Technology to Document Learning in Student Teacher...
M-portfolios: Using Mobile Technology to Document Learning in Student Teacher...M-portfolios: Using Mobile Technology to Document Learning in Student Teacher...
M-portfolios: Using Mobile Technology to Document Learning in Student Teacher...
 
GGULIVRR: Touching Mobile and Contextual Learning
GGULIVRR: Touching Mobile and Contextual LearningGGULIVRR: Touching Mobile and Contextual Learning
GGULIVRR: Touching Mobile and Contextual Learning
 
Reaching Out with OER: The New Role of Public-Facing Open Scholar
Reaching Out with OER: The New Role of Public-Facing Open ScholarReaching Out with OER: The New Role of Public-Facing Open Scholar
Reaching Out with OER: The New Role of Public-Facing Open Scholar
 
Managing Training Concepts in Multicultural Business Environments
Managing Training Concepts in Multicultural Business EnvironmentsManaging Training Concepts in Multicultural Business Environments
Managing Training Concepts in Multicultural Business Environments
 
Reflective Learning at Work – MIRROR Model, Apps and Serious Games
Reflective Learning at Work – MIRROR Model, Apps and Serious GamesReflective Learning at Work – MIRROR Model, Apps and Serious Games
Reflective Learning at Work – MIRROR Model, Apps and Serious Games
 
SKILL2E: Online Reflection for Intercultural Competence Gain
SKILL2E: Online Reflection for Intercultural Competence GainSKILL2E: Online Reflection for Intercultural Competence Gain
SKILL2E: Online Reflection for Intercultural Competence Gain
 
Experience Networking in the TVET System to Improve Occupational Competencies
Experience Networking in the TVET System to Improve Occupational CompetenciesExperience Networking in the TVET System to Improve Occupational Competencies
Experience Networking in the TVET System to Improve Occupational Competencies
 
Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case Study
Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case StudyLeveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case Study
Leveraging Trust to Support Online Learning Creativity – A Case Study
 
Innovating Teaching and Learning Practices: Key Elements for Developing Crea...
Innovating Teaching and Learning Practices:  Key Elements for Developing Crea...Innovating Teaching and Learning Practices:  Key Elements for Developing Crea...
Innovating Teaching and Learning Practices: Key Elements for Developing Crea...
 
Website – A Partnership between Parents, Students and Schools
Website – A Partnership between Parents, Students and SchoolsWebsite – A Partnership between Parents, Students and Schools
Website – A Partnership between Parents, Students and Schools
 
Academic Staff Development in the Area of Technology Enhanced Learning in UK ...
Academic Staff Development in the Area of Technology Enhanced Learning in UK ...Academic Staff Development in the Area of Technology Enhanced Learning in UK ...
Academic Staff Development in the Area of Technology Enhanced Learning in UK ...
 
The Ageing Brain: Neuroplasticity and Lifelong Learning
The Ageing Brain: Neuroplasticity and Lifelong LearningThe Ageing Brain: Neuroplasticity and Lifelong Learning
The Ageing Brain: Neuroplasticity and Lifelong Learning
 
Checklist for a Didactically Sound Design of eLearning Content
Checklist for a Didactically Sound Design of eLearning ContentChecklist for a Didactically Sound Design of eLearning Content
Checklist for a Didactically Sound Design of eLearning Content
 
The International Student and the Challenges of Lifelong Learning
The International Student and the Challenges of Lifelong LearningThe International Student and the Challenges of Lifelong Learning
The International Student and the Challenges of Lifelong Learning
 
Fostering Older People’s Digital Inclusion to Promote Active Ageing
Fostering Older People’s Digital Inclusion to Promote Active AgeingFostering Older People’s Digital Inclusion to Promote Active Ageing
Fostering Older People’s Digital Inclusion to Promote Active Ageing
 
eLearning and Social Networking in Mentoring Processes to Support Active Ageing
eLearning and Social Networking in Mentoring Processes to Support Active AgeingeLearning and Social Networking in Mentoring Processes to Support Active Ageing
eLearning and Social Networking in Mentoring Processes to Support Active Ageing
 

Dernier

How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17Celine George
 
Practical Research 1: Lesson 8 Writing the Thesis Statement.pptx
Practical Research 1: Lesson 8 Writing the Thesis Statement.pptxPractical Research 1: Lesson 8 Writing the Thesis Statement.pptx
Practical Research 1: Lesson 8 Writing the Thesis Statement.pptxKatherine Villaluna
 
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a ParagraphPresentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a ParagraphNetziValdelomar1
 
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptxCapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptxCapitolTechU
 
General views of Histopathology and step
General views of Histopathology and stepGeneral views of Histopathology and step
General views of Histopathology and stepobaje godwin sunday
 
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptxUltra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptxDr. Asif Anas
 
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17Celine George
 
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptxClinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptxraviapr7
 
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptxSandy Millin
 
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...CaraSkikne1
 
Philosophy of Education and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education  and Educational PhilosophyPhilosophy of Education  and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education and Educational PhilosophyShuvankar Madhu
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxAditiChauhan701637
 
How to Manage Cross-Selling in Odoo 17 Sales
How to Manage Cross-Selling in Odoo 17 SalesHow to Manage Cross-Selling in Odoo 17 Sales
How to Manage Cross-Selling in Odoo 17 SalesCeline George
 
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptxPractical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptxKatherine Villaluna
 
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptxCAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptxSaurabhParmar42
 
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptxPatterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptxMYDA ANGELICA SUAN
 
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICEQuality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICESayali Powar
 

Dernier (20)

Finals of Kant get Marx 2.0 : a general politics quiz
Finals of Kant get Marx 2.0 : a general politics quizFinals of Kant get Marx 2.0 : a general politics quiz
Finals of Kant get Marx 2.0 : a general politics quiz
 
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
 
Practical Research 1: Lesson 8 Writing the Thesis Statement.pptx
Practical Research 1: Lesson 8 Writing the Thesis Statement.pptxPractical Research 1: Lesson 8 Writing the Thesis Statement.pptx
Practical Research 1: Lesson 8 Writing the Thesis Statement.pptx
 
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a ParagraphPresentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
 
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptxCapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
 
General views of Histopathology and step
General views of Histopathology and stepGeneral views of Histopathology and step
General views of Histopathology and step
 
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptxUltra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
 
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
 
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptxClinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
 
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
 
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
 
Philosophy of Education and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education  and Educational PhilosophyPhilosophy of Education  and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education and Educational Philosophy
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
 
Personal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdf
Personal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdfPersonal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdf
Personal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdf
 
Prelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quiz
Prelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quizPrelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quiz
Prelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quiz
 
How to Manage Cross-Selling in Odoo 17 Sales
How to Manage Cross-Selling in Odoo 17 SalesHow to Manage Cross-Selling in Odoo 17 Sales
How to Manage Cross-Selling in Odoo 17 Sales
 
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptxPractical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
 
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptxCAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
 
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptxPatterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
 
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICEQuality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
 

eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010

  • 1. eLearning Paperswww.elearningpapers.eu 2010 Special edition Breaking down the silos Transforming education through innovation and technology Imagining future Learning: Mapping major changes to education and training in 2025 The evolution of knowledge economies and innovation societies through learning A new web 2.0 learning environment: Concept, implementation, evaluation Networked Learning: A response to new challenges?
  • 2. Special edition eLearning Papers www.elearningpapers.eu eLearning Papers eLearning Papers is a digital publication created as part of the elearningeuropa.info portal. The portal is an initiative of the European Commission to promote the use of multimedia technologies and Internet at the service of education and training. The articles provide views regarding the current situation and e-learning trends in different contexts: schools, universities, companies, civil society and institutions. As such, the journal adds a new dimension to the exchange of information on e-learning in Europe and stimulates research. eLearning Papers provides authors with an opportunity to have their texts published throughout Europe. Through these articles, the journal promotes the use of ICT for lifelong learning in Europe. eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010 edited by: ISBN: 84-8294-664-1 Muntaner 262, 3º, 08021 Barcelona (Spain) www.paueducation.com Design: Mar Nieto Phone: +34 933 670 406 editorial@elearningeuropa.info www.elearningpapers.eu Mission Statement eLearning Papers aims to make innovative ideas and practices in the field of learning more visible by highlighting different perspectives involving the use of technology. Legal notice and copyright By elearningeuropa.info and eLearning Papers. The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in the present publication.The European Commission is not responsible for the external web sites referred to in the present publication. The texts published in this journal,unless otherwise indicated,are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 3.0 Unported licence.They may be copied,distributed and broadcast provided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them,eLearning Papers,are cited.Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted.The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
  • 3. Contents Special edition 2010 eLearning Papers www.elearningpapers.eu Breaking down the silos Transforming education through innovation and technology Editorial Board ........................................................................................................4 Guidelines for submissions ................................................................................................. 5 Editorial ...................................................................................................................6 In-depth ...................................................................................................................8 Imagining future Learning: Mapping major changes to education and training in 2025.............................................................................................................. 9 The evolution of knowledge economies and innovation societies through learning ................................................................................................. 24 A new web 2.0 learning environment: Concept, implementation, evaluation .............. 33 Networked Learning: A response to new challenges?..................................................... 45 From the field........................................................................................................56 Playing with Science. Hands-on and High-Tech Learning in a Portuguese Kindergarten ............................................................................................ 57 Defining Quality. Hellenic Evaluation tool for School Internet Sites.............................. 59 Understanding the stakeholders. A key to the successful implementation of adult learning projects....................................................................... 61 Interview ...............................................................................................................65 The Editor’s Selection ..........................................................................................70
  • 4. 4eLearningPapers Editorial Board Peer-reviewers Secretariat Tapio Koskinen, www.elearningpapers.eu, Director of the Editorial Board, Head of RD, Lifelong Learning, Institute Dipoli, Aalto University, Finland Maruja Gutierrez-Diaz, European Commission, Advisor to the Director, Education and Culture, Belgium Pierre-Antoine Ullmo, Director of P.A.U. Education Antonio Bartolomé, Audiovisual Communication Professor, University of Barcelona, Spain Claire Bélisle, CNRS Research Engineer, France Jean Underwood, Professor of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, UK Alfredo Soeiro, University of Porto, Portugal Ana Landeta, Madrid open University, Spain Anabela Mesquita, School of Accountancy and Administration of Porto, Portugal AvgoustosTsinakos, University of Kavala Institute ofTechnology, Greece Axel Schwarz, Saxon Ministry of Social Affairs - Dresden, Germany Barbara Jones, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research PREST, UK Bulent Cavas, International organization for Science and Technology Education,Turkey Carlos Morales, Lock Haven University, US Cengiz Hakan Aydin, open Education Faculty, Anadolu University, Turkey Christopher Douce, Institute of EducationalTechnolgy, open University, UK Claudia Panico, UniversitàTelematica “Leonardo da Vinci” TorrevecchiaTeatina, Italy Eduardo de Gregorio-Godeo, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain Emmanuel Bellengier, UI Learning, France Evangelos Marinos, University of Athens - Medical School, Greece Giovanni Vincenti, Gruppo Vincenti, Italy Giuliano Vivanet, University of Genoa, Italy Guillaume Durin, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France Guzman Mancho, University of Lleida, Spain Karl Wilbers, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany Kay Mac Keogh, Dublin City University, Ireland Lucilla Costra, Associazione Kelidon, Italy Manfred Sargl, Universität der Bundeswehr, München and the University of Applied Sciences, Germany Margari León, i2basque, Spain Monia Sannia, University ofYork, UK Nuno Garcia, Magazines, International Conferences and Scientific websites, Portugal Pedro Maya Álvarez, Divulgación Dinámica S.L., Spain Santiago Palacios Navarro, UPV / EHU, Spain Paula Peres, Higher Institute of Accounting and Administration of Porto, ISCAP, Portugal 
 Jos Beishuizen, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Matty Smith, Programme Director, European Learning Industry Group (ELIG), UK Nicolas Balacheff, Kaleidoscope Scientific Manager; Senior Scientist at CNRS (National Scientific Research Center), France LluísTarín, www.elearningpapers.eu, Member of the Editorial Board, Spain Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, Director of the European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning; University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany Wojciech Zielinski, Chairman of the Board of MakoLab Ltd; Member of the Board of Association of Academic E-learning, Poland Jimena Márquez, P.A.U. Education
  • 5. 5eLearningPapers Guidelines for submissions − Language: Both articles and summaries must be in English. Authors are responsible for ensuring the correct use of English in their texts, and translations should be revised before submission. Please note that the journal gives strong preference to articles that are correctly translated in a legible manner. − Title: Must effectively and creatively communicate the content of the article and may include a subtitle. − Summary:This is not an executive summary but rather should communicate the key points and conclusions of the article to a large audience. It should be written in an attractive and accessible manner. In-Depth summaries should not exceed 200 words. From the field summaries should not exceed 50 words. − Key words:Authors should include up to 5 relevant key words. − Conclusions: Special importance is given to the representation of the conclusions.Articles must go beyond telling about a research process and its methodology and provide an analysis of the findings. Conclusions should be clearly stated both in the summary and at the end of the article. − Images: Please send high-resolution JPEG files of all images you wish to include in the article. Please include captions for each image and indicate where they should be placed in the text. − References: References must be accurately cited following international standards, please consult the online guidelines for more details: www.elearningpapers. eu/index.php?page=collab_guide − Author profile:Author name, institution, position and email address must accompany each submission. For multiple authors, please specify the relationship of authors (ie, if a work is co-authored, if there is a principal author, etc.) Authors are encouraged to consult the website for the most recent call for papers: www.elearningpapers.eu In-Depth articles are full-length texts that discuss current findings from research or long-term studies.They should have the following characteristics: − Academic focus:Articles must be original, scientifically accurate and informative, reporting on new developments and recently concluded projects. − In good form editorially: Successful articles are clear and precise.They should develop their argument coherently and present a unity of thought. − Length:Articles should range from 4,000 to 6,000 words. In-depth From the field articles are synopses of current practices or studies taking place within Europe or beyond.They should have the following characteristics: − Brief communications:These articles should summarise experiencies and practices in education, innovation and technology with a focus on the applied methodologies and impact evaluation. − In good form editorially: Successful articles are clear and precise, they should concisely communicate the key points of the practice being discussed. − Length: Should not exceed 1,200 words. From the field All article submissions should be in DOC format and must include the following:
  • 6. Special edition eLearning Paperswww.elearningpapers.eu eLearning Papers is inspired by the creative role ICTs have in transforming education. After four years and 21 published issues, our journal has become a space for debate and plurality and we look forward to critically accompanying future developments in the field of learning and ICTs. We have had the opportunity to meet with European researchers and practitioners and develop a fruitful dialogue with them.This has led to a new format and orientation of eLearning Papers, which are the result of a deep process of reflection. Every issue explores a specific theme within the field of learning innovation and new technologies and now the journal is organized to present a rigorous yet accessible portrait of each chosen topic. With these improvements eLearning Papers will continue to serve as a meeting place for formal, informal and non-formal learning practitioners who wish to communicate the results of their academic work and practices to a diverse and relevant European audience. For this inaugural issue, eLearning Papers focuses on innovation, networks and collaboration.We understand technology as a means to share, build, inspire and transform learning practices in our knowledge society, through continuous innovation. Transforming education.... Editorial
  • 7. shift that transforms communication, knowledge and learning. By detailing promising advances and, in other instances, critically analysing progress in certain areas, the research presented here looks at our capacity to learn in different circumstances and elucidates the challenges and potential of ICT for improving our ability to develop as lifelong learners. Today, to be successful, students and professionals need to continually enhance their knowledge and skills in order to address immediate problems, making them participants in a process of continuing vocational and professional development.This issue addresses this reality by looking at new learning strategies and technologies. The section In-Depth presents full- length articles that discuss current findings from research or long-term studies.The articles provide four comprehensive views of innovation in learning. Imagining Future Learning by Slavi Stoyanov, Bert Hoogveld and Paul Krischener, and edited by Christine Redecker andYves Punie, summarises the initial results from a study that maps major changes to education and training expected to occur by 2020-2030. Authors Markku Markkula and Matti Sinko share their analysis of the pivotal and dynamic role learning has in shaping and fuelling true knowledge economies and innovation societies. Ingo Blees and Marc Rittberger present and discuss a new learning environment model based on web 2.0 applications. Finally,Anne Steinert and Ulf-Daniel Ehlers ask:Are today’s new social challenges stimulating a demand for a new form of learning? They explore whether or not existing theories are still applicable to today’s learning realities. In From the field, readers will encounter synopses of a selection of current practices or studies taking place within Europe or beyond.This issue’s From the field includes Paula Carqueja’s results from her study that compared technological and hands-on methods for teaching science in Kindergarten in Portugal. From the University of the Aegean, Dr.Alivizos Sofos and Aikaterini Alexopoulou Alexopoulou relate the RD process for the creation of a new tool to evaluate quality in school web sites. Finally, the consortium from the Quality Assurance Network for Adult Learning Centres project (Ari-Matti Avunen, et al) reports on an approach for evaluating formal and informal learning in adult learning centres using stakeholder analysis (SHA). Each eLearning Papers will also present an interview that will provide readers with insightful, original commentary from leading members of the field. This issue’s interview with Christine Redecker and Paul A. Kirschner, consortium members in the project “The Future of Learning: New Ways to Learn New Skills for Future Jobs” and an editor and author, respectively, of the report Mapping Major Changes to Education andTraining in 2025, reveals the latest news in their ongoing research of upcoming learning trends. Our Editor’s Selection serves as a brief snapshot of the latest trends in education, innovation and technology by providing reviews of books, blogs, websites and commentary on recent news. We would like to extend special thanks to all of our contributors whose work represents the research practices and themes our journal is interested in fostering and thank our readers for their continued enthusiasm and collaboration. We look forward to hearing from you! LluísTarin Member of the Editorial Board www.elearningpapers.eu Tapio Koskinen Director of the Editorial Board, eLearning Papers With a growing amount of technology available, coupled with an increasingly diverse range of learning settings, new roles for both educators and learners are emerging.Teachers serve as guides who help define suitable paths and strategies for learning, leading pupils in a quest for locating information, questioning it, understanding it and applying it. Additionally, they are expected to be able to create their own course materials online, and master new skills related to online teaching and learning support. Appropriating the educational environment and curriculum in this manner invites students to begin learning to learn.This implies changes in teacher and student relationships, as well as in the organisation and management of learning and teaching processes. Here we discuss the basic idea of learning innovation, which is transforming our schools, institutions and learning centres; institutions centred principally in teaching are now becoming community-centred sites where everybody learns and collaborates in order to develop competences. This development points to a cultural
