Proceedings of the TACONET Conference

Lisbon, Sept.23, 2005

Portuguese Catholic University

Self-regulated Learning
in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments
Karl Steffens, Roberto Carneiro, Jean Underwood

Editors
 Self-regulated Learning
in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments

Roberto Carneiro, Karl Steffens, Jean Underwood

Editors

Proceedings of the TACONET Conference

Lisbon, Sept.23, 2005

Portuguese Catholic University
 FOREWORD
Roberto Carneiro
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Palma de Cima
1649-023 Lisboa
Portugal

E-mail: rc@cepcep.ucp.pt

©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

Karl Steffens
Universität zu Köln
Pädagogisches Seminar
Albertus-Magnus-Platz
50923 Köln
Germany

E-mail: Karl.Steffens@uni-koeln.de

©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

Jean Underwood
Division of Psychology
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham
United Kingdom

E-mail: jean.underwood@ntu.ac.uk

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

On September 23, 2005, the TACONET conference
on Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in Technology
Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs) took
place at the Universidade Católica Portuguesa in
Lisbon. The conference was organised by Roberto
Carneiro and his Lisbon team on behalf of the
Targeted Cooperative Network on Self-Regulated
Learning in Technology Enhanced Leaning
Environments (http://www.lmi.ub.es/taconet).
TACONET was founded in May 2003 by the
members of the TELEPEERS project “Self-
Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced
Learning Environments at University Level: a Peer
Review” with the purpose of broadening the
qualified debate around SRL. The project, which ran
from January 2003 to December 2005 and was
coordinated by Karl Steffens (Universität zu Köln),
was supported by the European Commission (Grant
agreement 2003-4710-/001-001 EDU-ELEARN, see
http://www.lmi.ub.es/telepeers).
In the course of the project, TELEs from a range of
university disciplines, which were considered to
support SRL, were evaluated by the partners of the
TELEPEERS consortium, that is they were peer
reviewed. The aim of these evaluations was to
establish the extent to which selected TELEs had the
potential for supporting SRL. At the same time, two
instruments were developed which were to be used
in the evaluation process, but which could also be
used by developers, researchers, teachers and
students outside the project.
TELE-SRL is a tool for developers, researchers and
teachers in the field of TELEs who want to evaluate
the potential of a TELE for supporting SRL.
TELESTUDENTS-SRL is a tool for students who
actually are or have been working with a TELE;
they can use this tool to assess whether the specific
TELE did indeed support their SRL. Both tools exist
as online versions (http://www.hds.utc.fr/telepeers/);
they can also be downloaded from the TACONET
web site. A report on these tools as well as a guide
on implementing TELEs can be found on the project
web site (TELEPEERS / Results).
In preparing the TACONET conference, it was our
objective to increase awareness of SRL in TELEs
among members of industry, academia and
communities of practice and of the tools that we
developed. We also wanted to stimulate research in
the field of SRL in TELEs, and we finally hoped to
get feedback from members of the different
communities with respect to our own results. In
sum: we intended the TACONET conference to be a
forum for the exchange of ideas on SRL in TELES
for members of industry, academia and communities
of practice and to propel a collaborative network of
interested parties on sustainable grounds.
These proceedings reflect the contributions of the
members of those different communities to the field
of SRL in TELEs. We subdivided the proceedings
into the three parts that correspond to the working
groups at the conference:
• The view from industry,
• The view from academia,
• The view from communities of practice.
We are pleased to see that SRL in TELEs is
considered to be an important topic in all three
communities, and we hope that these proceedings
will motivate developers, researchers, teachers and
practitioners to continue their work in this field.
Readers of these proceedings are invited to inspect
the work of TACONET and also cordially invited to
join this collaborative network.
We would like to thank all the authors for their
contributions. We are aware that all of them are very
busy, and that they had to invest time and effort to
provide us with their manuscripts. In particular, we
would like to thank Alison Twiner for editing the
manuscripts from a variant of European English into
British English. We also would like to thank
Donatella Persico who wrote the introduction for
part C.
Roberto Carneiro
Karl Steffens
Jean Underwood.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
ROBERTO CARNEIRO is full-time professor at
the Portuguese Catholic University. In the same
University he chairs the Study Centre on Peoples
and Cultures and is dean of the Institute for Distance
Learning. He has extensive international experience
with the European Commission, UNESCO, World
Bank, OECD, Council of Europe and other
development agencies. He served as a member of
the UNESCO International Commission on
Education for the 21st Century.
KARL STEFFENS is psychologist and senior
researcher at the Department of Education,
University of Cologne. He has been involved in
teaching and conducting research at the universities
of Barcelona, Bonn, Cologne, Erfurt, Frankfurt. He
has participated in a number of European research
projects in the field of ICT in learning and
instruction and is presently co-ordinating the
TELEPEERS project.
JEAN UNDERWOOD is currently professor of
psychology at Nottingham Trent University and was
previously Reader in Education at the University of
Leicester. A qualified teacher and teacher educator
she has worked in the field of educational
technology for 30 years, conducting a number of
national research projects for the UK government.
CONTENTS

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS

PART A: THE VIEW FROM INDUSTRY 11

Roberto Carneiro, CEPCEP, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal
Self-regulated learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments: The view from industry 13

Paul LeFrere, University of Tampere

Self-regulated learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments: Relevance to industry needs and
practice 16

Pedro Pinto, CNOTINFOR, Coimbra, Portugal

The use of the emergent technologies on the way to becoming a learning organization - the case of
CNOTINFOR 21

Bruno Ronsivalle and Vanessa Metus, Didagroup, Rome, Italy

Motivation and micro-design models and techniques 26

Mario Figuera, NovaBase/Blackboard, Portugal

Self-regulated learning in TELEs: An eLearning provider perspective 43

Luke Vervenne, Synergetics, Belgium

Towards an industry uptake of self-regulated learning 49

PART B: THE VIEW FROM ACADEMIA 55

Jean Underwood, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom

Self-regulated learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments: The view from academia 57

Alessandro Antonietti, Catholic University of Milan, Italy

A framework to conceptualise Technology Enhanced Learning Environments 59

Jean Underwood and Phil Banyard, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom
Learning and technology: A happy conjunction? 64

Hermann Rüppell, University of Cologne, Germany

Learning by competition: Compete and optimize your strategy 72

Jos Beishuizen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Planning and control in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments 79
PART C: THE VIEW FROM COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE 87

Donatella Persico, Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche, Italy

Self-regulated learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments: The view from communities of
practice 89

Marco Bettoni, WeKnow Network, Switzerland

Communities of practice as a method for knowledge-oriented cooperation 92

Christina Preston, Mirandanet, London, United Kingdom

The Mirandanet Fellowship: a community of practice developing self-regulating learning environments for
continuing professional development 100

Anke Dommaschk,and Stephen Frank, University of Leipzig, Germany

Online learning groups as self-regulated entities 113

Niels Brüggen, University of Leipzig, Germany

The use of ILIAS in student projects to foster self-regulated learning 119

Giuliana Dettori, Tania Giannetti, Donatella Persico, Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche, Italy
Communities of practice, virtual learning communities and self-regulated learning 126

Secundino Correia, Elsa Regina Lencastre, CNOTINFOR, Coimbra, Portugal

Dragons pathways 134

Stephen J. Pape, Karen, Irving, and Douglas T. Owens, The Ohio State University
Louis Abrahamson, Better Education Development, Inc.
Classroom connectivity in promoting algebra I and physical science achievement and self-regulated
learning 143
 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

PART A: THE VIEW FROM INDUSTRY

11
12
 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: THE VIEW FROM INDUSTRY
Roberto Carneiro
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Palma de Cima
1649-023 Lisboa
Portugal
E-mail: rc@cepcep.ucp.pt
©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005
KEYWORDS
e-Learning, instructional design, knowledge
management, learning management systems, learning
organisations, lifelong learning, motivation, self-
regulated learning (SRL), technology enhanced
learning environments (TELEs).
INTRODUCTION
Carry over of new knowledge on SRL from the world
of academia into the world of industry (and of
evidence-based business models) remains at a rather
incipient stage. On the one hand, the body of research
on how technology-enhanced support systems
influence SRL is still fairly minimal. On the other, the
market uptake of e-Learning solutions is growing at a
much slower pace than had been foreseen only a few
years ago. The much heralded e-Learning revolution
enabled by creative twinning ventures between new
learning approaches and industrial knowledge
management applications (Rosenberg, 2001) was
watered down with the new economy. However,
when considering e-Learning as “the use of Internet
and digital technologies to create experiences that
educate our fellow human beings” (Horton, 2001,
p.3) one would expect that the exponential rise in
societal learning needs would propitiate a rapid take-
off in new business opportunities. This has not been
the case and one possible reason lies with the fact that
ICT is still regarded mainly as a delivery technology
rather than a catalyser of new paradigms in learning
and training. In this adverse context SRL could
provide the turning argument to enable new business
models and innovative pedagogical approaches. In
any event, SRL advocates will have to take into
account that industry is mainly geared to short-term
results, “realistic” choices, re-use of materials, skills
measurement and enhancement priorities.
Success in the marketplace increasingly depends on
learning. However, most people, most organisations,
simply do not know how to learn. SRL contains the
potential to bypass learning dysfunctions. Effective
learning, epitomised in the concept of “double-loop
learning”, where the learner – individual or collective
– is able to challenge learning assumptions, is the
consequence of advanced self-reflective aptitudes
(Argyris, 1977, 1991). Thus, it is fair to say that the
DNA of learning organisations is increasingly made
up of SRL attributes.
The contributions featured under this first section of
the book deal with the complex relationship between
research in SRL and corporate applications. For
obvious reasons, and within the overall balance,
“learning industries” deserve a special place. The
chapter encompasses five distinct perspectives on
SRL as perceived by industry: (i) SRL and uptake by
the business community; (ii) Lifelong learning skills
(individual and corporate) and SRL; (iii) Instructional
micro-design addressing learning resistances; (iv)
SRL as a requisite of learning organisations; (v)
Integrated commercial platforms and SRL. These five
themes provide a rich and comprehensive perspective
on the state of the art of SRL in the world of business.
They also suggest opportunities and challenges to the
formation of intelligent partnerships involving
13
academia and industry.
A SYNOPSIS
Lefrere opens his seminal article with a statement that
significant proportions of SRL needs of workers are
not met by TELEs due to short-term dictates in the
workplace. While it is routine for TELEs in academia
to be used to enhance learning on at least one SRL
dimension, few companies offer anything by way of a
SRL competence development programme. In order
to produce the necessary attitudinal changes both in
workers and managers the author recommends the use
of insights, presentational standards and techniques
from advertising and the entertainment industry to
trigger performance-augmentation added to a TELE.
HR departments shy away from purchasing training
solutions that they do not fully master. Their
preference is directed to “safe” externally-regulated
learning with a limited allowance for choice exercised
by learners. This pattern is consistent with the
immediate targets set forth by major company
stakeholders. Likewise, recent drive of top executive
attention towards knowledge management needs have
not been convincingly met by eLearning solutions
particularly in minimising time2performance of
newly recruited staff. In conclusion the author states
that “the TACONET community is in advance of the
wider community of trainers in looking at the
economically significant issue of how to use TELEs
and SRL to improve the performance of industry”.
The case for using emergent technologies to sustain a
learning organisation is the core of the next article.
Pinto provides evidence of a business model
specialised in products designed to help young
children develop SRL skills. His article goes on to
explain how personal and organisational learning
within the company is supported by appropriate SRL
developments. The role of leadership through values
appears to be a core variable to explain the
relationship between collective intelligence and group
learning. As a corollary self-learning and self-
regulated skills are instrumental to the ethos of a
learning company.
Ronsivalle & Metus provide a robust theoretical
framework for learning course architectures
stemming from educational micro-design activity.
The paper offers a creative approach to instructional
design based on mental models theory. The main
algorithms identified are derived from cognitive
14
dissonance theory. Moreover, the authors offer
insights into dynamic corporate examples with special
reference to extended e-Learning applications in the
banking activity. Research shows how motivation for
learning and overcoming “learning resistance” can be
prompted by effective management of cognitive
dissonance. The article ends with a provocative thesis
on the relationship between “learning resistance” and
“temporal dimension” or “learning time”. Given that
the latter constitutes the fundamental resource the
learner brings into play, management of cognitive
dissonance could have a most significant impact on
training effectiveness.
In his contribution Figueira describes a business
player that reports on the use of a TELEPEERS tool –
TELE-SRL – to assess the efficacy of a commercial
platform comprising a triple offer: LMS + content +
tutorship. The article brings forth the relevance of the
evaluation tool to help sharpen the market approach
of e-Learning provisions. In line with the author’s
conclusions, and based on a showcase of business
examples, SRL appears to be relevant to the roll-out
of a proper networked learning environment. Thus, it
comes as no surprise that companies potentially like
self-supported solutions provided they help (i) boost
competitiveness based on human capital, (ii) reduce
costs, (iii) improve both informal and formal learning,
and (iv) increase employee engagement.
Vervenne offers an original essay on self-regulated
lifelong learning, a concept that emerges at the
crossroad of personal SRL skills and organisational
SRL contexts. The paper begins with a demand-
driven perspective on competencies seen as the
“common currency of the labour market”. Thus, a
new learn@work paradigm would require a constant
alignment between business and learning processes,
that is to say a proper integration between staff
development and the company’s knowledge portfolio.
Learning in the workplace emerges as the only valid
response to ever-changing markets where in a
service-led economy time2competency is more
important than time2market. A powerful tool to
realise this dream is the ePortfolio – “the digital home
of SRL”. Vervenne concludes by acknowledging that
further research will be needed to bridge academic
knowledge and proven theories on SRL on the one
hand, with business process-driven adaptive learning
solutions in the form of innovative service-oriented
architectures (SOA) on the other.
FINAL THOUGHTS
A practical conclusion from this section is that
industry is bound to organise some form of
“managed” self-regulated learning as an integral part
of everyday work. Companies need to tap into the
creative power of their workers in order to compete.
Workers demand tools and support in order to cope
with ever-changing work and business processes.
There is room and “good will” for a strong
partnership between university and industry (to be
extended to the policy making area) to look further
into the theme of SRL in TELEs. Managing and
motivating people stands high in the value-added
ladder of the knowledge-intensive economy.
Purposeful and self-regulated learning is a strong
value proposition to organisations that need to
differentiate and compete with success in the
globalised marketplace. In this respect TACONET
offers an opportunity to build a trustworthy
relationship between major stakeholders.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organisations.
Harvard Business Review, 55 (Sep-Oct), 115-125.
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn.
Harvard Business Review, 69 (May-June), 99-109.
Horton, W. (2001). Leading E-Learning. Alexandria, VA:
ASTD.
Rosenberg, M. (2001). E-Learning: Strategies for
Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
ROBERTO CARNEIRO is full-time professor at
the Portuguese Catholic University. In the same
University he chairs the Study Centre on Peoples and
Cultures and is dean of the Institute for Distance
Learning. He has extensive international experience
with the European Commission, UNESCO, World
Bank, OECD, Council of Europe and other
development agencies. He served as a member of the
UNESCO International Commission on Education for
the 21st Century.
15
 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: RELEVANCE TO INDUSTRY NEEDS
AND PRACTICE
Paul Lefrere
Institute of Educational Technology
Open University
Walton Hall
MK7 6AA, Milton Keynes
UK

E-mail: p.lefrere@open.ac.uk

©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS approaches need to be adopted by producers of

content for TELEs, and supported explicitly by TELE
Human Resource Management, Motivation, Self- designers.
Regulated Learning, Technology Enhanced Learning
Environments, Vocational Learning INTRODUCTION

ABSTRACT SRL has been the subject of much academic research,

A significant proportion of the SRL (self-regulated
learning) needs of workers are not met by TELEs
(technology-enhanced learning environments). SRL is
unsupported, or discouraged, in workplaces that focus
on short-term returns on investments. In such
workplaces, the work context determines the depth of
meaning for staff in the term “SRL”, or related terms
such as “lifelong competency management”.
To turn SRL into a real option for most workers (an
option that they seek out and benefit from), their
work contexts must change. For this to happen,
workers and their managers need broader horizons.
They must become more accepting of self-chosen
learning, and more confident of the value of longer-
term outcomes. Those attitudinal changes can be
achieved by deploying insights, presentational
standards and techniques from advertising and the
entertainment industry (films, computer games, etc).
This will help to raise learner aspirations and
sensitize them to how the world seems to other people
(e.g., people who are more or less fortunate than
them). We give examples of powerful persuasive
approaches, of interest to industry. Arguably, such
including research on SRL and performance, a topic
that as we shall see is highly relevant to industry. Yet
SRL is rare in industry, for reasons we consider later.
SELF-REGULATED LEARNERS
A recent survey of the academic literature showed
consensus that all learners could be trained to become
more self-regulating in their learning, along six
dimensions:
1. “…cognitive strategies (repetition, elaboration and
organization) … to attend to, transform, organize,
elaborate and recover information”
2. “…how to plan, control and direct their mental
processes toward the achievement of personal goals
(metacognition)”
3. “…a high sense of …self-efficacy, the adoption of
learning goals, the development of positive emotions
towards tasks …as well as the capacity to control and
modify these, adjusting them to the requirements of
the task and of the specific learning situation”
[According to Bandura, 1986, self-efficacy is “the

16
belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the
sources of action required to manage prospective
situations”.]
4. “…plan and control the time and effort to be used
on tasks, …create and structure favorable learning
environments, …help-seeking [as needed]”
5. “…show greater efforts to participate in the control
and regulation of …tasks …and structure (e.g. …task
requirements, …organization of work teams)”
6. “…[use] volitional strategies [to avoid] …external
and internal distractions, in order to maintain their
concentration, effort and motivation… [on] tasks.
In summary, …[SRLs] see themselves as agents of
their own behavior, …believe learning is a proactive
process, …are self-motivated and …used strategies
that enable them to achieve desired …results”.
(Montalvo Torrano and González Torres, 2004, p.3)
SRL AND TELEs IN INDUSTRY
According to the review just outlined (Montalvo
Torrano and González Torres, 2004), SRL
characteristics are also attributed to high-
performance, high-capacity people. Noticing the word
“enhanced” in the phrase TELE, we might expect
that using a TELE will help us to raise our
performance and our capacity, along at least one of
the six dimensions of SRL outlined above.
In academia, those expectations are widely shared
and also largely realized: in line with the belief in
Higher Education that self-efficacy is important, it is
routine for TELEs in academia to be used to enhance
learning on at least one SRL dimension. As students
become competent on that dimension, they can move
to gain competence on other dimensions, until
eventually they are competent on all dimensions and
are fully-fledged independent and self-regulating
learners. This is at the heart of the notion of
‘graduateness’ (characteristics that define the result of
Higher Education).
To my knowledge, few companies offer anything by
way of a SRL competence development programme,
as found in academia. HR practice in industry seems
to be to seek to hire people who are already self-
regulating, rather than to hire people who need to
develop competence along some SRL dimensions.
One finding from academia, important for industry, is
that for learners new to an area or with low study
skills, SRL is inferior to externally-regulated learning
(e.g. Azevedo et al., 2005). The TELE approach
offers a solution, since any shortcomings in the
performance of learners who are given freedom to
learn can be compensated for by performance-
augmentation tools added to a TELE (e.g. Jermann,
2004, Kauffman, 2001, Azevedo’s “The Learning Kit”,
2004). Industry seems to be lagging in its use or
awareness of such tools.
In industry, two companies stand out for the freedom
they give staff to self-regulate: 3M and Semco
(Semler, 1989). Each allows all staff to use some of
their time and company resources in search of
opportunities, and as part of that, to learn whatever
they want, however they want, even in areas that their
managers or HR department know nothing about.
In other organizations, only the upper echelons have
total discretion as to what they learn, how they learn
it and resources they can call upon (e.g., personal
coaches, mentors). For them, SRL is an everyday
possibility. But at present the mass of staff do not
have the choice of SRL of any kind at work, because
SRL for an entire workforce requires not just large
investment, but a longer-term orientation.
HR DEPARTMENT PURCHASING CHOICES
The training mix from leading vendors is often broad,
including user-directed options (e.g. a library of free-
access material) and company-directed options.
For example, a Microsoft brochure on Organizational
Assessment says: “Choose training to suit your needs.
Microsoft Skills Assessment for Organizations offers
you and your staff a number of training options.
Choose from instructor-led courses delivered in a
classroom or online, and self-paced e-learning and
books that can be combined to maximize your
training dollars and get your staff up and running on
an accelerated schedule. Your learning consultant will
help you identify the right training mix based on the
needs and preferences of your organization. Training
options include: Self-study learning delivered through
Microsoft eLearning Library (MELL); Microsoft
Press books; Self-paced and instructor-led online e-
learning courses; Customized instructor-led training;
Public training courses at a local Microsoft Certified
Partner for Learning Solutions.”
17
Similar breadth of choice exists with other vendors.
But the choice of which courses to buy is usually
made by HR departments, and it is understandable if
they buy what they are familiar with and has worked
in the past, rather than try approaches new to them
such as SRL. Vendors have to cover all purchasing
preferences, to maximize sales, and so their sales
force (also known as learning solutions consultants)
will help them buy directed-learning courses if that is
what they want. The way this works for directed
learning is well illustrated by the quote below from a
Microsoft brochure on Organizational Assessment:
“Phase 1: Definition. Define the skill focus: Working
with your Microsoft Learning Solutions consultant,
you will determine the skill areas that are most critical
to your success based on your current business or
project needs. …Create a skills matrix: Working from
the areas of skill focus, teams, positions, and job roles
are defined with your business need in mind. This
process takes into account current job roles, the
required proficiency levels for specific job functions,
and the need to develop new skills. A complete skills
matrix maps the skills of each employee to those
required by his or her position. Phase 2: Validation.
Verify alignment: This phase is your organization’s
opportunity to review, influence, and validate the
skills matrixes created in the Definition phase. This
ensures the thoroughness and integrity of the skills
chosen to be assessed. Your organization’s IT
manager then ensures that each person is properly
assigned to the correct position and job role.
… Phase 4: Solution. Review employee results:
Your learning consultant will work with your
organization to evaluate the results for each
individual employee. This skill gap analysis compares
the self-assessed level with the required level for each
skill. Each skill is mapped to a customized training
plan …including live classroom and e-learning
courses. Review organizational results: The skills gap
analysis report rolls up to team and organizational
views so that training can be planned. Download
results …to manipulate the data offline. Set training
and target dates: Each skill is mapped to all related
Microsoft Learning training solutions. If an employee
is assessed at a lower skill level than required,
training solutions are set into his or her plan,
complete with tracking features and target dates for
completion.”
18
The courses most often bought and offered by HR
departments have little relevance to SRL, since they
limit the choices that users can make while on a
course. For example, they tend to be e-learning
courses of the page-turning type, in which users’
options are limited to being in charge of their pace of
study on, and the path they use to navigate through
the material.
In my experience, it is not HR practice to allow new
staff to set their own priority, timeframe or method
for reaching a needed level of performance, since
new hires are assumed not to have the background
needed to make informed decisions. This is consistent
with academic findings (e.g. Azevedo et al., 2005).
While new hires do lack background, the same cannot
be said of experienced staff, who by definition know
more about how things are done in their organization.
They are a key resource in helping managers to
determine where changes are needed in processes or
products, and how to achieve those changes fastest.
Their know-how is crucial input for HR departments
charged with spotting and remedying performance
shortcomings. It is therefore surprising that HR
departments are not more flexible in recognizing the
SRL capabilities of experienced staff.
As further evidence of a lack of interest in SRL for
the bulk of company training, I offer: the low number
of hits from a Google search of papers at industrial
training conferences; and private communications
with sales and marketing managers in training and e-
content companies, who report that their sales figures
show HR demand is highest for formal, directed-
learning courses (whether e-learning; face-to-face; or
blended learning).
INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS AND SRL
Whether SRL is encouraged at work, with or without
delivery through TELEs, depends on the goals and
timeframes of the organizational stakeholders who set
HR policy and practice related to learning.
At a day-to-day level, the stakeholders with most
influence are not customers or workers, but people
with high position-power in the organization, e.g.,
major shareholders, board members, other senior
managers). Stereotypically, learning is far from the
concerns of most of those individuals, who hold
shares in the company. Their time horizon is the next
stock-market reporting period and their goal is to
present results that increase the share price. Typically,
results that are important for that purpose are explicit
financial figures (e.g., rises in sales and profits per
employee; dividend per share; savings made since the
last period), but not measures of intellectual capital
that may affect future performance (knowledge
gained per employee; staff retention; cost of training).
From this impressionistic picture it will be seen that
major stakeholders are under pressure to set goals and
bonuses that are linked to the next reporting period.
In such an environment, staff get direction rather than
discretion; SRL is viewed as being a risky distraction
from the short-term goal of hitting the current targets;
and performance-focused training will be favoured,
as the kind of learning that gives the fastest and surest
return on investment.
TOP-LEVEL INDUSTRY NEEDS
The kinds of TELE-based courses chosen by training
departments reflect demand from one group of stake-
holders: middle managers who authorize attendance
at in-company courses. What those managers
authorize meets their immediate requirements but
may not suit the strategic, top-level needs of their
organizations.
Prime examples of top-level needs alluded to in the
title of this paper, and which SRL and TELEs should
be able to address, are the need to stay in business,
and linked to this, the need to stay competitive.
According to Davenport and Prusak (1998, quoted in
Carlucci et al., 2004), “…the only source of sustain-
able competitive advantage [which organizations]
…can leverage is the effective use of their existing
knowledge [and] …fast acquisition and utilisation of
new knowledge”.
The prospect of deriving competitive advantage from
knowledge has driven top-level interest in
knowledge management, KM, defined as “the process
of continually managing knowledge of all kinds to
meet existing and emerging needs, to identify and
exploit and acquire knowledge assets and to develop
new opportunities (Quintas et al., 1987, p387).
Concerning existing knowledge, an important factor
here is whether an organization knows how to
minimize the “Time to Performance” (T2P) of staff
who are new to the organization or new to a job
within it. T2P is the time that elapses before they
reach the same level of competence as an experienced
staff member doing the same job. It is analogous to
the T2P for new products or processes: the time it
takes before the new product or process performs at a
level that meets requirements. SRL would seem to be
relevant here, since it provides a way for staff to
explore areas that are new to their organization, or try
out variants of current processes.
Concerning new knowledge, an important factor is
how effective people are in working in teams to
create knowledge, make it explicit, and share it with
others in the organization, face-to-face and mediated
by KM systems and TELEs (van Dam, 2005).
Effectiveness can be raised by using team-oriented
performance-augmentation tools in a TELE (e.g.
Jermann, 2004). In industry, the potential of such
tools may be hard to realize, because there is often a
lack of clarity about the division of responsibilities
associated with diffusing knowledge via TELEs and
updating TELE content through links to knowledge
management systems. This leads to an
implementation problem: “…connections between
knowledge management and (e-)learning are not
operationalised. ...Learning is a HR/training
department responsibility. Its focus is primarily on
supporting formal learning and linking it to
performance. KM addresses learning as part of
knowledge sharing processes and pays more attention
to specific forms of informal learning (e.g. learning in
a community of practice) or to providing access to
learning resources or experts (e.g. yellow pages or
knowledge bases)” (Efimova and Swaak, 2003,
p.571).
CONCLUSION
I believe I have demonstrated the potential relevance
of SRL to industry needs and practice. I have also set
out a deliberately bleak picture of current practice in
HR departments, which doubtless do the best they can
in handling the possibly conflicting requirements of
major stakeholders. To close, my reading of the state
of play is that the TACONET community is in
advance of the wider community of trainers in
looking at the economically significant issue of how
to use TELEs and SRL to improve the performance of
industry.
19
REFERENCES APPENDIX – CHANGING ATTITUDES