  • 8. In-depthFostering analysis and discussion on Learning trends in Europe Imagining future Learning: Mapping major changes to education and training in 2025 The evolution of knowledge economies and innovation societies through learning A new web 2.0 learning environment: Concept, implementation, evaluation Networked Learning: A response to new challenges? eLearningenvironment: Concept, eLearningenvironment: Concept, implementation, evaluation eLearningimplementation, evaluation eLearningNetworked Learning: A response to eLearningNetworked Learning: A response to new challenges? eLearningnew challenges? PaperseLearning PaperseLearning eLearning www.elearningpapers.eu eLearning Paperswww.elearningpapers.eu PaperseLearning PaperseLearning www.elearningpapers.eu eLearning PaperseLearning 2010
  • 9. In-depth 9eLearningPapers Imagining future Learning: Mapping major changes to education and training in 2025 Keywords learner-centred approaches, cluster ratings, Group Concept Mapping To determine how education and training policy can adequately prepare learners for life in tomorrow’s society, we must envisage what competences will be relevant and how they may be acquired from 2020-2030.This report presents the findings of a structured and targeted expert consultation exercise, which aimed to identify, cluster and rate the main changes in education and training expected to occur over the next 20 years.The exercise employed group concept mapping methodology to generate, sort and rate more than 200 statements by a group of 13 experts.The objective of this study is to contribute to the development of imaginative visions and scenarios regarding the future of learning in order to support priority-setting for education, training and competency policies. The emerging map of future changes to education and training was divided into a set of 12 thematic clusters, ranging from technological changes to shifting pedagogical concepts. Anticipated changes that rated particularly high in importance include learner-centred,flexibleandpersonalised approachestolearning;theintegrationoflearninginto lifeandwork;andthedevelopmentandimplementation ofinnovativepedagogicalconcepts.When comparing the cluster ratings on importance and feasibility, it becomes clear that, while experts are optimistic about the development of technology-enhanced learning opportunities, scepticism prevails concerning the feasibility of implementing learner- centred approaches in formal education and, in general, the ability of formal education systems and institutions to keep pace with change and become more flexible and dynamic. Authors Slavi Stoyanov, Bert Hoogveld and Paul Kirschner Editors Christine Redecker andYves Punie Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) Christine.REDECKER@ec.europa.eu Yves.PUNIE@ec.europa.eu This article presents the results from a Group Concept Mapping (GCM) study conducted at the Open University of the Netherlands.Thirteen experts with backgrounds in technical or social sciences, mostly from academia and Europe, participated in the study. They were asked first to generate ideas individually about the future of education.The resulting ideas were sorted into groups according to similarity in meaning and rated on two scales: importance and feasibility. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were applied to depict emerging structure in the data. As acknowledged by the Europe 2020 strategy, a fundamental transformation in education and training will be necessary in order to adapt to the new skills and competences Europe will require to remain competitive, overcome the current economic crisis and grasp new opportunities.To determine how education and training policy can adequately prepare learners for life in tomorrow’s society, we must envisage what competences will be Summary g 0
  • 10. In-depth10eLearningPapers relevant and how they may be acquired from 2020-2030. This study was carried out within a larger research framework. It contributes to the Foresight on Learning, Innovation and Creativity (FORLIC) project entitled “The Future of Learning: new ways to learn new skills for future jobs”, launched in 2009 by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre) in collaboration with DG Education and Culture.This work continues and expands upon the work carried out from 2006-2008 on “Future Learning Spaces” (Punie et al., 2006, Punie Ala-Mutka, 2007, Miller et al., 2008), and relates to ongoing work involving different target groups ranging from policy-makers and scientists to educators and learners which will be completed during 2010 and 2011. The research process detected twelve thematic clusters.The participants in the focus group took part in an intensive process in which they were asked to gather, cluster and rate insights on major changes to education 20 years from now. For this study, 30 educational experts were invited to take part, 18 accepted the invitation and, finally, 13 participated in all three phases of the research process: idea generation, sorting and rating. The group of experts, with backgrounds in technical or social sciences, represented a balanced sample of educational expertise and professional orientation. Eleven experts came from European countries located in different geographical zones. Two experts represented institutions from the USA. Eleven experts were academics and two were from industry. The clusters indicate changes in the nature of education, highlighting technological and structural innovation, trends towards professionalisation and life-long learning, and the evolution of our own social understanding of the meaning of education and school. What follows is a brief characterisation of each cluster. For additional statistics and data regarding the make-up of each category, we encourage readers to visit project website (ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ publications/ pub.cfm?id=3419). New coordinates, new paths: the 12 clusters Technology in education: the title of this cluster strongly represents the content of the grouping. Statements in this cluster reflect a wide-held belief in the potential of technology to continue providing new tools and learning environments in schools. Representative statements from this cluster include: practice will be captured through mobile devices and integrated with cloud-based portfolios; services on the Internet will serve as a study environment; augmented reality applications will be a major tool for learning. Tools and services enhancing learning: includes references to the development of possible learning facilitators, in terms of tools, materials and services, and led to the following statements: the growing role of media for improving cognitive performance will support the learner with facts and simulation outcomes; drugs that enhance learning effectiveness will be widely (legally?) available and used; systems and services will be developed to allow mutual peer group learning among groups of interested learners. Open education and resources: gathers the possibilities surrounding open education, including its construction, as well as general access to free learning resources. Expert contributions garnered such statements as: open educational resources will become widely adopted; there will be Internet and access all around the globe, allowing learning to flow in all directions; text books will be replaced
  • 11. In-depth 11eLearningPapers The clusters indicate changes in the nature of education, highlighting technological and structural innovation, trends towards professionalisation and life-long learning, and the evolution of our own social understanding of the meaning of education and school. Figure 1. Cluster label map. 9 Life-long learning 6 Roles of institutions 8 Roles of teacher 7 Individual and profession driven education 10 Formal education goes informal 11 Individual and social nature of learning 5 Globalisation of education 4 Assessment, accreditation and qualifications 3 Open education and resources 1 Technology in education 2 Tools and services enhancing learning 12 Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods
  • 12. In-depth12eLearningPapers by electronic multimedia publications; lecture capture will be omnipresent. Assessment, accreditation and qualifications: this title is also highly representative of its content. Statements included: different types of certifications will emerge that are not related to formal learning institutions; ways will be found to align assessment with how people actually learn and to make it more meaningful; we will recognise people for what they do rather than what qualifications they have. Globalisation of education: encompasses trends related to the internationalisation of education in a broad sense, looking at education from a global rather than local perspective. Statements in this cluster included: all educational systems in Europe will be connected in a central system to identify the best students in order to support them regardless of their country of origin; in Europe (EU), many students will learn with and from each other through international collaboration; we will cease to rely on experts as the source of knowledge and curricula and will move towards quality, based on use and endorsement through Internet systems. Role of institutions: another cluster whose label strongly represents its content. Representative statements included: the main roles of educational institutions will be about providing learners with guidance on how to shape their personal learning trajectories, how to choose learning formats and resources needed, and how to assess their progress and outcomes; educational institutions will be reinvented as community knowledge centres serving both local communities and more widely dispersed learner groups; government-funded higher education will start to privatise. Individual and profession-driven education: speaks of individualisation, learner locus of control and professionalisation. Statements included: classmates will be matched on the basis of their knowledge, skills and preferred teaching and learning styles rather than their age; learners will choose their own learning paths; the responsibility for learning will be with an individual, not outsourced to an external institution. Role of teacher: statements included: the natural role of the teacher will be that of a mediator of learning; teachers will need to develop coaching/mentoring skills; teachers will be natural learners; the majority of teachers will work online from home, either freelance or for an online educational organisation. Life-long learning: led to the following statements: learning will be integrated and absorbed into everyday activities, and it will become common for people to move between occupations, with learning being key to supporting such moves; students will choose to learn with people from their own network; professional networks will be one of the main means of education; we will have to develop skills to pick up relevant learning resources from an overwhelming wealth and variety of material and build our own learning trajectories around them. Formal education goes informal: addresses, as the title suggests, the shift of focus to, and the increasing role of, informal learning.The following statements exemplify the experts’ response on the topic: education will leave the classroom;There will be a lowering of the school leaving age as it is recognised that other contexts for learning may be more effective and more motivating than school; secondary education will shift towards creative authenticity and social-mindedness. Individual and social nature of learning: refers to cognitive and social aspects of learning. It led to such statements as: different learning styles and adapted teaching methods for the same courses will be available for individual and social learning; the The very central position of the life-long learning cluster was an important result of the data sorting.
  • 13. In-depth 13eLearningPapers learner will invest more in the cerebral aspects of learning: strategic, problem- oriented, situational and creative; learners will teach each other in the process of learning. Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods: this cluster considers pedagogical methods and their theoretical and empirical foundations. Examples of statements include: social and cognitive processes and convergences will become part of the pedagogical methods; information will be manipulated [and] anchored in specific creativity techniques to facilitate synthesis and creativity; guided learning in a group will be complemented with learning in and from loosely knit networks; cross- curriculum (inter-disciplinary) project activities will dominate the course design; constructivism will still be there, but new paradigms will have arisen. As we know from experience and practice, the issues represented by these clusters relate closely to one another.These relationships are represented by the borders between clusters on the map (Figure 1). Data sorting clearly reveals that there were more technology-oriented clusters, such as technology in education or tools and services enhancing learning. Importantly, the map provides information about how clusters relate and intersect with these technological concerns. Open education and resources, for example, bridges the more technology-oriented clusters and the globalisation of education and assessment, accreditation and qualifications clusters.Technology facilitates the access of people to open education and resources. Open educational resources require adequate forms of assessment and accreditation on both national and international levels. In our initial reading of the map, we can see that there were four clusters that suggest a shift of responsibility for education from institutions to individuals: role of teachers, role of institutions, individual and profession- driven education and formal education goes informal. In addition, there were two clusters, individual and social nature of learning and epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods, which were learning-oriented. They included issues related to cognitive and social aspects of learning as a basis for the design of effective, efficient and appealing learning environments. The very central position of the life- long learning cluster was an important result of the data sorting.This cluster was a connection point for all the other clusters.This implies that life-long learning processes are closely linked to issues related to technology, learning and teaching, and change in the role of institutions, teachers and learners. Navigating between boundaries The statements on which the clusters were based were generated in response to a focus or trigger statement that was given to each participant.The focus statement was as follows: We all have the feeling that education in 20 years’ time will have to be different from education today. Education then will possibly deal with a new set of skills and competences, new curricula or types of curricula, innovative ways of learning and assessment, different roles for teachers and educational institutions, different impacts of technology, to mention just a few of the possible differences.We ask you to generate statements about your thoughts about education in 20 years, and to do this using the following format: One specific change in education in 20 years’ time will be that: … In addition to the focus statement, experts received suggestions to better
  • 14. In-depth14eLearningPapers illustrate the type of outcomes that were expected.These examples were: learning will not be restricted to traditional educational institutions; teachers will become mediators between students, knowledge and technology; learning will be much more driven by Internet-based social networking; life-long learning will be the norm; class size will not matter; and learning methods will take into account cognitive structures and processes. Each expert was prompted to think outside the box and not edit his/ her ideas for fear of writing down something ridiculous. Furthermore, participants were reminded that GCM brainstorming differs from classical brainstorming, in that it is not an “anything goes” moment but rather a targeted exercise of eliciting all possible ideas and issues in response to the context and the focus statement. Surprisingly, 203 unique ideas were generated, a quantity that exceeds the number of ideas produced in any other GCM study.This effect may be explained by the sample of experts, the instructions provided and the openness of the topic (the future of learning) in general. Practice suggests that if the number of resulting ideas exceeds 150, a pre-selection by a small group of analysts is needed to assist with the sorting and rating (Trochim, 2007). However, we decided not to carry out a pre-selection procedure. First, we believed that the participants in this study were experts in this domain, and we felt that it did not make much sense to invite experts and then do the job for them. Second, by avoiding pre- selection, we also hoped to minimise the effect of researcher bias on the validity of the study. Connecting the dots The GCM methodology is a process that applies a structured, participative approach to facilitate groups of experts in reaching a consensus about a particular issue, e.g. characteristics of learning in 2020 (Kane, 2008; Quinlan, Hall,Tuzzio, McLaughlin,Wagner, Brown, Yabroff, 2008; Stoyanov Kirschner, 2004;Trochim, 1989; Wopereis, Kirschner, Paas, Stoyanov Hendriks, 2005). GCM uses experts’ original intact respondent statements as units of analysis to help participants later sort and then quantitatively aggregate their contributions, so that structures in the data emerge.This research method, by its hybrid nature, can easily integrate any qualitative method for data collection and analysis, such as individual interviews, surveys, focus groups or the Delphi method. After the individual brainstorming procedure, the experts were asked to sort and rate a final list of all responses according to two idea-structuring activities, first based on meaning and then based on importance and feasibility.The instructions for sorting contained standard guidelines (Concept System, 2004).The participants’ initial action was to group all the statements by similarity in meaning, judging personal criteria and associations, thus creating their own cluster map. Having allocated each statement, the participants were then expected to pick any one group of statements and write a short phrase or title describing that group’s content. The data from the participants’ idea generation, sorting and rating was subsequently aggregated and analysed by the project consortium. Specifically, multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to depict the emerging structure of the data. Each statement was placed on a map in accordance with the experts’ sorting, reflecting the proximity or distance of each statement to the others. Based on the position of the statements and the clusters proposed by the experts, the statements were finally clustered into 12 groups, which were labelled using titles suggested by the experts (Figure 1). Input for the multidimensional scaling (MDS) generates a total
  • 15. In-depth 15eLearningPapers Surprisingly, 203 unique ideas were generated, a quantity that exceeds the number of ideas produced in any other GCM study. This effect may be explained by the sample of experts, the instructions provided and the openness of the topic. Figure 2.The Future of Education point map resulting from MDS analysis 3 42 65 16 13 82 87 4 14 28 30 10 80 49 180 108 193 133 148 116114 192 175 115 181 77 17 3851 66 166 119 156 110 131 158 191 189 112 151 123 79 200 142 29 201 25 78 52 33 194 22 70 137 96134 117 85 165 187 143 74 64 17 26 100 152 59 202 153 8 177 50 63 81 40 144 31 111 163 129 140 159 93 107 136 47 9 6 2 99 67 87 84 113 88 145 184 72 118 20 48 147 57 149 69 102 68 37 43 55 135 141 124 122 109 176 196 120 24 15 56 36 12 45 21 99 139 174 92 11127 184 161 188 162 146 145 172 125 58 60 94 53 32 101 183 121 107 190 182 128 178 185 35 167 90 157 138 75 198 170 38 73 150 83 130 166 132 203 98 34 105 1 126 27 154 168 62 103 195 164 76 61 179 173 44 18 41 98 23 54 957 5 171 186189 180 162 19
  • 16. In-depth16eLearningPapers square similarity matrix, based on the outcomes of the participants’ sorting. The methodology transforms the similarity matrix into a map depicted as a coordinated matrix. From the coordinates, MDS can compute the distances between all pairs of statements (points) and show this as a graph of distances between points. Figure 2 shows the results of the MDS analysis performed on the data collected, where each point represents one of the 203 statements generated.The closer the statements are to each other, the more people identified these statements as being related, pointing to similarities in their meaning. It should be noted that FORLIC is the first foresight study to employ GCM. Predicting the future of education with this method brings more complexity to the data and perhaps increases the variability in the way people group statements. However, one may question whether the point map actually represents the original similarity input matrix.The extent to which each of the distances between the statements on the map deviates from the values of the total similarity matrix, which is used as input to the map, is measured with the stress index (Kruskal Wish, 1978). In principle, the lower the value of the stress index, the better the overall fit between the map and the input matrix. A meta-analytical study across a broad range of concept mapping projects indicated that around 95% of concept mapping projects would produce a stress index value ranging between 0.205 and 0.365.The stress value of the FORLIC project GCM study is 0.355, falling within the expected range. The hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) applies Ward’s agglomerative algorithm and uses the values of the coordinates of the two-dimensional MDS to partition the statements on the map in areas that are contiguous but do not overlap (Trochim, 2007). Ward’s hierarchical cluster analysis uses the coordinate values of the MDS, rather than the similarity matrix, and it was chosen because it is more adept than other hierarchical cluster analyses at interpreting distance data.This is especially useful when deciding on the number of clusters. The procedure for determining the number of clusters in the FORLIC GCM applies the heuristic known as 20-to-5, which is based on the fact that most of the participants in GCM projects make between five and 20 clusters.We began with the 20-cluster solution, checking at each step whether the solution from the merging of clusters made sense, until we arrived at the five-cluster solution. We recorded all our judgements (“yes” or “no”) about the merging of clusters and, after finishing the procedure, we looked only at the few “yes” judgements for a deeper analysis of the cluster content. To come to a decision, we also looked at the bridging/anchoring values of the statement in a particular cluster. The bridging/anchoring statistics have a value between 0 and 1.A low bridging/anchoring value means that more people have grouped the statement together with others in its vicinity. Statements with a low bridging/anchoring value represent the meaning of a particular cluster’s content better than those with a higher value.This analysis determined that a 12-cluster solution fits the FORLIC data in the best possible way. Figure 3 presents this solution. In addition to determining the clusters, we tried to identify a label that would best reflect the content of each particular cluster.We applied two criteria: (a) statements with a low bridging/anchoring value represent the content of a cluster better than statements with a high bridging value;
  • 17. In-depth 17eLearningPapers Figure 3.The 12 cluster solution 3 42 65 16 13 82 87 4 14 28 30 10 80 49 180 108 193 133 148 116114 192 175 115 181 77 17 3851 66 166 119 156 110 131 158 191 189 112 151 123 79 200 142 29 201 25 78 52 33 194 22 70 137 96134 117 85 165 187 143 74 64 17 26 100 152 59 202 153 8 177 50 63 81 40 144 31 111 163 129 140 159 93 107 136 47 9 6 2 99 67 87 84 113 88 145 184 72 118 20 48 147 57 149 69 102 68 37 43 55 135 141 124 122 109 176 196 120 24 15 56 36 12 45 21 99 139 174 92 11127 184 161 188 162 146 145 172 125 58 60 94 53 32 101 183 121 107 190 182 128 178 185 35 167 90 157 138 75 198 170 38 73 150 83 130 166 132 203 98 34 105 1 126 27 154 168 62 103 195 164 76 61 179 173 44 18 41 98 23 54 957 5 171 186189 180 162 19
  • 18. In-depth18eLearningPapers Figures four and five represent the outcome of this rating process. In these diagrams, each cluster is shown to have between one and five layers, these layers represent the average score experts gave the cluster during the rating exercise. Figure 4. Cluster rating map on importance 9 Life-long learning 6 Roles of institutions 8 Roles of teacher 7 Individual and profession driven education 10 Formal education goes informal 11 Individual and social nature of learning 5 Globalisation of education 4 Assessment, accreditation and qualifications 3 Open education and resources 1 Technology in education 2 Tools and services enhancing learning 12 Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods
  • 19. In-depth 19eLearningPapers Figure 5. Cluster rating map on feasibility 9 Life-long learning 6 Roles of institutions 8 Roles of teacher 7 Individual and profession driven education 10 Formal education goes informal 11 Individual and social nature of learning 5 Globalisation of education 4 Assessment, accreditation and qualifications 3 Open education and resources 1 Technology in education 2 Tools and services enhancing learning 12 Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods
  • 20. In-depth20eLearningPapers and (b) the labels originally proposed by experts. Priorities and perspective Once clusters were determined, participants rated them according to which ideas about the future of education were deemed important and which were considered feasible to achieve in 20 years’ time. During this final stage, experts were asked to rate the statements on a scale of one to five, and it was made clear that the emphasis should be on relative rather than absolute rating.The instructions prompted the experts to use the full range of ratings values (i.e. one through to five) in order to avoid the participants considering all ideas equally important because they were generated by experts. Figures four and five represent the outcome of this rating process. In these diagrams, each cluster is shown to have between one and five layers, these layers represent the average score experts gave the cluster during the rating exercise. Specific numerical values for each layer are listed in the diagram Key. What emerged from this sorting was an overarching vision that the most important innovations will be the most difficult to achieve. Generally speaking, the learning-related clusters scored higher in importance than the technology-oriented clusters. The individual and social nature of learning and individual and profession driven education clusters got the highest score in importance (it is shown with 5 layers in the diagram, Figure 4).The life-long learning, epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods and formal education goes informal clusters all had only one layer less.The participants in the study deemed the technology in education and open education and resources clusters least important. One probable explanation for this result is that the participants viewed technology and open education as merely means for learning.Technology alone is neither the problem nor the solution for education and training, but a good understanding of the cognitive and social aspects of learning is a basis for designing effective learning environments and materials. The cluster map showing their feasibility (Figure 5), on the other hand, clearly shows that the technology- oriented clusters (technology in education, open education and resources and tools and services enhancing learning) were seen as easy to achieve. However, the more learning-oriented clusters, such as informal learning, self- directed learning, personalisation and professionalisation of education and training were seen as difficult to implement.The results from the feasibility ratings also seem to suggest that it is easier to understand learning than to use this knowledge to design learning environments (individual and social nature of learning had three layers; epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods had two). The ladder graph in Figure 6 provides a visual comparison of the clusters. One side shows how each cluster rated on importance, while the other represents a cluster’s perceived feasibility in terms of achievement in 20 years’ time. Interestingly, there was a very weak relationship between the two values, and the clusters deemed important were not deemed feasible. The open education and resources, technology in education, individual and social aspects of learning and formal education goes informal clusters had the largest margins in scores on the two scales.There were relatively small differences in the scores of clusters such as life-long learning, role of teacher, and assessment, accreditation and qualification. In terms of making this data useful in a real way, our assumption is that statements that score high in both The learning-related clusters scored higher in importance than the technology-oriented clusters.
  • 21. In-depth 21eLearningPapers importance and feasibility should be our starting point when planning the implementation of changes in education and training. Following this logic, a specific analysis comparing the statements on importance and feasibility within each cluster was developed and deemed the “go- zone”.A go-zone is a bivariate graph that maps the average ratings for the importance and feasibility of each statement per cluster.The graph is divided into quadrants based on the mean rating values of importance and feasibility.The upper right quadrant represents issues that are above average on both variables (very important and very feasible). Figure 7 is an example Formal education goes informal Formal education goes informal Open education and resources Tools and services enhancing learning Technology in education Life-long learning Assessment, accreditation and qualifications Individual and profession driven education Roles of teacher Roles of institutions Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods Globalisation of education Individual and social nature of learning Formal education goes informal Individual and social nature of learning Individual and profession driven education Formal education goes informal Life-long learning Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods Tools and services enhancing learning Assessment, accreditation and qualifications Globalisation of education Roles of institutions Roles of teacher Open education and resources Technology in education Importance Feasibility Figure 6.Thematic clusters and their importance and feasibility ratings on a scale from 1 (high) to 5 (low)
  • 22. In-depth22eLearningPapers of a go-zone comparing the statements in the life-long learning cluster on importance and feasibility. The statements in the upper-right quadrant are rated as both important and feasible. For this cluster, the statements in this quadrant are: open learning through the Internet will become common (176); the workplace will become a major context for learning (25); students will combine working and learning (194); university students will attend courses within their working schedule (55); we will have to develop skills for picking up relevant learning resources from what is abundantly available and build our own learning trajectories around them (29); the learning environment will change throughout one’s lifetime, from school to workplace and home (124);“life- long learning will be natural (120); and education and learning will go on throughout life, from the cradle to the grave, so to speak, from pre- school to old age (135). The clusters with the most visible orientation on the upper-right side of the go-zone graphics are individual and social nature of learning and individual and profession-driven education. In contrast, globalisation of education and role of teacher each have only one statement in the upper-right quadrant.The lowest correlation between importance and feasibility can be found in the assessment, accreditation and qualification (r = .07), life-long learning (r = .08), and role of teacher (r = -.09) clusters. Overall, statements located in the upper-right quadrants of the go-zones made up about 25% of the total ideas generated. Annex 4, available online, lists all the statements classified in this manner. Inspiring debate Group Concept Mapping within the FROLIC project proved to be an effective and efficient approach for generating an initial tentative landscape of future learning strategies and pathways.The data have outlined major changes to education and training expected in the next 10-20 years, indicating the relationships that different trends share with one another and revealing initial insight into the importance and feasibility of some of the more salient foreseen changes. Our experience has led us to conclude that employing the GCM method was not only appealing to participants, but also served as a valuable tool for data collection, aggregation and analysis. The maps that emerge from this analysis illustrate a vision of future changes ranging from technological developments to shifting pedagogical concepts. According to experts, anticipated changes that rate particularly high in importance include learner-centred, flexible and personalised approaches to learning; the integration of learning into life and work; and the development and implementation of innovative pedagogical concepts. When comparing ratings regarding the importance and feasibility of perceived changes, it becomes clear that, while experts are optimistic about the development of technology-enhanced learning opportunities, scepticism prevails concerning the implementation of learner-centred approaches in formal education and, in general, there is doubt about the ability of formal education systems and institutions to keep pace with change and become more flexible and dynamic. The results from this GCM study lay the empirical foundations for the Future of Learning project (is.jrc. ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/ForCiel. html), and they will be elaborated Figure 7. Life-long learning go-zone 70 52 196 31 78 22 46 109 79 33 r = .08 3.84 4.73 Importance Life-long learningFeasibility 2.27 2.18 3.67 4.82 122 124 176 25 120 29135 43 142 141 200 201 19455
  • 23. In-depth 23eLearningPapers Concept System 4 [Computer Software]. (2010). Concept System, Inc. Ithaca, N.Y. Kane, M. (2008). Engaging stakeholders to develop a research agenda for healthy aging. Concept System, Inc. Miller, R., H. Shapiro K. E. Hilding-Hamann (2008). School’s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: An Imagining Exercise on the Future of Learning. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 23532 EN. Seville: European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf Punie,Y., Cabrera, M., Bogdanowicz, M., Zinnbauer, D., Navajas, E. (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the Knowledge Society. Report on a Joint DG JRC/IPTS-DG EAC Workshop held in Seville, 20-21 October 2005. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 22218 EN. Seville: European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22218en.pdf Punie,Y. and Ala-Mutka, K. (2007) Future Learning Spaces: New Ways of Learning and New Digital Competences to Learn. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 210-225. Quinlan, K., Hall, K.,Tuzzio, L., McLaughlin, W., Wagner, E., Brown, M., Yabroff, R. (2008). Identifying Research Priorities for the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Research Network. Concept System, Inc. Stoyanov, S. Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive e-learning: ALFANET project case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 2, 41–56. Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning 12, 1–16. Wopereis, I., Kirschner, P. A., Paas, F., Stoyanov, S., Hendriks, M. (2005). Failure and success factors of educational ICT projects: a group concept mapping approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 681–684. References upon as the research progresses. Given the nature of the data collection and analysis, the emerging landscape provided by the data can only serve as a starting point for further discussion. The main value of the findings lies in their ability to inspire debate within the field and highlight themes and issues that could be of particular relevance and importance for stakeholders involved in shaping the future of learning.We therefore hope that the results are considered carefully when envisaging and addressing imminent learning needs and strategies. Read more www.elearningeuropa.info/2025
  • 24. In-depth24eLearningPapers The evolution of knowledge economies and innovation societies through learning Keywords innovation strategy, learning environment, knowledge society, systemic innovation This article describes and analyses the pivotal and dynamic role of learning in shaping and fuelling the metamorphosis of current post-industrial societies and economies into true knowledge economies and innovation societies.We start by contrasting two contemporary expert views in Europe on the role of learning in emerging innovation societies and then we reflect on these views.To gather momentum, we look back at a few classics of modern work-based learning theory to find arguments that will show us promising ways forward.We base our discussion on contemporary debates as well as on our vast experience in tackling the challenges of developing complex interfaces and joint learning environments between academia and the work place. Globalisation has made systems intelligence a key factor of success, and working life will experience a marked shift towards an emphasis on new, visionary knowledge creation. We attempt to address the full range of issues, from generic, global traits and trends to a specific training concept piloted by a university outreach programme. Our main concern is that the decisive importance of learning as the vehicle for pulling contemporary societies out of the current crisis has been identified but not yet fully recognised by policy-makers, whose mindsets are constrained by past policies and beliefs. We suggest that a departure from traditional thinking is necessary in order to equip emerging knowledge economies with the mastery of systemic innovation. Markku Markkula and Matti Sinko Aalto University markku.markkula@aalto.fi matti.sinko@tkk.fi Introduction The world is currently experiencing the most severe economic crisis since the depression of the 1930’s. At the same time, the disastrous impact of global warming on the economy is gathering momentum.These clouds on the horizon darken our future prospects.At the same time, these major challenges may prevent us from seeing other significant trends that are also having an impact on living conditions in post-modern societies and emerging knowledge economies. This article aims to address a number of such issues, particularly those related to learning, which have perhaps been temporarily overshadowed by the current economic turmoil.There are interesting and important technological, pedagogical and social innovations which should be elaborated in order to harness innovation systems and thereby foster creativity in tackling the challenges of reorganising our economies and social orders.The decision taken in Europe to dedicate this year to innovation and creativity may be timelier than one might think. Summary