Azevedo, R., Moos, D.C., Winters, F.I., Jeffrey, A., Greene, The take-up of SRL in industry can be facilitated by
A., Cromley, J.G., Olson, E.D. and Chaudhuri, P. combining reasoned factual arguments (e.g. in terms
(2005). Why is externally-regulated learning more of return-on-investment, ROI) with attitude-changing
effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?
strategies to get managers to recognize (literally: re-
Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec,
cognize, re-think) the merits of training staff to learn
Canada (April 11-15). to use their brains to better effect, through SRL. In
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope the TACONET presentation that is the basis of this
of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social Psychology, paper, I showed several emotionally-laden videos,
15(1), 1-17. originally produced for consumer products, that used
Carlucci, D., Marr, B. and Schiuma, G. (2004). The powerful and memorable approaches to changing
knowledge value chain: how intellectual capital impacts attitudes to the status quo, even for difficult-to-handle
on business performance. International Journal of topics such as understanding the needs of people who
Technology Management, 27 (6/7), 575-590. are not like us or who do things differently. Selective
Van Dam, N. (2005). The Business Impact of E-Learning.
use of such techniques offers a way to move to more
Doctoral Dissertation. Nyenrode Business University.
Downloaded from http://ikmagazine.nl/downloads/ intelligent forms of Training for Performance,
dissertatie.pdf. capable of driving better business results.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998). Working
Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Efimova, L. and Swaak, J. (2003). Converging knowledge PAUL LEFRERE is Senior Lecturer at the UK Open
management, training and e-learning: scenarios to make University's Institute of Educational Technology and
it work. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 9 (3), Professor of eLearning at the University of Tampere,
571-578.
Finland (Hypermedia Lab; Vocational Learning and
Jerman, P.R. (2004). Interaction Regulation in
Collaborative Problem-Solving. PhD thesis No. 340, e-skills Centre). From 2003-2005, he was on leave of
Faculty of Psychology, University of Geneva, CH. absence as Microsoft’s Executive Director for
Kauffman, D.F. (2001). Self-regulated learning in Web- eLearning, in which role he served on various
based environments: Instructional tools designed to European and national advisory groups concerned
facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive with professional learning and related topics, and also
processing, and motivational beliefs. PhD thesis. on Europe’s e-learning Industry Group, eLIG. Until
University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2003 he was Policy Adviser at the Open University,
Montalvo Torrano, F. and González Torres, M.C. (2004). where he was also Academic Director of a number of
Self-Regulated learning: current and future directions.
international multi-university projects concerned with
Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology, 2(1), 1-34 e-skills and knowledge management.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge
management: a strategic agenda. Long Range Planning,
30 (3), 385–391.
Semler, R. (1989). Managing without managers: how an
unorthodox company makes money by avoiding
decisions, rules, and executive authority. Harvard
Business Review. Boston, MA: September-October, 76-
84.
Teece, D.J. (1998). Capturing value from assets: the new
economy, market, and intangible assets. California
Management Review, 40 (3), 55–79.
The Learning Kit (2004). Theory and cognitive tools to
enhance learning skills and support lifelong learning.
Simon Fraser University, CA.. See also Azevedo 2005.

20
 THE USE OF EMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES ON THE WAY TO
BECOMING A LEARNING ORGANISATION –
THE CASE OF CNOTINFOR
Pedro Pinto
Cnotinfor
Chief Executive Officer
Coimbra
Portugal
E-mail: pedro@cnotinfor.pt
©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005
KEY WORDS
Collaborative innovation, learning organisation,
management by values, motivation
ABSTRACT
Cnotinfor Ltd. (Coimbra, Portugal) is a SME founded
in 1988 focused on technology enhanced learning,
professional training and virtual reality applications,
under a constructivist approach. Its mission,
nowadays, is to help construct the way people think,
learn and interact with the emergent technologies; and
to construct and improve tools, contents and contexts
able to support multiple intelligences and learning,
critical spirit, interaction and alternative futures
design. Its products are designed under a learn-to-
learn concept, helping to develop essential early skills
in children and the growth of their own autonomy, self
regulated learning and critical mind.
The company aims to be governed by values,
favouring inclusion and diversity, ecology and
participation and empowering the working group to
discover and live its own values.
This paper is about understanding how the
organisational environment and technological context
can help to develop self regulation competencies
inside the company, and how these competencies
influence the personal and organisational learning.
INTRODUCTION
Cnotinfor, as an organisation, focused on the
conception and development of TELEs
(Technology Enhanced Learning Environments),
is designed to be creative, innovative, flexible and
competitive within demanding and global markets.
The technological, social and cultural context of
Cnotinfor’s activity means that it has a continuous
need for learning:
a. The new virtual environments and interaction
networks contribute even more to the re-guiding of
concepts such as education and learning within the
organisation: the logic of vertical transmission of
knowledge from those who generate it or withhold
it (through experience or hierarchic position) is
now being replaced by a group construction of
knowledge practice, enriched by the interaction
and diversity of different sources of/support for
information. This option expresses itself in the
organisation of processes and execution of tasks
through multidisciplinary work groups, with an
horizontal hierarchy and shared co-ordination.
b. The emergent technologies brought important
changes to the life of the organisation and its co-
workers: new information supports new
possibilities of visual representation of thinking,
new space and time dynamics.
c. These technologies are powerful tools for
learning processes and also impel the self
acquaintance of the group and its enrichment,
21
thanks to the growing closeness and speed of
communication. However, it is also known that
technologies cannot by themselves guarantee
significant learning and quality experiences.
d. The technological ways that support the
organisational activity (CRM, software tools for
synchronised management of projects, tasks and
allocation of resources) do not have the mission to
“teach” but to be an instrument for the development of
learning experiences, in a collaborative way. They
must be understood as sophisticated mediator agents
that value the experience of personal and group
learning.
e. Technologies can unfold new ways of creating
entertaining, playful and interactive spaces,
synchronous or not, in which dynamic settings and
learning environments can be created in an
autonomous, interactive and synchronous way.
f. Appealing to some assertive participation promotion
methodologies, based on creativity and in Edward de
Bono’s (1985) concept of parallel thinking, the
technological platform of the organisation supports
the exploration of its co-workers creative potential,
and integrates multidisciplinary work into every new
project.
g. However, the possibility of all co-workers being
connected at any moment may not always bring
efficient results, if there are not adequate conditions
such as: effective communication skills development,
written communication, open interchange, individual
responsibility and social compromise, expression of
the values that guide the organisation’s actions.
LEADERSHIP THROUGH VALUES
In contrast to companies who follow the conventional
strategic management model, Cnotinfor does not try to
define its strategies by an intellectual exercise that
would therefore mould the management policies.
Instead, the organisation bases itself on a set of
fundamental values, identified and clarified inside the
group, that can generate energy and are capable of
freeing the human potential of every co-worker –
values such as humility, autonomy, joy, challenge,
confidence, mutual respect, community. These values
are used to develop, or at least to evaluate, policies
and management practices that can give them
pragmatic and daily expression.
22
Converting values into a competitive advantage
requires the maximum exploitation of the
collective intelligence - rational and emotional - of
all those who integrate the company. Sharing the
same vision and the same corporate values not
only benefits the personal contribution of each
one’s values, but also constitutes a progress engine
for the organisation and for the people. Experience
demonstrates that owning values and building
them corporately in a group tends to be an income-
producing business: human talent has got more
“space” to grow and develop itself; productivity
increases; the quality of the customer service
improves; labour and personal time are better
used; conflicts are dealt with quicker and more
effectively; reflection allows errors to be rectified
and direction to follow; the recognition methods
favour spontaneity, invention and creation.
Salvador Garcia (1998) synthesises the necessary
balance of values for the health of an organisation
in this way: practical or control values (efficiency,
results, quality, order, punctuality, productivity,
measurement, discipline, agility) that translate a
surviving sense, and also political or
emotional/creative development values (illusions,
creativity, optimism, balance between work and
life, autonomy, initiative, joy) that represent
human sensitivity.
Uniting these two axles in the organisation creates
a reliable space that gives place to strong
innovation changes, both economical and
emotional. Within the organisation base there are
also ethical and moral values: generosity, honesty,
transparency, good conscience, social
commitment, allotment.
Strong and shared culture
Cnotinfor’s organisational culture is based on a
value sharing system, in which shared values
guide people’s behaviours and also act and interact
in their work to stimulate great sharing of
information throughout the organisation. One of
the company’s main goals is to continually invest
in its staff, not only developing technical and
executive abilities, but also looking forward to
provide opportunities for each individual’s
personal development and for the development of
the group, promoting growth and recognition
within the company. Once the company centres
itself on people and in the quality of group
relations, the sense of collective responsibility is
raised in a natural way. The belief that teams are very
important as a means to execute work and to promote
autonomy and responsibility – joining in the ideas and
energy of everyone – helps promoting the sense of
purpose, belonging and compromise.
Technological platform
The company’s projects and knowledge management
software tools demonstrate that innovation and all
other company activities can be integrated and
transversal. This technological platform supports
advanced functionalities in project definitions and
assumptions of work teams; connection between
researchers/customers/users related with the project;
products with input to the project; registering all
observed developments; definition of all given
services in the scope of the project; task definition;
tasks assignment to each work team member; meeting
agendas; progress report registration;, publication of
results; registration of all contacts made in the scope
of the project. Publishing and sharing results is one of
the company’s most encouraged practices. The main
idea behind the development of the platform is for it
to become a tool to enhance more significant learning.
It does not aim to produce intelligent artefacts, but
instead to build challenging artefacts that defy their
users to become even more intelligent, more critical
and more creative.
Collaborative innovation cycle
In our R&TD activities, we follow a research/action
centred approach that involves establishing
collaborative networks where node is a co-researcher.
This kind of approach engages subsequent changes
that shall be assumed and reflected on by every agent
involved.
Research and production methodologies are linked
and mutually dependent and they are also necessarily
centred on people: clients, co-workers and partners.
Therefore the company looks forwards to incorporate
the most up to date technological developments in
software engineering, multimedia, new kinaesthetic
interfaces, virtual reality, artificial intelligence,
neuronal and semantic nets. In addition, it is
especially concerned and attentive to learning
theories, cognitive science, relationship marketing,
quality management, and to the improvement of all
company processes.
In the beginning of this cycle, we use research
methods based on a co-design theory (Laurel,
2003) that endorses creativity and at the same time
provides contributions about the way users learn
and use tools. That is: about the users’ active
participation in building tools; about their use of
co-constructed tools.
This creative cycle supplied by users,
programmers, researchers, designers, leads to an
iterative production of prototypes. These
prototypes are not tested by users but with them,
observing the way they use them, reflecting with
them about ways to improve tools. This is,
therefore, a highly participatory process, involving
continuous work with every user in the process
until obtaining the final product. This specification
and collaborative development phase within a
wider net is crucial for incorporating the most
adequate technologies into the product. It takes
strong research work to select appropriate
technological standards to incorporate in the new
product. All research process is guided by
experimental work with the users.
Once this iterative cycle is complete, the product
emerges, and with its launch a new phase begins.
The product’s cycle of life has to be supported by
a net of users, researchers, education experts and
designers, who promote its most creative use, self
learning experiences and good practice exchange
with the aim of producing a sense of belonging
within learning communities.
The main key to achieving a high level of
customer satisfaction and sustaining economic
income is to have a virtual user’s support platform
that allows for change in experience and the
dissemination of good practices about the use of
the product in learning contexts. Cnotinfor’s one is
called imagina.pt.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Cnotinfor’s existing work methodology takes a
non-directive approach, in which everyone’s
personal timings considering understanding and
executing tasks are fully respected. This
incorporates recognition of the collective vision of
the teams responsible for the projects, as well as
schedules and commitments to honour. The
different existing teams, shaped according to their
specific projects, have members that tend to
23
collaborate strictly between the team so that the
project final results display everyone’s highest
contribution and the uppermost quality in the final
products. It is, therefore, very important that all
members of this company are integrated and adapted
in an autodidactic system that provides continuous
self regulated learning. This need implies that every
individual is an active participant in his own learning
process, in different aspects such as cognition,
motivation, behaviour, (Zimmerman, 1989, 1994).
Each team holds and guides its efforts in seeking to
acquire knowledge and abilities that can be useful to
each project (Weinert, 1983 in Chung, 2000). All
team working has four basic features according to the
self-regulated learning bibliography (Paris and
Winograd, 1990):
- Efficient way of thinking conscience, that implies
constantly analysing each other’s self learning and
thinking exercise;
- Constant expansion of strategy selection, knowing
that it is more important to be a strategist than to
know several strategies. Being a strategist implies
considering options before defining tactics for the
development of projects or problems;
- Motivation to achieve foreseen goals in the project
planning, (these goals can be altered and constrained
by several inherent difficulties);
- Reflection and evaluation concerning task execution,
project success or failure causes and emotional
discernment.
Thus, and according to Schunk and Zimmerman
(1994), every project’s defined goals are the main
matter for each individual in the several institutional
work teams, once all can learn how to learn, acquire
abilities that involve more adaptable learning
strategies, apply higher intrinsic motivation and a
stronger sense of efficient understanding of learning
processes. On the other hand, they also need to plan
and control time and efforts engaged in task
execution, as well as considering
knowledge/information in order to create and structure
environments favourable to project development.
Following Montalvo & Torres (2004), every co-
worker considers himself as an agent of his own
behaviour, recognising learning as a proactive
process, viewing himself motivated and appealing to
strategies that allow them to reach the desired results.
24
REFERENCES
Chung, M. (2000). The development of self-
regulated learning. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 2000, 1, 55-66.
de Bono, E. (1985). Os Seis Chapéus do
Pensamento. Editora Pergaminho, Cascais,
Portugal.
García, S. and Shimon, D. (1998). La Dirección
por Valores. SPI, La Habana, Cuba.
Gardner, H. and Rinaldi. C. (2000). Making
Learning Visible.
Huysman, M., Wenger, E., & Wulf, V. (2004).
Communities and Technologies. Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Kafai, Y. and Resnick, M. (1996).
Constructionism in Practice: Designing,
Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Laurel, B. (2003). Design Research: Methods and
Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Montalvo, F. T. and Torres, M. C. G. (2004). Self-
regulated learning: current and future
directions. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 2004, 2 (1), 1-34.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children,
Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York,
Basic Books
Paris, S. G. and Winograd, P. (1990). How
metacognition can promote academic learning
and instruction. In B. F. Jones and L. Idol
(Eds). Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive
Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey, 15-51.
Turkle, S. (1984). Second Self: Computers and the
Human Spirit. NewYork, N.Y.: Simon and
Schuster
Weinert, F. E. (1983). Self-regulated learning as
an instructional prerequisite, method and
objective. Education, 28, 117-128.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-
regulated learning and academic achievement.
In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds).
Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: Theory, Research and Practice.
Springer – Verlag: New York, 1-25.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of
academic self-regulation: a conceptual
framework for education. In D. H. Schunk &
B. J. Zimmerman (Eds). Self-Regulation of
Learning and Performance: Issues and
Educational Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum
 Associates, Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Chapter 1, 3-21.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

PEDRO PINTO – Graduated in Economics, School

of Economy, University of Coimbra, Portugal (1993)
and gained a post-graduate qualification in
International Finance Management.
He has specialist credentials in strategic organisations’
management consulting, interpersonal relationship
and creative conflict resolution. At present, he is
Cnotinfor’s partner and Chief Executive Officer. He is
a member of the European consortium research
projects i3net “Playground for Learning” (1998-
2001), Minerva “Colabs – Collaborative Laboratories
for Learning” (2002-2004) and FP6 Network of
Excellence Kaleidoscope (2004-2008). He is the
World Bank’s consultant in the projects “Inclusive
Education and Disability in Brazil” (2003) and
“Inclusive Development and Disability” (2005).

25
 MOTIVATION AND MICRO-DESIGN MODELS AND TECHNIQUES
Gaetano Bruno Ronsivalle
Research & Development Manager, e-learning Division
Didagroup S.p.A.
v. S. Cannizzaro 51
00156, Rome
Italy

E-mail: bronsivalle@didagroup.it

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

Vanessa Metus
Research & Development, e-learning Division
Didagroup S.p.A.
v. S. Cannizzaro 51
00156, Rome
Italy

E-mail: vmetus@didagroup.it

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

Translated by Simona Carta

KEYWORDS The second phase consists of the definition of

Dissonance, instructional design, micro-design,
motivation.
ABSTRACT
Educational micro-design activity takes place at the
end of a first macro-design phase, with the aim of
creating the learning course architecture.
The passage from the macroscopic dimension to the
single cells (Learning Object) design requires the
definition and standardisation of an effective model,
aiming to integrate theoretical options and
educational strategies.
According to the model we propose, the first phase
of the micro-design process consists of content
analysis. This analysis is founded on a particular
interpretation of mental models theory (Ph. Johnson-
Laird) and on graphic representation techniques of
knowledge systems through concept maps (J.
Novak).
educational strategy in relation to learning process
and learning time. This stage requires (a) a
distinction between schemata and semantic network
(J. Kagan), (b) the association of mental models
(mental states) to particular behaviour patterns, (c)
the identification of algorithms deriving from the
application of cognitive dissonance theory (L.
Festinger).
A series of experiments highlighted the actual
advantages coming from the adoption of this model
for learning time prediction and for Learning Object
micro-design, both in distance and blended learning
courses.
INTRODUCTION
The theses put forward in this essay constitute the
basis of a theoretical reference framework for
instructional micro-design, with a particular focus
on the phases preceding the storyboard-writing
activity.