  • 25. In-depth 25eLearningPapers We approach the topic first through an important recent European report published by IPTS1 .We then juxtapose this report against a recent national innovation strategy adopted in Europe. We have chosen for this the Finnish Government’s Communication to the Parliament on Finland’s National Innovation Strategy2 .We will reflect on these contributions and compare some selected features.The decision to focus on a national perspective might be criticised as anachronistic in our increasingly global economy, but it nevertheless allows us to draw a schematic presentation of the complexity of the dependencies that impact innovation processes.This approach will help demonstrate and test some of the important dimensions and assumptions about societal traits and dynamics laid out in the IPTS report.We have chosen Finland as a case study for obvious reasons: because we know it best, but also because Finland has been one of the quickest off the mark in the field of innovation policy development, and as one of the hot spots of the innovation world, it has something relevant to offer to a wider audience3 . Finally, we try to penetrate into the internal dynamics of learning systems and highlight some prominent elements, again using a Finnish case as an example. Characteristics and dynamics of an innovative knowledge society An interesting forecasting exercise for mapping the complex relationship between emerging innovation societies and learning systems has been undertaken recently by the Institute for ProspectiveTechnological Studies. Miller et al. (2008) applied a methodology which aimed to identify the characteristics of future learning spaces (LS) framed by the future learning-intensive society (LIS).The resulting construct is a scenario of how society might function in 2020 with open learning as the core. In the LIS scenario, LS are “the next school”.The scenario is based on the assumption that the now-wavering mass production and mass consumption of current societies no longer prevail, or as they put it: “... the crucial moment in industrial society when the entrepreneur or engineer or designer comes up with an idea that can then be implemented by taking advantage of economies of scale is no longer central.The aims and organization of wealth creation no longer take on the form of a pyramid or hierarchy, with the genius who generates new ideas and the technocrat manager who implements them occupying the top floor, while down below at end of the chain of command is the “front-line” worker ... Everyone is the inventor and implementer of his or her own designs, the unique, personalized set of artefacts, services, and experiences.As a result, in the Learning- intensive Society there is a profound difference when compared to industrial society in the relationship of knowledge to production or, in more general terms, the activities that (re)create daily life.” (p. 35) This scenario is then contrasted with the current policy assumptions about LIS, thus providing food for the policy debate on how to cope with the innumerable stumbling blocks on the way towards full-scale implementation of the LIS-LS. The Finnish strategy proposal4 drafted by the innovation task force set up by 1 Miller, R. Shapiro, H. and Hilding-Hamann, K.E., 2008. School’s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: An Imagining Exercise on the Future of Learning. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf 2 www.tem.fi/files/21010/National_Innovation_Strategy_March_2009.pdf 3 Kao, J.,2009.Tapping the World’s Innovation Hot Spots. Harvard Business Review, 87 (3), 109-114. 4 Proposal for Finland’s National Innovation Strategy 2008. www.innovaatiostrategia.fi/files/download/ Nationalinnovationstrategy_EN-20080704.pdf
  • 26. In-depth26eLearningPapers the government, when considered in conjunction with the strategic vision put forward by the IPTS, provides an interesting opportunity to view the issue of enhancing innovation in the light of both a pan-European and a national perspective.The IPTS report’s definition of LIS-LS is akin to the learning environments (LE) proposed in the Finnish Innovation Strategy, but it has been free to stretch its intellectual wings much further than the Finnish strategy group, which seems to have comprised experts more closely connected to the realities of policy-making. Perhaps that is the reason why the IPTS report takes a more critical stance regarding “yoking education to the idea of ‘national competitiveness’ ... in the open, trusted and connected context that makes LS work, the imperatives that seemed so urgent in 2008 ... have receded into an old memory.” (p. 36) In the IPTS’s LIS scenario of 2020, both old, industrial-style learning and the notion of national competitiveness are declared “passé”.The argumentation runs as follows: “... it is widely understood that nations are not firms and a successful nation does not succeed by being a better, more efficient, cost competitive, profitable ‘firm’ than another country, but by creating the conditions for local, unique creation. In the LIS, the old industrial forms of competition around product market innovation and efficiency are marginal, since output is not standardized but unique. In the LIS of 2020, the largest share of ‘wealth’ creation is sourced locally from personal creativity – which, once again, is not a technocratic skill. Certainly, vestiges of the old forms of product market and investment competition remain, but such activities are only pertinent to a thin layer of production that is necessary but non-central in terms of its share of value, time, and lifestyle ...” (p. 36) “From the perspective of learning, the two most marked contrasts between the vision of Learning Spaces in a Learning- intensive Society and the current framework for learning, are (a) the abandonment of the technocratic, hierarchical and exclusive approach to education and skill achievement, and (b) the marginalization of institutionalized learning.” (p. vii) The authors of the Finnish report seem to think along similar lines about the need for new modalities for defining production and consumption, and are ready to reject the old-fashioned paradigm of learning, but still stick firmly to the mantra of the supremacy of national competitiveness as the overarching criterion for success. On the other hand, the IPTS report’s vision of the primacy of local sourcing in wealth creation leaves plenty of room for debate on the plausible prerequisites and interpretations regarding feasible implementation. Finland has repeatedly received top scores in the PISA studies of lower secondary educational achievements. Such success is a double- edged sword. On the one hand, it does not necessarily encourage one to echo the critical comments of institutional school education, as the IPTS report does. On the other hand, it allows Finnish policy-makers to consider carefully, without resorting to panic, the potential as well as the limitations of reforming the system without actually abandoning it. Nevertheless, the summary of the IPTS report on LIS-LS fits in perfectly with the Finnish Innovation strategy: “... the ‘bottom line’ is that a rich new learning framework can be detected in the ‘learning-intensive society’ that characterizes Europe in 2020.This framework or new infrastructure of learning has LS at its centre and is the main objective of institutional enabling policies.These LS are multi- dimensional loci for learning in all its forms: intangible and tangible, experiential and reflective, individual and collective. LS are the nexus, the crossroads of all strands of learning – both the stock of what someone knows and the flow of action that alters what they know, both in hierarchical terms judged by a third- party standard and in heterarchical terms that are self-referential, complex and transparent.” (p. 38) The Finnish strategy proposal is based on four essential choices:
  • 27. In-depth 27eLearningPapers 1. Innovation activity in a world without borders: In order to join and position itself in global competence and value networks, Finland must actively participate and exert influence and be internationally mobile and attractive. 2. Demand and user orientation: Demand-driven innovation, paying attention to the needs of customers, consumers and citizens in the operations of the public and private sector alike, requires a market with incentives and shared innovation processes between users and developers. 3. Innovative individuals and communities: Individuals and close innovation communities play a key role in innovation processes. The ability of individuals and entrepreneurs to innovate and the presence of incentives are critical factors for future success. 4. Systemic approach: Exploitation of the results of innovation activities also require broad-based development activities aimed at structural renewal and determined management of change. The first choice contradicts the IPTS report’s post-nationalistic credo, but the remaining three are surprisingly close to the views expressed in the IPTS report. Discussing the systemic role of learning environments in the society of the future We think that the Finnish strategy should be pushed yet another step towards the European vision outlined in the IPTS report.As Markkula has suggested5 , the pivotal organising concept in the Finnish innovation ecology should be learning environments (LE). LE are seen as the creative dynamos that make the Finnish innovation system tick.There are a myriad of learning environments in a country; many are national, many local, and an increasing number are well-connected and globally networked. Some of them need to be big enough (mega-level) to be able to mobilise and accelerate the frequency of quality innovations to the levels boosting the economy.What is important to note is that LE are seen in this enhanced innovation model being proposed in Finland as being so fundamental to innovation that they are actually conceived as the very spaces where innovation creation and development take place. To be viable, LE need to be embedded in an innovation ecology capable of feeding in and mediating the realities and modalities of the surrounding world.The intermediary mechanisms and services need to be organised and tuned in such a way that they optimise the interplay between LE and the organisations surrounding and supporting them (see Figure 1). LE can be seen as a concept very close to the LS defined in the IPTS report. The development taking place at the work place is decisive.As suggested in Figure 1, LE is the gravity creating the impact and keeping the various impact factors in their orbits. The core success factor is the systemic approach revealing the underlying concepts and processes. ICT enables the development of procedures as well as indicators which can be used to enhance the ability of organisational work cultures to share, evaluate and reward achievements in a result- oriented, sustainable manner. ICT enables the emerging work culture to detach itself from traditional, function-based management and move towards collaboration, co-operation and co-creation with shared, parallel processes. Gains from developing processes can be significant, but the gains that can be achieved through the creation of a new work culture of What is important to note is that LE are seen in this enhanced innovation model being proposed in Finland as being so fundamental to innovation that they are actually conceived as the very spaces where innovation creation and development take place. 5 Markkula, M., 2009. Unpublished Aalto university discussion paper.
  • 28. In-depth28eLearningPapers National Innovation Strategy of Finland 2008 value networking can be gigantic. For improved leadership and management, it is necessary to orchestrate work inputs, not only within one’s own organisation, but also by developing processes and networks with strategic partners.When well-rehearsed, a process-orientated operational model nourishes a working environment inclined to continuing improvement.The ultimate aim would be a systemisation of professional development anchored to the work place’s human and social capital, as well as a relational capital that harnesses external resources for the organisation. Progress in this direction will make the organisation more resilient and expedient.The importance of conducive knowledge management is epitomised. Attaining these goals calls for emphasising the learning taking place in work places and capitalising on concepts like innovative milieus, creative tension and developer networks. Different players in the value network connect their processes to the value-adding chains.Technical integration alone will not do. Instead, genuine compatibility is required, as well as an understanding of the kind of inter-personal knowledge that must be communicated between people and transferred within knowledge systems.This calls for accuracy in documenting the processes and interfaces of value networks.Figure 1. Renewed Finnish Innovation Strategy “National Innovation Bedrock” Learning Environment Finland’s Attractiveness Finnish RHE System Competitive Incentives Management Training Growth Entrepreneurship National Ensemble of Services Pioneer of Systemic Reforms Regional Centres of Innovation Implementing Innovation Policy