26
The choice of this topic stems from the need to
define a methodologically-based practice for those
specific activities in which the main risks related to
the outcome of an e-learning or blended training
programme are concentrated.
Most e-learning projects do not require a brief
micro-design document on the preliminary content
analysis. There are no shared models or adequate
control tools in this sense and, in general, micro-
designers only produce storyboards. Because of the
lack of documentation, content analysis remains a
storyboarder’s “innermost and personal” activity
that cannot be shared and controlled in itinere. As a
result, the risk that practice is founded on the single
storyboarder’s “innate qualities” and “common
sense” prevails.
In this way, any possible misinterpretation of
content follows through to the final storyboard
writing. Without a formalised system of interaction
between macro- and micro-designer, the choice of
the instructional strategy for content presentation in
storyboards depends exclusively on the micro-
designer’s choice and expertise and, moreover, can
only be checked at the end of the activity.
Our specific purpose is to define the “concept
atoms” on which the activities of content analysis
and the definition of the logical architecture of a
Learning Object are based, through a series of
reflections aimed at giving an operational
interpretation of the instructional designer’s
theoretical vocabulary.
In particular, after defining the difference between
macro- and micro design (section 1), sections 2 and
3 deal with the analysis of the concepts of
“knowledge system” and “learning process” starting
from a personal interpretation of the Mental Models
theory.
In section 4 we will tackle the vexata quaestio of the
evaluation of learning and of the “imperfect
correspondence” between “mental states” and
“observable behaviours”.
The introduction of the basic concept of “learning
resistance” (section 5) then, will allow us to reflect
on the motivation through an analysis of cognitive
dissonance theory (section 6) and its possible
application in micro-design context (section 7).
In section 8 we will present some algorithms for the
design of a Learning Object storyboard in a system
of dynamic personalisation of training programmes
for a large amount of learners.
Finally in the last section, we will try to highlight
the advantages and open debate on questions
deriving from a flexible management of cognitive
dissonance, in terms of training effectiveness and
optimisation of learning time.
We wish to thank all the instructional designers of
Didagroup (with particular thanks to Claudia
Mercuri, Andrea Petrosellini, Daniela Pellegrini,
Elisa Lucatelli, Daniele Manzocchi and Sara
Villella) and of Abiformazione (with particular
thanks to Claudia Miolli, Marco Pigliacampo,
Martina Ceccotti and Anna Ferraiolo), Antonio
Bartolomé (Universidad de Barcelona), Valerio
Eletti (Università La Sapienza di Roma), Cinzia
Mezzetti (Università dell’Aquila), Clara Rosio (Dida
America), Eduardo Hamuy and Miguel Arredondo
(Universidad ARCIS de Santiago de Chile), Aida
Maisano and Barbara Filippella (SPS
Abiformazione), Marco Baglieri (Leeds University),
Massimo Loi (Università di Padova), Laura Ferraris,
Stefano Gamba and Marta Palla for their countless
and precious contributions to the subject of micro-
design.
Moreover, we are grateful to Chiara Andreoli
because she was the first to encourage us to interpret
Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance from a
training perspective.
Finally, we would like to express our special thanks
to Simona Carta for her willingness and for her
patient revision and translation of the present essay
into English.
MACRO AND MICRO-DESIGN
The learning design process can be divided into two
distinct phases: macro-design and micro-design.
Although closely connected, these two phases have
different aims, different specific activities, different
outputs and involve different people.
The first phase essentially consists of the definition
of training needs, general objectives, participants
and the nature of the subject area (level of
knowledge, prerequisites and complexity levels). It
is also important to establish, in general, the
27
evaluation system, the instructional strategies that
encourage motivation and the communication style.
From this information, the macro-designer is able to
(a) establish the macro-structure of the training
programme (division of contents into modules and
learning units); (b) choose the best training delivery
method (online, blended and face-to-face learning);
(c) produce a “tree of learning objectives”; (d)
define the evaluation system features (initial, in
itinere, final and meta-evaluation); and (e) structure
the tutoring service together with administration and
communication services (forum, chat and e-mail).
After defining the general structure of the training
programme, the analytical design of the single cells
that make up the course can begin.
For everything specifically related to the content of
the course, the micro-designer must take account of
the brief reports written during the macro-design
phase and then expand them both formally and
substantially. In this way he/she can (a) make an
accurate analysis of content; (b) define the structure
of objectives for each unit of learning; (c) plan the
structure of each Learning Object; (d) define the
general guidelines and the specific instructional
strategy that will influence the web page sequence;
and (e) start writing storyboards.
CONTENT ANALYSIS AND
REPRESENTATION
The pivotal point of a good micro-design process is
the rigorous analysis of content.
The relevant result of this analysis consists of the
elaboration of a series of concept maps representing
the knowledge systems connected to the different
learning objectives of the training programme. In
other words, it is the detailed definition of contents
and concept architecture of every Learning Object.
Let us start talking about the fundamental elements
of the process. The representation of the elements
and the logical structure of an information system
require a theoretical reference model of the concept
of “knowledge”.
Let us try to give a practical definition of it without
getting stuck in a maze of different philosophical
and psychological interpretations. According to the
mental models theory (Johnson-Laird, 1983), a
28
knowledge system is a symbolic representation of an
event, a phenomenon, a concrete object or a concept.
In other words, this theory states that our mind tends
to create internal models of the different “portions”
of reality which constitute its interest or study
object. Consequently there are mental models
representing the people around us, the objects on our
desk, the previous day’s events, the images inspired
by a poem, the concept sequence of a mathematical
theorem, the sound of leaves in the wind…
To know the object, the event, the concept X means
having a mental model of X at a specific moment of
our life. This mental model can be more or less
complex, depending on the elements that
“constitute” the object X.
In order to simplify the discourse, we say that to
represent a mental model of an object X it is
necessary, firstly, to define and list the constituent
characteristic elements of X; secondly, to determine
the relationships existing between them; thirdly, to
define precisely the time interval in which this
mental model is elaborated. The result is our
“knowledge system” of the object “in
correspondence to a precise time reference”. This is
a mental model, an internal “copy” of the world, the
fundamental element establishing our relationship
with reality. A “fragment” of our general knowledge
system. A static “miniature” version of the world…
The micro-designer is the first student of the course.
While analysing content, he/she studies to define
and propose an interpretation of what constitutes the
object of analysis. Therefore, he/she identifies one
or more main concepts and a series of subordinate
and correlated ones; then, he/she describes the
relationships between these concepts. In other
words, he/she tries to produce a mental model
capable of representing the logical and basic
architecture of the newly acquired information.
This process is the necessary prelude to the
storyboard-writing activity and, from a productive
point of view, needs a significant output, a “formal”
document capable of extensively describing and
representing the analysis results: a concept map
(Novak, 1998).
The concept map is a logical-visual representation of
knowledge on a specific subject area. It is composed
of two elements: concepts, represented by text
usually enclosed in circles or boxes of some type;
and relationships, represented by vectors joining two
or more concepts and illustrating the links between
them. These links can be distinguished in terms of:
“hierarchical” links between concepts belonging to
the same field; and “non-hierarchical” links between
concepts belonging to different knowledge domains.
Hence a concept map can be considered a formal
description of the mental model connected to the
structure of contents.
The use of concept maps has led to very good results
in terms of effectiveness both in schools and in
contexts related to adult training, like universities
and vocational centres.
Our experience in the coordination and management
of e-learning projects makes us think that concept
maps can be useful tools for micro-designers. They
help them to organise, systematise and describe
knowledge in a standardised way, thereby assisting
the following phases of storyboarding activity. In
fact, they allow the design team to share the
preliminary analysis results. In this way, it is also
possible to control the different steps of the
productive process. From the outset, any possible
misinterpretation of content can be identified and
corrected. Without this first check, these critical
aspects could be underlined only by reading and
analysing all storyboards, with a substantial waste of
time and energy.
THE LEARNING PROCESS
The human mind is a dynamic system. Our way of
representing things undergoes many changes.
Sometimes these changes are almost undetectable:
after being produced according to our experience,
some mental models stay with us for life. This is the
case for some representations of nature or the
physical world in general.
In many other situations, we must significantly
update our internal images of things, events and
concepts used for their representation. We must
change our “vocabulary” which allows us to “think”
about reality and talk about it This process of
“updating” and continually transforming mental
models over time is the basis of the learning process
which characterises a training programme.
In this sense, the micro-designer cannot confine
him/herself to analysing the single fragments of the
training programme. He/she must aim to determine
the best ways to present the content, in order to
orient the process of acquisition and integration of
new information. This implies a general vision of
the dynamics that influence learning and help us to
choose the criteria for an intervention strategy. It is
an operational vision of what happens in the
learner’s mind before and after a training
programme.
Based on these premises, let us try to exemplify the
learning process by drawing a time line.
The zero point of the time line represents the initial
mental model. At this level it is important to
evaluate the student’s cognitive map starting from
his/her reference vocabulary. In fact, the vocabulary
provides useful information to determine the
structure of his/her knowledge system of that subject
area.
The following moment is crucial: the student’s mind
is stimulated in a significant way, and external
information is given for him/her to manage
appropriately.
The third point represents the integration of learning
input in his/her own knowledge system.
Received information enriches the already existing
concept map and contributes to the creation of the
target knowledge system of the training programme.
Therefore, the new mental model is created.
Now we can define the learning process as the
dynamic process starting from the student’s initial
knowledge system and ending with the final
knowledge system. It is represented by the concept
map created after the content analysis, and
integrated with the student’s initial knowledge
system. Indeed throughout the training programme,
the initial knowledge system undergoes gradual
changes due to the need to integrate, modify,
substitute and remove parts of the initial mental
model after acquiring new information.
According to this definition, “mental models” can be
compared to the stills of a film which describe a
specific “learning process” throughout a time line”
(Ronsivalle, 2002, p.141: […]. “These symbolic
structures […] are therefore the final product of the
automaton’s interaction with physical reality and
can be assimilated to real (more or less complex)
29
 Initial Mental Model
t0
Figure 1: Example of time line
photograms, each representing a particular moment
within the ordered sequence of the machine’s inner
transformations.”).
Each still is a static and well-defined element of this
evolution and can be analysed as an autonomous
object.
In this sense, the expression “knowledge system” (or
“mental models system”) describes a condition of
harmony, a particular static relationship between the
subject and a representation of reality. I know X
(object, concept, phenomenon, event…), hic et nunc,
that is, here and now, I am aware that I have some
structured information on that specific subject.
According to analytical philosophy, the term
“knowledge” can be defined as a particular structure
of linguistic signs (an interpretive model, a period, a
series of connected propositions, a theorem, etc)
capable of “representing” a systematic fragment of
reality. This means that the proposition “I know X”
can be translated into the affirmation that “here and
now” I have a semantic structure capable of
reflecting a partial representation of the world inside
my mind. In this way, I can use this linguistic
structure to act directly on the world and to talk with
other people about the contents of the
representation.
Knowledge is static because we can represent the
“states of things” due to a well-established ability
which allows us to organise the object internally
through a structural relationship. This implies a
systemic organisation of knowledge but also a stable
prepositional structure which is connected to the
30
Final Mental Model
t1 t2
ability to develop a series of associated clauses
representing the “state of things.”
The acquisition of this ability is connected to:
(a) the possibility of going beyond the chaotic
perceptive state at a specific moment in order to
reach a state of emotional tranquillity, stability,
balance between perceptual phenomena and
interpretation of the object at issue. The resulting
vocabulary represents an important filter in the
translation of our mental language into the shared
and common one;
(b) subject’s awareness of the logical rules
governing knowledge through the language and
perception of a strong dichotomy between “subject”
and “object”. The distance between the “I who
know” and “the thing known” is necessary in order
to recognise the object as “something different” at a
specific moment;
(c) the perception of our own present state of
“power” towards external reality. The acquired
knowledge becomes an instrument which controls
the linguistic structure concerning the state of things
at issue and allows us to transform the world and to
talk about our own knowledge to other people.
In reference to language, the concept of “learning”
refers to a dynamic process involving comparison,
integration, overlap, the breaking down and
assimilation of terms, rules and theoretical models
according to a process of evolution towards more
and more complex and articulated symbolic
structures.
A person modifies and adapts his/her vocabulary
over time, along a temporal line defined by a point
of departure and one of arrival: it is a continuous
process delineated by mental models, static
linguistic systems.
Therefore the subject perceives the transition from a
lower state to an upper one in his/her ability of
structural organisation. The evolutionary nature is
caused by the transition towards more and more
complex states of knowledge organisation. This
entails:
(a) a state of instability connected to the more or less
immediate opening of the cognitive system to
external stimuli, to the different inputs of the
training programme. The subject is privy to
perceptions and linguistic stimuli and, in linguistic
terms, he/she must be able to build a new
vocabulary in a coherent and integrated way;
(b) a substantial lack of awareness with respect to
the continuous dynamics of the flow of knowledge
and an overlap between “subject” and “object”. In
fact, during the process, the subject is not always
able to describe his/her learning process because
there is not always a clear distinction between the
initial linguistic system and the new one, between
the subject and the object to learn. When the subject
is fully aware of this distinction, he/she obtains a
static moment of “knowledge”, a mental model, a
“static linguistic knowledge” system;
(c) the perception of one’s state of powerlessness
with regard to the unknown object. As one comes to
know the object better, he/she realises that “before”
he/she did not control it completely. As a
consequence we are certain of being constantly
powerless (because it seems that everything can
always be known in a more complex way…) and we
feel ill-at-ease and linguistically lost because of the
variations and inadequacies of the initial
vocabularies.
Hence the learning process ends the state of
tranquillity and starts a period characterised by great
emotional instability, disharmony, dissonance and
uneasiness. The acquisition of knowledge can be
compared to a series of internal micro-revolutions
(Ronsivalle, 2002, p.156: “This thesis is based upon
drawing an analogy between mind and a complex
living body, and it assumes that the development of
a biological system be epigenetic, that is, channelled
within certain paths pre-determined by the genetic
code; except temporarily when it withdraws in
certain periods because of over-strong external
stimulation (in so-called catastrophes), it has
dynamics similar to those operative in a marble’s
descent down the main and meandering paths of a
large valley.”), in linguistic terms, of representations
of the world, of relationships with things and other
people, etc. aiming to reach a new cognitive state in
a more or less lasting way.
Everything inevitably aims at overcoming the state
of dissonance…
MENTAL MODELS AND BEHAVIOURS
In designing learning activities, and micro-design in
particular, the issue of evaluating learning must be
considered. The change from consonance to
dissonance and back again must be planned and
checked properly. Therefore, the question of
measuring the single mental models and their
evolution over time arises. What can we really
“record” during the training programme? How can
we prove that the student really learnt something?
We have one certainty: it is not possible to capture a
mental model or a learning process without affecting
it.
In order to understand if a significant change has
been produced and what has happened in the
learner’s mind as a consequence, it is necessary to
record and evaluate the learner’s behaviours at
different times and then, to understand if these
behaviours can be considered proof of the learning
process (Mager, 1975). This reasoning takes for
granted that there is a link between mental states and
observable behaviours, that is, between the mental
models and the learner’s actions connected to the
content of knowledge.
The definition of the object which will be measured
and the ontology of the learning design vocabulary
is a very delicate passage.
If the concrete aim of a training programme consists
of inviting the student to perform specific actions,
each action should constitute one of the markers of
learning, therefore one of the objectives of the
course.
31
When defining an objective, we should describe
extensively the performance we want learners to be
able to exhibit before we consider them competent,
in order to demonstrate their mastery of the
objective.
But the correspondence between observable
behaviours and mental states is imperfect. It is not
possible to deduce the existence of a mental state
starting from a single behaviour because a single
behaviour can correspond to infinite mental states.
Therefore, the concept of “atomic” behaviour is the
product of naïve reasoning. Let us think, for
example, about a person flinging a bottle at another
person. This action can be caused by many different
reasons: by anger towards the person showing
his/her dissent; by disagreement with the other
person’s reasoning; by a sense of release from life’s
injustices; by jealousy against a witty sentence; by a
manifestation of a mere ideological idiosyncrasy
against the system represented by the other person;
by an exaggerated reaction to a criticism due to
drunkenness; or a fit of madness…
The event does not allow us to determine a strong
relationship between the action and what the subject
thinks at that moment. It is not possible to deduce
this correspondence from an indisputable nomic link
because there is no nomic link. They are different
phenomena with different vocabularies.
The relationship exists but consists of weak links.
These are linguistic links and cannot be deduced by
simply observing the single phenomenon.
In order to begin rigorous research into the mental
life of the individual at that specific time it is
necessary to reconstruct the structure of phenomena.
This structure constitutes the framework in which
the single event (in this case the subject’s strange
behaviour) is included.
The framework is made of various elements that are
significant for the subject and integrated into a thin
relational fabric; this fabric consists of single
interwoven events throughout a time line according
to an articulated logic. It is the logic of a complex
system whose architecture cannot and must not be
compared to a simple game between stimuli and
answers.
32
The framework of an observable behaviour and of
its relationship with a specific mental state is given
by the structure of behaviours and events that
precede and follow the single action. They are
similar to the images of the same object reflected in
a cyclical fashion in a room of mirrors. Here, the
time and the logical sequence of images allow us to
reconstruct the object. Consequently, we cannot
speak of “atomic behaviours” representing “mental
states” because only logical structures of behaviours
could correspond to a specific mental state (Kagan,
2002). When using the concept of a “structure of
behaviours” we always emphasise the flow of single
events according to a temporal link.
What we have said could be seen as stating the
obvious but it has great epistemological importance
in the training field. We have stated that we can
check the presence or the absence of a knowledge
system, of a mental model, only by observing a
performance; but this statement is partially false and
even completely naïve from a methodological point
of view.
The possibility to directly measure a knowledge
system through a stimulus and the following
learner’s reaction is an illusion. In fact both the
stimulus and the reaction belong to a flow of events
that have a specific meaning for the subject; this
flow, then, cannot be isolated and analysed without
referring to the framework.
Therefore the only way forward consists of
analysing the connection between single observable
behaviours, the structure of “adjacent” behaviours
(in a logical-temporal sense) and the hypothetical
mental state connected to this web of events. In fact
the correspondence, or the possibility of
correspondence, can make sense only if it is built
according to its connection in the mind at a specific
moment with the web of behaviours considered to
be “signs” of the mental model.
That is why we talk about trees of observable
behaviours. Instead of the single elements, it is
necessary to pay attention to the structural
relationships and architecture of the system. The
making of a tree of observable behaviours
constitutes the final step in the formulation of
various hypotheses on “imperfect correspondence.”
At the heart of each hypothesis there is the concept
of a connection between a specific structure of
behaviours and a single mental state, according to a
one-to-many logic and to the logic of the time-
dependent flow. The “measurement”, that is the
observation of the behaviours constituting the web,
will be the basis for a check of the “coherence” of
the initial hypothesis; moreover, it will have to
follow the rules of methodological falsification, in
terms of conjectures and refutations.
Only by observing-measuring the different images
(the behaviours) reflected in the room of mirrors,
thus the “framework” and not a simple “atomic”
image, will we be able to check the existence of the
object (the mental model). (This perspective derives
from a personal interpretation of Quine’s
epistemological holism).
MOTIVATION
The definition of the relationship between mental
models and observable behaviours plays a
fundamental role when the micro-designer chooses
the instructional strategy that will be adopted in the
storyboards.
From an instructional point of view, the problem of
the “strategy” is closely related to the “motivation”.
What reasons or events will be capable of guiding
the learner to abandon his/her knowledge systems
and start new cognitive experiences? How can the
learner be stimulated to make such an endeavour?
The adoption of the right strategy encouraging
motivation can lead the student to question his/her
knowledge system and to accept the new inputs.
As already said, an observable behaviour can be
considered one proof (but not “the only one”) of the
existence of a mental model if and only if it refers to
a structure of behaviours, to a significant framework
of events and interactions. The relationship with the
framework allows us to understand the meaning of
that behaviour for the subject in relation to his/her
own everyday practical, intellectual and professional
dimensions. In other words, it is necessary to check
the functionality level of that flow of behaviours,
that is their aptitude for coherently responding to a
series of more or less practical needs constituting the
learner’s training needs.
How much does the learner care about succeeding in
completing that activity? What importance does the
sequence of behaviours have in relation to his/her
life? How does the learner perceive the behaviour at
hand, as a single activity or as part and parcel of a
process? Is the relationship between the objectives
of the general course and the single fragments clear?
This is a basic point. The general objective of a
training programme consists of sharing a series of
conceptual stimuli with the learner; the stimuli aim
to integrate particular visions of reality with direct
intervention in the scope of content application.
Hence, it is not only a question of changing our way
of seeing things but of creating new behavioural
patterns. We need to measure and check the
outcome. Then we must observe behaviours because
they constitute (a) “proofs” of the existence of a
specific mental state, and (b) evidence of the
integration of the new mental model into the
learner’s behavioural pattern.
Alternatively, when starting a training programme,
the learner could already have some notions and
application models capable of solving a wide set of
practical problems in a more or less functional way.
To “contextualise” an observable behaviour means
defining its “distance” from the learner’s initial
behavioural patterns. What is the basic difference
between the old and the new behavioural pattern?
Are there any points of contact?
In this sense, the identification of these particular
“sensors” is of primary importance. Everything
revolves around their pertinence to the new
behavioural patterns that the learner should obtain,
and then demonstrate to have obtained, during the
training programme. The coherence of the “sensors”
system is the result of a rigorous analysis of the
context where the learner will apply these new
patterns according to a concretely functional
perspective. If one designs behavioural patterns that
are abstract and detached from everyday practice
and/or does not adequately communicate the logic of
the design to the learner, one risks compromising the
good result of this integration. In fact, by doing so,
one produces only epiphenomenal changes, without
any measurable effect on the learner’s different
professional and/or intellectual activities. The
learner could “learn” the new information systems
and easily pass all tests, but then he/she could
continue to apply his/her old behavioural patterns
after eliminating the fake “mental model” as a
foreign body.
In order to understand this concept better, let us take
the example of a banking group which decides to
experiment a new procedure in granting bank credits
33
to small enterprises. Even if there are no particular
problems in this area, the new procedure aims at
managing the Compliance risk in banks more
efficiently, according to the guidelines of the Basel
Committee.
In order to check the effectiveness and the
functional stability of the new procedure, the
managers of the banking group choose a sample of
five bank agencies. Before adopting the new system,
the managers of these agencies are invited freely to
attend an e-learning training programme on the
corporate LMS platform. At the end of it they will
have to express an opinion on the new procedure.
The multimedia course contains a general
introduction to the theoretical aspects connected
with granting bank credit (norms, policies, etc.) and
a section for the analysis of the new procedure with
the simulation of its managing software.
This experimental phase is therefore very useful
because it allows an immediate check of possible
employee reactions to the new procedure and, at the
same time, the potential of the Training Area to
support and encourage changes.
When designing the training programme, the fact
that learners perceive the old procedure in a positive
light cannot be ignored. They know it inside out,
they understand its various articulations and
implications, they have tested its different
applications in many situations and they have often
checked its effectiveness and functionality in
corporate processes.
Therefore there is a sort of implicit acceptance of the
initial model, a strong cognitive and behavioural
relationship which remains stable because of the
positive results achieved year after year. This
relationship could produce some phenomena of
resistance and discomfort against the introduction of
the new procedure.
As stated before, the learning process causes a state
of great emotional instability, disharmony and
uneasiness, in other words, the dissonance between
concept groups. This takes for granted that the stable
state of knowledge is characterised by a certain level
of consonance which provides the cognitive system
with an inertial force preventing changes and
learning happening. Why should one abandon a
well-functioning model? Why should one submit to
34
the stress of a training programme if the old
procedure never caused any problems?
In this case, the designer must consider this potential
“learning resistance” (This subject was covered in
detail in Loi and Ronsivalle, 2005 and in Ronsivalle,
2005a.) that is directly proportional to (a) the level
of consonance of the initial mental model and
behavioural pattern with the learner’s professional
practice, and (b) the “distance”, in terms of quantity
and quality of information, between the old and the
new procedure.
This information will then be integrated with a
series of other factors that describe the learner’s
total cognitive state in relation to a specific content
structure:
• learning style, that is the way in which
he/she succeeds in acquiring information in
the best way;
• cognitive style, that is the way in which
he/she internally organises the newly
acquired information;
• the type and means of representing and
communicating the acquired information;
• the relationship between the subject and the
delivery method of contents.
By composing all these variables, we obtain a
comprehensive description of the elements which
could “stop”, “oppose” and “delay” the student’s
learning process. The practical effects of this
resistance could be represented by a lack of interest
and, consequently, “desertion” and/or “inactivity”
towards learning activities, an increase of learning
time, a superficial acquisition of information without
functionally including behavioural patterns, a refusal
to apply some fundamental elements of the new
procedure, etc.
Hence the instructional designer must firstly
determine the constituent elements of the opposing
force and then define their intensity. By doing this
he/she will be able to check all these factors by
means of a strategy capable of overcoming the
learning resistance and encouraging the learner to
voluntarily acquire new information.
FESTINGER’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE
DISSONANCE
Our main hypothesis states that a possible
instructional strategy effective in terms of
motivation for learning can be represented by the
best and distributed management of cognitive
dissonance. In other words, we believe that by
introducing information capable of causing a more
or less light state of discomfort towards the initial
mental model - in relation to the behavioural
patterns connected to it - it is possible to call into
question the student’s cognitive consonance and
lead him/her to look for new information to
overcome the inertial force.
According to this perspective, cognitive dissonance
is an actual motivating factor in the training field
and a necessary tool for instructional design. In fact
it encourages both the learning process and the
abandonment of the emotive stability produced by
the state of “knowledge”. This hypothesis is founded
on a particular instructional interpretation of
Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
(Festinger, 1956).
According to this theory, one of the characteristic
features of a person’s mental life is the level of
coherence among his/her different cognitive
elements, that is his/her “mental models”,
representing his/her knowledge system at a specific
moment. In particular, this relationship of
coherence, called “consonance”, obtains a specific
meaning when these mental models are separate
representations of the same phenomenological
sphere, of the same fragment of “reality”. This
theory states that there are two kinds of relationships
between couples and/or aggregates of mental
models:
(a) two mental models are joined by a relationship of
“connection” when they refer to the same events,
phenomena, theories, concepts and similar objects in
complementary terms and they can be compared in a
logical or semantic way. Thanks to this comparison
it is possible to define the level of coherence,
incoherence and/or contradiction that specifies their
connection to their reference object. Only in this
case can we talk about “consonance” and
“dissonance”.
(b) two mental models are joined by a relationship
of “non-connection” when they cannot be compared
either from a logical point of view or in terms of
reference to the same phenomenon. In this case, it is
not possible to declare any relationship of
coherence.
Ruling out the relationships of “non-connection”,
this theory focuses on the possibility of measuring
and “quantifying” the level of dissonance, thanks to
(a) an analysis of the importance of the single
mental models when compared to one another, and
(b) a “pondering proportion” of all dissonance
relationships featuring the subject’s mental model at
a specific moment. In this way the concept of
“dissonance” is brought back to a systemic
perspective of the subject’s mental life, with a strong
emphasis on the dynamic - almost “physical”- nature
of the relationships between the various opposite
cognitive groups.
The mind-dynamic system metaphor is at the heart
of Festinger’s central thesis: every human being
naturally aspires to the maximum level of “cognitive
consonance”. Any possible change causing a state of
“dissonance” is perceived by the subject as a cause
of “psychological distress”. This discomfort
provokes a series of reactions – behaviours, complex
activities, decisions – which aim at re-establishing
the state of consonance and at avoiding events
and/or information which could increase the level of
incoherence between mental models. These
reactions are influenced by the magnitude of
dissonance: they change according to the number of
cognitive dissonant elements and to their importance
and relevance in the person’s “mental economy”.
Among the dissonance management techniques,
Festinger defines four main types:
1. Direct change of one dissonant element, that is
an opinion, an attitude, a value or a behaviour,
bearing in mind that the behavioural pattern is
generally the element most resistant to change.
2. Introduction and integration of new consonant
cognitions able to reduce the global level of
dissonance. The subject selects information in
order to get some elements consonant with
his/her feelings, beliefs and past behaviours,
and to actively avoid the incoherent or
dissonant ones. Therefore there could be some
mediator cognitive elements, potentially apt at
conciliating dissonant ones. By introducing
elements like these, the subject can harmonise
the “picture” without directly modifying the
dissonant cognitions.
3. Cognitive discrediting of the elements involved
in the dissonance relationship. Some research
states that people very often choose this option
35
 when the dissonance does not involve relevant
or very important cognitive elements.
4. Voluntary acceptance of the subject every time
that (a) dissonance is felt like a state of brief
discomfort, and (b) there is the possibility that
any activity made to reduce the discomfort, but
unable to contrast it, could determine an
increase of dissonance. This means that every
day people could experience a certain level of
dissonance and let it decay after some time
without adopting any other reduction strategy,
other than the one leading to the creation of a
virtual space between minds and dissonant
cognitions.
The specific way in which dissonance is reduced,
together with the effectiveness of these endeavours,
depends on the ease with which the cognitive
elements can be modified or added. The ability to
change depends on the number of consonant
relations joining one cognition to the others, and
how these cognitions are connected to the
fundamental perceptions of the physical and social
world.
The more a cognitive element is resistant to change,
the less likely it will change to reduce dissonance.
But when all cognitive elements involved are
resistant to change, the subject can choose to reduce
the importance of cognitive dissonance. This
reasoning takes for granted that there is a
“functional” relation among different methods of
dissonance reduction: with the same conditions, the
simpler method will be used and, after having used
one, it will be likely that the other ones will not be
used.
This is the theory in a nutshell. In this context
cognitive dissonance is considered a strategic
feature in terms of motivation for behaviour. The
subject wants to preserve his/her state of internal
“cognitive” tranquillity. His/her different mental
models connected to a specific part of reality must
be able to “speak” without raising conflicts. The
hypothesis of cognitive harmony is rather striking
and it is useful in representing the almost “physical”
sense of the coherent relationship between cognitive
groups in a concrete way.
36
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, MOTIVATION
AND LEARNING
Now let us try to reformulate our hypothesis on the
relationship between cognitive dissonance,
motivation and learning.
In every training programme there is always an
inertial force which concretely opposes the learner’s
cognitive change and integration of new mental
models with one or more functional behavioural
patterns.
This force has two essential dimensions:
ƒ what we call the “absolute weight” (in
order to extend your knowledge on the
concept of “absolute weight” see Loi and
Ronsivalle, 2005 and Ronsivalle, 2005a) of
the content structure which constitutes the
object of the training programme. It comes
from the combination of the “semantic
density” of the final knowledge system -
that is the number of terms and concepts
which will constitute the new learner’s
“vocabulary” - and the “complexity level”
of the relationships among the constituent
elements of the final mental model (Bloom
B.S. et al., 1972);
ƒ the “learning resistance” that, as already
stated, depends on the relationship of
consonance or dissonance between the
subject and the information of the training
programme (according to the behavioural
patterns which constitute the practical
application of this information), and on the
general way in which the learner learns and
organises new information, represents and
communicates his/her mental models, and
relates to the different training delivery
methods.
The distinction between “absolute weight” and
“learning resistance” is fundamental.
The first factor depends on content analysis and it is
closely related to the substantia of the knowledge
system. Therefore, it is a constant of a specific
mental model in any reference system, having
affinity with the participants. This affinity is due to
common functional need.
In the case of the training programme on the new
banking procedure, as all bank managers share the
same profiles and tasks, one could predict that they
will develop the same behavioural patterns in
relation to the newly acquired information. This
means that they will be exposed to the same
structure of information and will have to develop
similar competencies in relation to the complexity
level.
On the other hand, in the process, the factor of
variability depends on the different learning
resistance of each learner or group of learners; in
fact, the learning resistance depends mainly on
meta-cognitive variables and then, on the level of
consonance of the initial mental model with the
various behavioural patterns connected to it.
As already stated, in our opinion, the most relevant
scope of application of the theory consists of the
impact of the cognitive dissonance on the dynamics
of voluntary exposition to information.
According to Festinger, the lack of motivation to the
voluntary exposition (or to the lack of exposition) to
information represents the total absence of cognitive
dissonance. The relationship between the subject
and the source of information is characterised by
simple indifference and “non-connection” between
the information and his/her sphere of behaving. In
these cases the learning resistance is high: it is
convenient for the learner not to disturb his/her own
state of tranquillity.
Only when faced with a state of cognitive
dissonance is the subject encouraged to look for and
select potentially consonant information in order to
reduce the dissonance and/or to avoid the
information that could make it increase. The
selection of information significantly depends on the
ability of the subject to evaluate sources (and
expectations) and define the future possibilities in a
more or less rigorous way.
This last point is very important: the level of
motivation to the voluntary exposition to potentially
consonant information depends on the possibility to
compare the expectations with the already acquired
information, but also to check and quantify the
probability of “connection” and consonance. In
other words, when defining the expectations on the
information with which the subject will come into
contact, the way of representing this same
information in relation to significant dissonant
cognitive elements plays a fundamental role.
Let us rethink our previous example on the training
programme about the new banking procedure. A
good motivating strategy could consist of designing
the storyboard with an initial introduction presenting
various concrete study cases. These cases represent
the application of the old procedure and highlight
many practical critical features with negative effects
for the learner’s professional dimension.
The creation of cognitive dissonance could be
followed by the demonstration that the training
programme contains information connected to the
problems at hand which could solve them. This
demonstration could be composed of a negative case
of application of the old procedure and of a positive
case with the new procedure solving the previous
problems. This could be functional in order to obtain
the voluntary subject’s exposition to information
and to create a stable relationship with the sources
and the logic of the process, in relation to the
connection with behavioural patterns concerning the
relevant aspects of the learner’s everyday life.
Cognitive dissonance management cannot be
indiscriminate. The micro-designer of this training
programme will have to consider the differences
among participants in terms of learning resistance.
The definition of a flexible and modular
instructional strategy will be the result of an analysis
of the different kinds of “cognitive attitudes” in
relation to the training programme. Alternatively,
the non-selective application of the same strategy
could lead to the failure of the course, thereby
destroying the mechanism and fostering the initial
level of cognitive dissonance.
SCHEMES FOR DISSONANCE
MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING
PROGRAMME PERSONALISATION: A
PRACTICAL APLLICATION OF THE
THEORY
One of the possible practical applications of this
thesis consists in the design of e-learning systems
capable of dynamically and automatically
personalising training programmes for large amount
of learners.
In fact, this application allows us to analyse and
solve many problems caused by the need for
efficient and effective designing and managing of
training programmes according to factors which
describe the learner’s cognitive state in relation to a
37
specific structure of contents. As we have said
before, these factors can be combined to form the
complex variable of “learning resistance”.
In order to achieve this objective it is necessary to
distinguish two different meanings of the concept of
the “personalisation” of a training programme.
At a first general level, “personalisation” is the
possibility to change the sequence in which
Learning Objects are assembled and presented to the
learner after measuring his/her initial knowledge
system. This kind of personalisation is very
common. Moreover, most international
technological standards aim at the management of
this first level of flexibility. From a methodological
point of view, to support this kind of personalisation
one just needs to design an accurate evaluation
system, closely related to the structure of learning
objectives. The initial questionnaire should aim at
(a) measuring the learner knowledge system; (b)
selecting the Learning Objects dealing with the
information the learner does not know, as revealed