  • 29. In-depth 29eLearningPapers How LE themselves can be optimised will be discussed in the subsequent chapters. Enriching our understanding of the social and creative nature of learning Our understanding of learning has advanced greatly in recent years, not only through a deeper understanding of how individuals learn, but in relation to innovation, and particularly with regards to how work organisations are able to renew their processes, enhance their capacity to learn and acquire, accumulate and create knowledge. Interesting new theoretical approaches have been developed. For example, the KP-Lab project6 researches how knowledge creation takes place in expert organisations seeking to solve problems by creating new artefacts. In the knowledge creation process, learning is seen as neither monological nor dialogical, but as even more complex: trialogical7 .Attention is then given to the specific modalities and processes surrounding how learning discourse changes when the task of learners or designers is to create new artefacts (texts, designs, products or services), as is typically the case in schools or RD 6 Knowledge practices laboratory is a large EU project funded by the 6th Framework IST programme; see www.kp-lab.org 2007. 7 Paavola, S. Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen, K., 2004. Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 74 (4), 557–576. 8 FinnSight 2015 - Science and Technology in Finland in the 2010s, a joint foresight project of the Academy of Finland and Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation.The project was carried out in 2005-2006. www.finnsight2015.fi/ 9 Aalto University is named after the renowned Finnish architect Alvar Aalto, who was an alumnus of one of the universities to be merged, the Helsinki Universi- ty of Technology (TKK).The other two are the Helsink University of Art and Design and the Helsinki School of Economics. www.aaltouniversity.info 10 www.aaltoyliopisto.info/en/news/funding-to-aalto-university-s-aivoaalto-research-project The inherent structure of knowledge-intensive work is by and large changing from excessive planning towards iterative experimentation characterised by working together, agility and joint spurs towards the goal. divisions of companies, and in work places in general. It is, however, necessary to take into account the changing nature of expert work, which is increasingly organised through professional networks and exploits technologies developed for such communication to facilitate the collaboration of professional communities.A paradigm shift is taking place from so-called “groupware” and “learning management systems” to wider and more flexible self-organising environments, generically labelled “social software” and “web 2.0 tools”. The inherent structure of knowledge- intensive work is by and large changing from excessive planning towards iterative experimentation characterised by working together, agility and joint spurs towards the goal.The “scrum” method, fashionable in software development, is now migrating to other fields of the knowledge economy.This trait is perhaps manifesting a more fundamental paradigm shift in the technology sector, revealing a foresight that deduces the rationale for technology policy-making from the notion of human interaction as the foundation for welfare.8 For human interaction to be fully developed, learning must be ubiquitous and lifelong. A prime example of this kind of development, and a very concrete one as well, is the whole process of creating a completely new type of university in Finland through the merging of three universities into Aalto University9 . Funding has just been granted for its very first large-scale research project: “aivoAALTO”.This project will address social interaction using brain visualising methods, research on decision-making (neuroeconomics) and the impact of film on human mind (neurocinematics), thus fully exploiting the unique expertise of each of the three universities10 . “Ba” – learning and working together Concepts, processes and environments building the foundation for deeper collaboration are the prerequisites for innovativeness.The desired developments can be achieved through multidisciplinary research by integrating new ICT with scientific understanding of the human mind, including neurological, cognitive, motivational and social bases of learning. Based on a concept that was originally proposed in the 1930’s by the Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida,“ba” is defined as a context in which knowledge is shared, created and utilised. In the process of knowledge development, the creation and regeneration of ba is key. It can be a physical space, virtual space,
  • 30. In-depth30eLearningPapers mental space, or any combination of these.The most important aspect of ba is interaction11 . The power to create knowledge is embedded not just within an individual, but also within interactions with other individuals or with the environment. Ba is a space where such interactions take place. Knowledge held by a particular individual can be shared, recreated, and amplified when that person participates in ba. Ba works as the platform for the concentration of the organisation’s knowledge assets, for it collects the applied knowledge of the area and integrates it. In all phases of life, learners and teachers are challenged to develop and even to change their personal work methods, in all work and learning environments. Among other things, this requires the following changes in work culture12 : − Commitment must be emphasised. Theory must be converted into action, compelling people to create a shared learning and working space – ba will shift the focus of action onto intellectual and virtual collaboration and a variety of collaboration networks. − Action and results must be emphasised. As part of lifelong learning support, learners and teachers must create their own personal knowledge management “tool boxes”, emphasising systematic development and the results of action. − Predicting the future must be emphasised. In lifelong learning, learners and teachers must emphasise the regeneration of knowledge. Consequently, the capacity and skills for critical knowledge processing will be understood to be the most crucial factors in learning. − Rising to the challenges of information and knowledge must be emphasised. Learners and teachers must be able to use new learning and work methods to manage increasingly larger information and knowledge entities, and related sustaining networks. −The basic knowledge management values – openness and trust must will be emphasised. It is only in an open atmosphere of trust that people can genuinely work and develop things together. “Triple helix” has not failed, but needs continuous redefining The issue of optimising the interface between working life organisations and academia is crucial for enhancing systemic innovation in a knowledge- based economy. It addresses systemic communication and collaboration between parties. It is a question of how information flows freely between these poles. It seeks to optimise the mobility over time of students and employees between academia and a company. It is all that, but it goes beyond as well, penetrating into the issue of how the science base of a particular knowledge creation process, its conditions and phases, are formed, acquired and further enriched in a complex system of innovation collaboration that is necessary and beneficial to both parties.The complexity of the innovation ecology is further heightened by interventions provided by third party intermediaries complementing the picture to form the triangle of the so-called “triple helix” model. In that model, the third sun is broadly named “government”. Such government agencies are typically involved as technology or training funding agencies providing funding, information, infrastructure and policy support. Sustainability is sought through long-term programmes, which are rather insensitive to short-term economic and political conjunctures.This fairly hands-off role of government might not be optimal and will hopefully be evolving in the foreseeable future. Government could and should play an active enabler role for profound, cross-border, large-scale networks in 11 Nonaka, I.,Toyama R. and Byosiére, P., 2001.A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Un- derstanding the Dynamics Process of Creating Knowledge. In: M. Dierkes,A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child and I. Nonaka, eds. Handbook of Organizational Learning Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 491-517. 12 Markkula, M., 2007. Europe Needs to Invent its Future – Desired Changes Do Not Just Happen. In: A. Boonen andW.V. Petegem, eds. European Networking and Learning Future,The Europace Approach. Antwerp: Garant, 335-341.
  • 31. In-depth 31eLearningPapers which substantial numbers of experts from companies and universities work together. Open Innovation is the driver of change integrating university- level research, teaching, learning and different collaborative multidimensional developments.The Finnish National Innovation Strategy is indeed calling for new concepts for collaboration between universities and industry that focus both on strategic, primary research and on innovations. “Otafokus” Here, we provide one example of how an academic institution can systematically approach the needs of rapidly changing conditions and of companies. It is a concept developed by our university’s continuing education centre, the Dipoli Lifelong Learning Institute (TKK Dipoli), which has coined the “Otafokus”14 model. Otafokus has its roots inTKK Dipoli’s long-standing provision of continuing education services to technology- oriented companies.We have been privileged to become the pivot where the professional development needs of related companies and the real world test-beds for technical university knowledge creation, application and dissemination have been put into a melting pot, which we have been stirring 13 SP stands for study credits. 14 The name refers to the village Otaniemi where a substantial technology hub has grown around TKK and the State research centre.We focus on the academia-industry axis. It is the backbone vitalising the current knowledge economy in the region and spurring the national economy as well. Figure 2.The basic structure of aTKK Dipoli professional development programme.13 Structure ofthe programme INDUSTRY ROADMAP – Increasing General Knowledge of The Industry DEVELOPING PERSONAL TOOLBOX UNIVERSITY - COMPANY MODULES IN WEEKS VIRTUL COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND NETWORKING TKK 2 TKK 10 TKK 11 FINAL WORK 13 Company 5 Company 10 Company 6 Building own networks Company practices Special assignments Development projects Personal directives Operative company visits Participing industry events, seminars and forums OTAFOKUS OTAFOKUSDIPLOMA,60sp
  • 32. In-depth32eLearningPapers Aalto University. 2009. www.aaltoyliopisto.info/en/news/funding-to-aalto-university-s-aivoaalto-research-project Academy of Finland andTekes. 2007. FinnSight 2015 - Science and Technology in Finland in the 2010s, www.finnsight2015.fi Government´s Communication on Finland´s National Innovation Strategy to the Parliament www.tem.fi/files/21010/National_Innovation_Strategy_March_2009.pdf Kao, J., 2009. Tapping the World’s Innovation Hot Spots. Harvard Business Review, 87 (3), 109-114. Knowledge practices laboratory 2007. www.kp-lab.org Markkula, M., 2007. Europe Needs to Invent its Future – Desired Changes Do Not Just Happen. In: A. Boonen and W.V. Petegem, eds. European Networking and Learning Future, The Europace Approach. Antwerp: Garant, 335-341. Markkula, M., 2009. Unpublished Aalto University discussion paper. Miller, R. Shapiro, H. and Hilding-Hamann, K.E., 2008. School’s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: An Imagining Exercise on the Future of Learning. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf Nonaka, I.,Toyama R. and Byosiére, P., 2001. A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Understanding the Dynamics Process of Creating Knowledge. In: M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child and I. Nonaka, eds. Handbook of Organizational Learning Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 491-517. Paavola, S. Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen, K., 2004. Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 74 (4), 557–576. Proposal for Finland’s National Innovation Strategy 2008. www.innovaatiostrategia.fi/files/download/Nationalinnovationstrategy_EN-20080704.pdf References with our own pedagogical and learning technology recipes. The objectives and content of each Otafokus programme are defined to meet the needs common to the industry group in question, while also paying attention to the individual needs of participating companies. Students are selected byTKK in close co-operation with the recruiting companies. TKK offers a multidisciplinary and international environment for the implementation of programmes in any industry sector.As part of Aalto University, the multidisciplinarity of study programmes will be enhanced. The typical structure of any Otafokus programme is illustrated in Figure 2. The Otafokus concept simultaneously serves three demands long expressed in debates on the practical course of developments: facilitated work- based learning, blended learning and integrating theory into practice. Formulating the concept and fleshing it out has been quite a collaborative effort involving many committed stakeholders and organisations in a long-standing development effort. Read more www.elearningpapers.eu/vol15
  • 33. In-depth 33eLearningPapers A new web 2.0 learning environment: Concept, implementation, evaluation Keywords eLearning 2.0, personal learning environments, platform, trial This contribution presents and evaluates a new learning environment model based on web 2.0 applications. In a theoretical overview, we introduce the concepts of eLearning 2.0 and Personal Learning Environments, along with their main aspects of autonomy, creativity and networking, and relate them to the didactics of constructivism and connectivism.The requirements and basic functional components for the development of our particular web 2.0 learning environment are derived from these aspects. The section describing the implementation of the environment in a trial at the Darmstadt University of Applied Science focuses on the specific didactic contribution made by the particular learning modules to the overall learning arrangement. Our learning environment was tested and evaluated during the “Social Software” course held in 2007/08 as part of the information science program at the Darmstadt University of Applied Science. A questionnaire-based survey reveals interesting facts regarding the success of the practical implementation of the web 2.0 arrangement with respect to the motivation and learning outcome of students.The survey was supplemented by some informal feedback provided in a concluding discussion.With these results in mind, this paper concludes with some remarks on the potential of the learning environment in broader educational contexts. Authors Ingo Blees and Marc Rittberger German Institute for International Educational Research blees@dipf.de rittberger@dipf.de Concept Changing technologies and educational change The web 2.0 represents a qualitative leap in web technologies that have made the internet more creative, participative and social. But has this development also triggered a revolution in learning? Do education and learning need to be re-thought in view of the continuous change to information and communication technologies, and do we need new concepts and designs for working and learning environments? The thesis that “web 2.0 instruments (social software) become increasingly relevant as they further the exchange of knowledge and the development of skills in networks and beyond the net in an optimal way” (Erpenbeck Sauter, 2007, p. 162) is widespread and present in many variations amongst scholars and educators concerned with the design of learning environments and eLearning. But how can the didactic potential of new technologies be put to use for learning processes in the knowledge Summary