by the test outcome; and (c) dynamically changing
their sequence of presentation.
A second and more sophisticated level of
personalisation allows us to organise information
and dynamically differentiate the means of
presentation of the single Learning Object, in order
to find the best way to oppose the learning
resistance. To manage this second kind of
personalisation we need to define a modular
instructional strategy. It consists of a series of
application schemes for content presentation in each
Learning Object storyboard.
These schemes do not concern the sequence in
which information is assembled and do not directly
depend on the kind of content. With reference to the
different levels of learning resistance, they can be
considered as out-and-out algorithms for the
effective distribution and management of cognitive
dissonance according to the course fruition time.
The following are four different schemes for
dissonance management that we have used for
various e-learning projects both in banking and
insurance fields:
- Quaestio model;
- Negative case;
- reductio ad absurdum;
- sic et non.
38
The quaestio model allows us to manage the light
dissonance and it is mainly related to the exposition
of a theoretical system in cases of low learning
resistance.
When adopting this application scheme it is
necessary to organise contents according to the
following sequence of steps:
1. Prologue: elaboration of some questions that
introduce the problem in a critical manner in
order to define the dimension of the problem,
arouse interest and motivate learners through
the introduction of light dissonant elements.
2. Learners’ involvement: the learners’
participation is stimulated by means of one or
more interactions. The purposes are to define
the problem together with the learners and in
relation to their experience, to monitor their
reaction to the questions and to restrict the
meaning of the problem.
3. Thesis: use of a concept map which shows all
the different logical correlations in order to
identify the solution to the problem and start the
process of integration of the new information.
4. Real case: the concept map is taken back and
the abstract entities are replaced by the entities
of the example. One aims at defining the scope
of the solution in the practice, ending the
integration process and defining the scope of
consonance. In this phase additional support
devices are activated.
5. Learners’ involvement: once again the learners
are stimulated to participate by means of one or
more interactions to identify other examples or
scopes of application. The purposes are to
monitor the perception of the suggested solution
for its subsequent personalisation, and to check
the new state of the system and the changes that
have occurred. In this phase other additional
support devices are activated.
6. Summary and anticipation: the concept map is
shown again as a synthesis of what was stated
before and then there is a question left in
suspense. This phase aims at showing and
defining the logical connection with the
following step.
The negative case model allows us to manage a
higher level of dissonance and it is mainly related to
the exposition of an information system in cases of
medium-high learning resistance.
When adopting this application scheme it is
necessary to organise contents according to the
following sequence of steps:
1. Prologue: presentation of a negative case that is
very similar to the participants’ possible
experiences. One aims at defining the
dimension of the problem in a critical manner,
arousing interest and motivating learners
through the introduction of dissonant elements.
2. Learners’ involvement: the learners’
participation is stimulated by means of one or
more interactions. This phase aims at defining
the different aspects of the problem together
with the learners, and in relation to their
experience and monitoring the dissonance level.
3. Anticipation: demonstration that the answer to
the problem requires the acquisition of new
information which could be acquired by the
learners through the present course.
4. Thesis: introduction of a series of connected
arguments aiming at solving the problem, in
order to introduce some thesis for support and
start the process of integration of new
information.
5. Positive case: the same previous case (or
another similar one) is proposed again with the
application of new knowledge in order to
achieve a positive outcome. This phase aims at
defining the scope of application of the
proposed thesis, ending the process of
integration and defining the scope of
consonance.
6. Learners’ involvement: once again learners are
stimulated to participate through one or more
interactions. One aims at identifying other
examples or scopes of application, monitoring
the perception of the suggested solution for its
subsequent personalisation, and checking the
new state of the system and the changes that
have occurred. In this phase additional support
devices are activated.
7. Summary and anticipation: the concept map is
shown again with a synthesis of what was said
before; then there is a question left in suspense.
This phase aims at showing and defining the
logical connection with the following step.
The reductio ad absurdum model allows us to
manage a high dissonance level and it is mainly
related to the analysis of two theories and the
overcoming of the first one.
The adoption of this application model is effective
in cases of medium learning resistance and requires
the content to be organised according to the
following sequence of steps:
1. Prologue: description of two theories, A and B,
where B is the one we support. The purpose is
to describe the two theories and to define the
theoretical reference background.
2. Comparative analysis: analysis of the merits
and faults of the two theories in order to
describe their practical consequences and
prepare the ground for dissonance.
3. Learners’ involvement: the learners’
participation is stimulated by means of one or
more interactions. This phase aims at
integrating the different aspects of the problem
in relation to the learners’ experience.
4. Anticipation: communication of the fact that the
answer to the problem requires the acquisition
of new information. This phase aims at
introducing the element in doubt, by bringing
the dissonance device to completion.
5. Reductio ad absurdum: demonstration that the
adoption of theory A is much more complex
than B. The purpose is to orient the learner and
describe such an extremely dissonant future
background that it will be ruled out when
compared with a much more consonant one.
6. Reductio ad absurdum – real case: definition of
a case and reinforcement of the thesis of the
negativity deriving from the application of A
instead of B, in order to give practical hints
about the comparison and reinforce the option
B.
7. Learners’ involvement: learners are stimulated
to participate through one or more interactions.
One aims at monitoring the perception of the
suggested solution for its subsequent
personalisation, and checking the new state of
the system and the changes that have occurred.
8. Summary and anticipation: the concept map is
shown again with a synthesis of what was said
before; then, there is a question left in suspense.
This phase aims at showing and defining the
logical connection with the following step.
The sic et non model allows us to manage a higher
dissonance level in every case of high learning
resistance. This algorithm is mainly related to the
criticism of a specific theory or point of view.
39
When adopting this application scheme it is
necessary to organise contents according to the
following sequence of steps:
1. Prologue: description of a thesis that will be
dismantled in order to describe the theory A, for
example, and to define the theoretical reference
background.
2. Learners’ involvement: the learners’
participation is stimulated by means of
questions and interactions. This phase aims at
defining the different aspects of the problem in
relation to the learners’ experience.
3. Anticipation: communication of the fact that the
answer to the problem requires the acquisition
of new information. This phase aims at
introducing the element in doubt, by leading the
class to the sic et non.
4. Sic et non: the merits and faults of the theory
are analysed by using a concept map, and
always ends with an element in favour of theory
A. This phase aims at describing the logical and
practical consequences of the theory, and
producing dissonance.
5. Learners’ involvement: learners are stimulated
to participate through one or more interactions.
One aims to collect other elements of analysis
on the theory (it is useful to ask learners to
produce a concept map about it). This phase
aims to check the evolution state of the system
and orient the criticism of the theory.
6. Criticism: there is the “killing blow” to the
theory, by demonstrating its incoherence
through the application of a practical case. This
phase aims at giving the learners the means to
criticise the theory by describing extremely
dissonant future backgrounds as consequences
of its adoption.
7. Summary and anticipation: the concept map is
shown again with a synthesis of what was said
before; then, there is a question left in suspense.
This phase aims at showing and defining the
logical connection with the following step.
After developing the different application schemes,
it is necessary to define the strategic objectives of
the training programme. Based on these objectives,
the different means of presentation will be
implemented and it will be possible to measure the
level of learning resistance for each learner.
The initial assessment tool will give us information
on (a) the learner’s initial knowledge system (the
initial assessment tool should permit the
40
measurement of complex behavioural patterns, too.
To this purpose structured or semi-structured tests
could not be sufficient. In these cases, simulation is
the ideal assessment tool because it allows emphasis
of the pragmatic dimension of the learner’s
knowledge. On this subject see Ronsivalle, 2005);
(b) the subject areas to which the learner is most
resistant, according to a comparative analysis of the
results obtained by the whole population or a
significant sample; and (c) the most critical content
clusters. These clusters will be the strategic
objectives on which one will adopt the different
application schemes.
How can we measure learning resistance by means
of a questionnaire? A privileged index consists of
the relationship between learning time and
assessment results. The difference between
measured time and expected time allows us to
deduce the learning resistance level for each subject
area. This obviously requires a design model
capable of making reliable forecasts on learning
time for the different clusters of learners.
At this point after the system elaboration, the
information can be sent to the Learning
Management System which will be able to set up the
personalised training programmes for the different
learners automatically. This is possible due to the
internal instructions directed toward the single
Learning Object and aiming to set up the application
of the scheme for dissonance management (a more
sophisticated version of the personalising system
could plan, in itinere, more check points for the
resistance, in order to permit dynamic changes of the
parameter “resistance”).
CONCLUSION
The definition of a theoretical framework and the
creation of a series of algorithms for micro-design
do not limit the possibilities of development related
to our theses hereby expressed.
Five fundamental questions remain:
(1) The Cognitive Dissonance theory implies
different special techniques for dissonance
reduction. In particular, from the first publication of
Festinger’s study, many other pieces of research
have followed on the calculation of dissonance. The
possibility to calculate dissonance obviously
requires the identification of specific assessment
techniques and a proper scale of measurement.
(2) Every scheme for dissonance management does
not impose a particular way of storyboard writing
but simply provides a hint to identify the best
strategy to present information. In other words, the
algorithm represents an initial draft helping the
micro-designer to execute his/her “instructional
intentions”. The storyboarder’s craft is another
factor, composed of a particular writing and
narrative style, the specific communication accent
and the art of combining the various media. These
“ingredients” require a separate study.
(3) Throughout various professional experiences, we
had to manage the “learning resistance” during the
design phase. From these occasions we realised that
the identification of this variable is not simple at all,
because at that point it is concentrated in a single
parameter of many heterogeneous factors that
cannot be assimilated in a single index or qualitative
label. A further possibility for development of this
subject could consist of the future representation of
the variable in vector terms: here, the various
dimensions could be represented by the values
associated to the previously suggested parameters.
(4) In the previous points there is a more pressing
matter: the translation of the different indeces into
“numbers”. The introduction of a quantitative
integrated model constitutes the fundamental
premise to implement the dynamic management
system of e-learning programmes. The difficulties
related to an instructional vocabulary that is written
in numbers and mathematical functions depend on
the assessment and evaluation techniques, but also
on monitoring systems of fruition time.
(5) In this study we just skimmed over a very
important question for learning design, that is the
time dimension of learning. Some recently published
essays (Loi and Ronsivalle, 2005; Ronsivalle,
2005a) deal with this subject and mainly highlight
the strategic value of the learning time calculation in
training programmes involving large amounts of
learners.
In our method, the expected time of learning is
conditioned by (a) the quantity of information that
will be visualised and memorised - the variable of
the semantic density, with reference to the concept
of schemata -, and (b) complexity level of the
relationships between the concepts, with reference to
the Bloom taxonomy and to the concept of semantic
network. In accordance with this model, every
mental model may be represented as a bi-
dimensional vector, whose components are the
semantic density and the complexity level. The
integration of these variables (the normalization of
the vector) determines the absolute weight (W) of
that system of information (s). Two further steps
will be necessary to formulate a reliable forecast
about the learning time relating to s: (a) the
definition of a multidimensional vector that includes
the variables characterising the students’ group, that
is the “learning resistance” (R); (b) the composition
of W(s) with R.
With reference to our theses, an interesting
connection between “learning resistance” and
“temporal dimension” emerges: the “learning time”
is the fundamental resource the learner brings into
play in order to overcome learning resistance. This
means that if we properly manage the cognitive
dissonance, we succeed in reducing the resistance,
with a subsequent reduction in the fruition and
learning times and with a strong impact on the
training effectiveness index.
The relationship between these elements is not an
inescapable need, but it has been checked
throughout our different projects. In the following
years this subject will be necessarily studied again.
REFERENCES
Bee, F.e, R. (2003). Learning Needs Analysis and
Evaluation . 2nd edition. Cipd House: London.
Bloom, B.S. et al. (1972). Taxonomy of educational
objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain.
Longman.: New York and London.
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from
media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4).
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., (2000). Research
Methods in Education. 5th edition, Routledge Falmer:
New York.
Cowan, J. (1985). Effectiveness and efficiency in higher
education. Higher Education, 14.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
Evanston, Ill: Row Peterson.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models. Towards a
Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and
Consciousness. Cambridge: University Press.
Kagan, J. (2002). Surprise, Uncertainty and Mental
Structures. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University
Press.
41
Loi, M. and Ronsivalle, G. B. (2005). A Particular Aspect
of Cost Analysis in Distance Education: Time. In Eden
2005 Annual Conference Proceedings, 2005, 167-172.
Mager, R.F. (1975). Preparing Instructional Objectives.
Palo Alto, CA.: Fearon.
Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using
Knowledge: Concept maps™ as Facilitative Tools in
Schools and Corporations. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, INC.
Quine, W.v.O. (1969). Ontological Relativity and Other
Essays. New York: Columbia.
Petri, H.L. and Govern, J.M. (2004). Motivation. Thomson
Wadsworth.
Pintrich, P.R. and Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in
Education. Merril Prentice Hall.
Romiszowski, A.J. (1999). Designing Instructional
Systems. 7th edition. London: Kogan Page.
Russel, T. (1999). The No Significant Difference
Phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional
Telecommunications, North Carolina State University.
Ronsivalle, G. B. (2002). Automa in the Looking-Glass.
Self-Consciousness, Epigenetic Development and
Mental Models Theory. Amsterdam: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Ronsivalle, G. B. (2005a). “Tiempo” y “eficacia” en la
evaluación del e-learning. Universidad ARCIS,
Santiago de Chile, 3-14.
Ronsivalle, G. B. (2005b). Simulare la complessità:
sistemi dinamici e reti decisionali nei percorsi di
apprendimento. In E-learning & Knowledge
Management . Anno II. No.7, 2005, 58-68.
Schramm W. (1977). Big Media Little Media. Beverly
Hills, CA.: Sage.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
G. BRUNO RONSIVALLE (1972) has a degree in
Music (1993), a degree in Philosophy (1997), a
Post-graduate Specialisation in Didactics of Human
Sciences (1998), a Ph.D. in Philosophy and
Fundaments of Physics (1999), a Master’s degree in
Digital Design (2000) and a Post-graduate
Specialisation in Instructional Design (2001).
Since 2003 he has led the Evaluation Systems
Research Group of ABIFormazione (Italian Banking
Association, Roma, Italy) and he has been R&D
Manager at the E-learning Division of Didagroup
SpA (Roma, Italy) and Dida America (Barcelona,
Spain). At present he is the Educational Coordinator
of the Master’s degree course in Instructional
Design at Arcis University (Santiago de Chile), he
collaborates with ABI Sicurezza (Security) and with
Italian Criminalpol for the creation of a predictive
model based on neural network for the Bank
Robbery Risk Management. He has been involved in
42
many national, European and international research
and development projects for the application of e-
learning standards and advanced assessment models
to the banking, industrial, medical, educational and
communication fields.
Some publications:
“Montaigne’s Automaton” (Catania, 1998)
“Alcune riflessioni sui fondamenti psicologici delle
scienza storico-sociali. Pareto e il principio di
complementarietà” (Catania, 1999)
"Discorso sull'apparente contrasto tra i realisti e i
sostenitori della Scuola di Copenhagen" (Urbino,
2000)
"Automata in the Looking-glass. Self-consciousness,
Epigenetic Development and Mental Models
Theory" (Krakow, 2002)
"Tempo ed efficacia nella valutazione dell'e-
learning" (Roma, 2004)
"Simulare la complessità: sistemi dinamici e reti
decisionali nei percorsi di apprendimento" (Roma,
2005)
"A Particular Aspect of Cost Analysis in Distance
Education: Time" (Helsinki, 2005)
"La relazione tra crediti ECM e ore di formazione"
(Roma, 2005)
VANESSA METUS (1978) has an Italian degree in
Multimedia Science and Technology. Since 2001
she has been working in the e-learning sector. From
the beginning of 2005 she has operated within the
Research & Development Area of Didagroup SpA
(Rome), one of the leading companies in the Italian
e-learning market.
She has been involved in many national, European
and international research and development projects
for the application of e-learning standards and
advanced assessment models to the banking,
industrial, medical, educational and communication
fields. Her activity is mainly focused on evaluation
systems, macro- and micro- design models in
education, simulations based on dynamic systems,
semantic web and Learning Management System.
As a lecturer she has taken part in several
international conferences and seminars (recently the
"Eden Conference" in Helsinki with a paper on "A
Particular Aspect of Cost Analysis in Distance
Education: Time").
 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TELES:
AN ELEARNING PROVIDER PERSPECTIVE
Mário Figueira
Associate Partner
Novabase
Blackboard partner for Portugal
Lisbon
Portugal
E-mail: mario.figueira@novabase.pt
©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005
KEYWORDS
Contents, eLearning market, evaluation,
implementation framework, instructional design,
knowledge sharing, learning management systems,
Self-regulated earning (SRL), Technology Enhanced
Learning Environment (TELE), networked learning
environment, TELE-SRL tool, tutors.
ABSTRACT
Information technology is everywhere in our lives
and there are a lot of different technologies available
to enhance learning experiences. This article
identifies the path to a Networked Learning
Environment, the highest level of a TELE, in five
different phases. The SRL has an important role in
the two main steps to creating the Networked
Learning Environment, first as a strategy, and second
as a tool. The reasons why organisations like self-
regulated processes are also mentioned. The article
identifies the conclusions of the TELE-SRL tool
applied to the evaluation of AprendernaNet project.
This is a blended learning project for industry with
more than 2000 learners in 2004/2005. The
evaluation outputs showed the importance of the three
AprendernaNet TELE components: the Learning
Management System (LMS), the contents and the
tutors. The role of the three different components in
each SRL dimension (cognitive, emotional,
motivational and social) is also discussed in the
article. Special reference is made to the contents’
instructional design based on role-plays, simulations
and case studies.
HOW IMPORTANT IS SELF-REGULATED
LEARNING IN ORGANISATIONS?
Technology is Everywhere
Nowadays technology is everywhere. We can find IT
in music, in communication, in the workplace, and at
home:
• In music, the mp3 players are changing our
way of storing and listening to music;
• In communications, the new pda-phones are
increasing mobility and people are “always
connected”;
• In the workplace, the laptops and small
computers are everywhere;
• At home and families, the playstations and
computers are occupying the field.
The use of IT in education and learning is growing
year by year. The number of computers in schools
and universities is growing and the students, the
learners, are asking more and more for technology
enhanced learning environments. eLearning is now
becoming part of the learning process in Universities,
companies and governmental bodies.
There are a lot of different technologies available to
enhance learning experiences. Some technologies are
43
 Exploratory Supported Strategic Mission Critical Transformative:
The Networked
Learning Environment
Institutional Growth