  • 34. In-depth34eLearningPapers society, wherein increasingly important skills, such as methodological and media skills, must be acquired in addition to the knowledge itself? In his illuminating and trend-setting lecture,“A Portal To Media Literacy”, cultural anthropologist Michael Wesch (2008) assumes that the information and communication culture of students has changed due to new web technologies. He contrasts these new technologies to the anachronistic conditions and teaching concepts existing in educational institutions, and states the hypothesis that learners should be able to effectively acquire the knowledge they require by applying the media they use anyway. However, this requires that appropriate learning and teaching settings enable learners to develop the media literacy they need for knowledge acquisition as well as methodological competency – particularly as regards self-governing and productive learning. According to Wesch, the main challenge to future learning is “creating platforms for participation that allow students to realize and leverage the emerging media environment.”Wesch (2008: 27:30) This view is also prominently held by Downes (2005), who coined the term eLearning 2.0, conceived as an “interlocking set of open-source applications [where] learning is becoming a creative activity and [where] the appropriate venue is a platform rather than an application.”1 Wageneder Jadin (2007) provide the following extended definition of eLearning 2.0 with reference to Downes: “We can talk of eLearning 2.0 applications if users apply web 2.0 media, i.e. social software, such as wikis, weblogs or RSS in collaborative learning activities for autonomously producing their own learning contents and use them for their own learning objectives.This definition clearly outlines a central feature of an eLearning 2.0 setting: learners are autonomous in acquiring knowledge.” The implementation of collaborative and activating applications of the social web for eLearning 2.0 purposes refers to the related model of Personal Learning Environments (PLE).At a descriptive level, a PLE allows learners “to access, aggregate, configure and manipulate digital artefacts of their ongoing learning experiences” (Lubensky, 2006).As regards web 2.0 tools, this implies a “collection of free, distributed, web-based tools, […] linked together and aggregating content using RSS feeds and simple HTML scripts” (Fitzgerald, 2006)2 . Downes postulates that the values of web 2.0 and the idea of PLE are essentially identical, namely “the fostering of social networks and communities, the emphasis on creation rather than consumption, and the decentralisation of content and control” (2007. p. 19). Hence, there is a trend in contemporary learning towards more activity, self- productivity and self-governing, to networking learners and their learning spaces and to a shift of accentuation in the nature of learning from the product towards the process.These developments are expressed by the learning theories of constructivism and connectivism. From a constructivist perspective, learning is a constructive, active, emotional, self-organised, social, situational process.3 Siemens (2004) introduces a further significant aspect of learning in his learning theory termed connectivism.A focal aspect of connectivism concerns the use of networks. Learning in the connectivist sense requires open learning environments that enable connections and exchanges with other network partners, who will build up productive learning communities. Requirements of a web 2.0 learning environment The idea of “learning networks” leads us from connectivism back to Wesch’s demand for a concept of learning The implementation of collaborative and activating applications of the social web for eLearning 2.0 purposes refers to the related model of Personal Learning Environments (PLE) 1 Emphasis by the authors of this article. 2 For a description of PLE, see also Bernhardt Kirchner (2007, p. 27ff); further PLE sources are Downes (2007),Attwell (2007),Wagner (2006) and van Harmelen (2006); an early model for PLE known as “Future VLE” can be found in Wilson (2005).An overview of the different types of PLE can be found in LTC (2008). 3 See Erpenbeck Sauter (2007, p. 157). On the relationship between theories of learning: instructional design, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism; cf. also the overview in Erpenbeck Sauter (2007, p. 152), following Baumgartner and Kalz (2004).
  • 35. In-depth 35eLearningPapers Microcontent • Topics, Tags, Categories • Reports, Disputes • Media RSS Input RSS Output portals.The pedagogical approach associated with PLE results in the notion of a portal as being a particularly apt model for designing learning environments (Downes 2007; Kerres, 2006). The perspective for eLearning 2.0 lies in the adoption of the portal concept. An eLearning 2.0 environment would thus be a signpost to finding proven quality learning content on the internet. Besides containing metadata and references to online resources, the learning portal or learning environment can also deliver self- produced learning content or online tools suitable for learning. Furthermore, the learning environment should offer a “mechanism” for collecting and integrating content and tools in a goal- oriented way (Kerres, 2006).4 Following Kerres’ (2006a) essentials of a web 2.0 learning portal and his guidelines for “an eLearning scenario following a ‘web 2.0’ approach” (Kerres, 2007), a clustering of characteristics results in the following four requirement groups for a web 2.0 learning environment: Openness, permeability: - The learning environment is not an isolated island, but a learning portal. 4 This integrative mechanism is also named as essential to a well-functioning PLE by Siemens (2004), Downes (2005; 2007) and Attwell (2007). Figure 1. Overview of the learning environment Social Bookmarking • Literature • Web resources • User- Actions • Network- Effects RSS- Feed • Tagging • Metadata • Folksonomy Mashup: Journal-Alert RSS-Feeds Google News Technorati Journal 1 Journal 2 Journal 3 RSS-Alerting Monotoring Aggregation Filtering Knowlegde Base Collaboratively created reference database Learning Jorunal agile information management: sharing experiences and ideas Learning Central Wiki as the central for the formal organisation of learning activities as well as the content-related integration and distribution of learning materials and learning cutcomes Feed-Input • References • Weblog • Journal-Alert Planning Organisation Exercises Topics • Articles • Dossiers • Resources
  • 36. In-depth36eLearningPapers Participation: - Learners and teachers actively participate in the development of the learning environment. Learners can integrate known instruments that are already in use. - Learners and teachers work with the same platforms and tools, for preparing units of learning, working on them and distributing them. - The participants use a free choice of tags and they incrementally develop a “folksonomy”, reflecting their stock of interests and knowledge – the learning units are thus structured and made navigable. Motivation: - The learning environment should make the individual engagement of every learner visible in a transparent way. - The learning environment should promote the establishment of a community of learners, where learners and teachers can meet one another in person. - Teachers show their presence in the learning environment: they deliver resources and make contributions and suggestions, for instance by participating in discussions. Monitoring, feedback, evaluation: - Teachers track/pursue individual and shared learning activities. - Teachers offer regular feedback and assess contributions in an appropriate fashion for encouraging motivation. In the course of the analysis of our trial presented in Section 2, we will show how these requirements are fulfilled by the different learning environment modules. Functional elements of the web 2.0 learning environment A web 2.0 learning environment can be implemented in a variety of ways. Decisions on implementations often depend on one’s personal experience with software, learning objectives and existing media skills.The unpredictable character of developments in the area of specialised, stand-alone software solutions implies that “learning environments should be realised independent from specific tools” (Kerres, 2006, p. 7). Hence, it would seem appropriate to adopt a modular concept with more abstract definitions of the functional areas of the learning environment, which, in the learning setting presented here, are applied using exemplary applications that are interchangeable with equivalent functions.The functional areas of the model web 2.0 learning environment introduced below are presented in Figure 1: − Learning centre: used for the formal organisation of learning activities, the integration of content and the distribution of learning material and outcomes.The learning centre is implemented in a wiki platform, in this case a MediaWiki. − Knowledge base: all kinds of resources, including texts and audiovisual media, are collected here.The tagging process results in a folksonomy for the domain of interest.The common use leads to networking effects.The knowledge base is implemented by means of a social bookmarking service, in this case CiteULike. − Learning journal: here, the learners can record interesting encounters with the thematic areas without having to meet the formal requirements of working in the learning centre and the knowledge base.This area is suitable for any kind of short contribution, such as announcing interesting links or texts or inserting audio and video contributions, with the option of commenting on or tagging them using the folksonomy terminology.5 5 The total number of tags on a bookmarking platform is known as a folksonomy (folk + taxonomy).
  • 37. In-depth 37eLearningPapers 6 For the problem orientation and closeness to reality of learning and skills acquisition, see Erpenbeck Sauter (2007, p. 163). − Alerting service: a number of different information providers are continually checked for updates, which are aggregated and filtered by certain thematic areas.The RSS format functions as a descriptive language for the exchange of data. RSS also offers the integrative mechanism necessary for a learning portal. To improve integration into the learning arrangement and promote motivation: 1) elements of the web 2.0 learning environment, particularly the wiki platform, are used in both the online phases and the face-to- face sessions (Cubric, 2007 and 2) the learners are actively involved in conceptualising, developing and implementing the learning environment – hence one of the requirements, namely participation, is already put into practice. Implementation This section explains the four functional areas of our web 2.0 learning environment introduced above, wherein the wiki is described in more detail. It describes how the wiki can be used as an instrument for the active, flexible and social construction of knowledge, thus allowing for problem-oriented, explorative learning6 . The wiki platform constitutes the learning portal that integrates content from all of the learning modules into the learning environment, making it accessible in a structured way. It serves not only as a knowledge repository, but also as a working environment. Learning matters in the wiki The wiki can be designed as a comprehensive and complete document and media repository providing all of the learning material in a clear and freely accessible way (Kepp et al., 2008; Himpsl, 2007). These kinds of learning material consist of learning resources that are available on the Internet (as elucidated above), including literature, web resources and audiovisual media.The media can be directly played in the wiki itself once the respective technical extensions have been installed, which, like the wiki as such, are available as Open Source products (Reinhold Abawi, 2006; Blees, Reinhold Rittberger, 2008).The widespread opinion that wikis are exclusively or predominantly limited to working with texts is ill-founded (Erpenbeck Sauter, 2007); wikis have developed so that they are suitable for implementation in multimedia learning environments. The outcomes of the learning processes themselves, i.e. the (interim) results of learning activities, are aggregated in the wiki in the form of an e-portfolio (Salzburg Research, 2006; Schaffert et al., 2006).The wiki presents test tasks and solutions, presentations, graphical images, minutes, reports and transcripts of interviews the learners have conducted themselves as well as tests carried out in projects, all categorised by field. The distinction between external learning content and that contributed by the users themselves corresponds to the difference between static and dynamic content.While static content includes all the items accessible by external links and uploaded items linked to wiki documents and media, the dynamic content constitutes the actual wiki sites themselves, where collaborative writing processes are taught and “learning content” is practised. Owing to the principles of dynamic generation and change, the wikis are highly interactive at both levels of individual objects and their organisation, thus “making a crucial Figure 2.Wiki portal homepage