• A true networked
learning
environment exists
when
any student or
teacher can view
learning content,
collaborate with
educators, evaluate
academic
performance, and
• A full online access any
• Online courses, campus with institutional or peer
• Commercial organizations, and learning resource at any time
enterprise course institutional services communities and to achieve their
management integrated with shared digital educational
• Course web sites system back-office systems content resources objectives

Phase I Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

Time
Figure 1: Path to the Networked Learning Environment

more mature and others are just starting. Regarding
the eLearning technologies (Gartner, 2004), we will
find the courseware and the embedded just-in-time
learning reaching a plateau of productivity in less
than two years. The Learning Management System
(LMS), the application simulation tools and the web
conferencing are in the slope of enlightenment with
between two and five years until their plateau. The
Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS), the
eLearning suites and the virtual classrooms are in the
trough of disillusionment phase. The mobile
eLearning and the simulation tools are now the
technology triggers climbing to the peak of
expectations.
Why organisations like self-?
From the organisational perspective, we can identify
five phases to reaching the highest level of a TELE
(Technology Enhanced Learning Environment). A
TELE will be developed from an exploratory phase to
a Networked Learning Environment according to
figure 1.
A TELE will be completely embedded in the
organisation when the transformative phase is
reached. There are two important steps in this path to
a Networked Learning Environment. One is when the
technology for eLearning is integrated with the
organisation’s backoffice systems. The other is when
the technology is used by everyone inside the
organisation and the culture of knowledge sharing
among learning communities is there.
Self-regulated learning (SRL) can play a special role
as a strategy to build a framework for integrating
processes between the online courses running inside
the organisation, the institutional services and the
federation of the different organisations. As an
example we can see one University with two faculties
and some online courses in one of the faculties. They
already have a portal where learners can access
institutional services (registrations, gradebook,
subscription fees, etc.). SRL strategies can help to
build the framework of integration processes to have
an online campus, where the learning experiences live
together with the institutional services.

44
On other hand, SRL can be used as a tool to develop
the creation of learning communities, one of the key
points to the second step in creating the Networked
Learning Environment. The cognitive, emotional,
motivational and social components of SRL are
dimensions to be managed in the creation of the
knowledge sharing culture inside the organisation.
Industry is interested in self-regulated learning as a
tool to develop competitiveness based on human
capital because:
• Companies need to reduce costs;
• Knowledge is developed by informal and
formal learning experiences;
• Self-regulated learning increases employee
engagement in the learning process and
supplies just in time support in their jobs.
Self-regulated learning could be used in an individual
or group learning experience. It needs to have a
mature organisation, where a knowledge sharing
culture exists. This is the reason why it is so
important to understand the different phases from the
figure 1.
IS THE TELE-SRL TOOL ADEQUATE TO
EVALUATE SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
IN TELES?
Novabase applied the TELE-SRL tool in the TELE
AprendernaNet based on Blackboard Academic Suite
technology and found the tool very useful.
Figure 2: AprendernaNet Learning Portal
(www.aprendernanet.com)
AprendernaNet is a learning portal where more than
2000 learners in 2004/2005 had their first eLearning
experiences. The available courses are: Introduction
to eLearning; Training the Tutors for eLearning and
How to develop eLearning contents. AprendernaNet
methodology is blended learning based on self-
learning, tutor lead and classroom learning
experiences.
The application of the TELE-SRL evaluation tool to
AprendernaNet identified the following conclusions:
1. General impressions of the TELE
The TELE provides the most significant features of a
true Networked Learning Environment, based on
knowledge sharing through communities of practice
with emphasis on collaboration.
The learner can follow his/her learning progress and
the interaction with peers and tutor is very high. The
TELE provides constant feedback regarding the
learner’s performance and progress. The learner has
his/her own area within which he/she can plan his/her
activities.
All the aspects (cognitive, motivational, emotional
and social aspects) are considered in this TELE.
The usability strength is facilitated by a very user
friendly interface and navigation process.
2. Factors that contribute to the strength of the TELE:
• Anytime, anywhere access
• Evaluation and learner feedback
management
• Student-centred learning
• Social aspects of executing and monitoring
• Content management and collaboration
features
3. Factors that represent weaknesses of the TELE:
The cognitive aspects based on feedback/evaluation
features available.
4. Suggestions for improving the TELE:
Improve the cognitive aspects in evaluation. The
students should be able to know their exact state of
achievement and compare this with expectations.
This evaluation based on the TELE-SRL tool showed
the importance of contents, tutor coaching and system
(LMS) usability and features. These three pillars of
45
AprendernaNet TELE gave an important contribution on learner reactions to the different situations
to the three stages of SRL (planning, proposed by the content is very important to re-design
executing/monitoring and evaluating) and the four or optimise the instructional design in order to create
dimensions (cognitive, emotional, motivational and SRL skills in the workforce. The professional
social). experience of the learners is usually used in the
content test phase. In this phase, a group of
The system usability and features provide learners the employees test the course content and give feedback
following: to the instructional designer. One of the objectives of
this phase is to create the “content autonomy”
• Adaptive release building SRL skills in the workforce.
• Personal information management
• Discussion board Some course content examples:
• Virtual classroom / collaboration tool
• Group projects
• Assessments and surveys
• Assignments
• Gradebook
• Reporting and performance dashboard
• Community building tools
• Channels / modules
• Role-based information delivery
• Collaborative web-enabled file storage
• e-Portfolios
• Workflow
• Multi-language support
Figure 3: Role-play (Courtesy of Caixa Geral de
The tutor coaching in the learning process is
Depósitos).
particularly important in the executing and
monitoring stage, especially in social and
motivational aspects. The tutors have an important
job in creating self-regulated skills in learners,
especially on the first levels of the path to the
Networked Learning Environment.

Another conclusion is the importance of the content

for the self-regulated learning environments. In these
environments, content is a real KING. The content
can “embed the tutor” and give feedback and guide
the learner toward assuming an important role in the
cognitive and emotional aspects of SRL, and in the
three different stages.

SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE FIELD Figure 4: How to use a software (Courtesy of
Ministério das Finanças) .
In the main corporate and public administration
eLearning projects that we are involved in, that are
focused on the workforce skills development, the
content has the most important role in the learning
environment. The role-plays, simulations and case
studies are the foundations of the content
instructional design. The permanent feedback based

46

Figure 5: New internal process (Courtesy of
Ministério das Finanças).
Figure 6: Learning game (Courtesy of AprendernaNet
- Novabase).
Figure 7: Role-play (Courtesy of Banco BPI).
CONCLUSIONS
Self-regulated learning is an important trend in the
corporate and education markets. The use of this
concept follows the path to the Networked Learning
Environment.
A TELE is based on three components: the learning
management system (LMS); the contents and the
tutors. All these components have a specific role in
the planning, executing/monitoring and evaluating
stages, and on the cognitive, emotional, motivational
and social dimensions. The LMS has a transversal
influence on the learning process; acting has a
“learning operating system”. The tutors are especially
involved in the social dimension, with an important
role also in the motivational aspects, but it would be
wrong to say that the tutors are not involved in
cognitive and emotional aspects. The contents play an
important role in the cognitive and emotional aspects.
The self-regulated learning (SRL) is a balance, a
trade-off, between these three components according
to the specific needs of the organisation and the
current learning culture.
The Telepeers consortium assumes an important role
in the dissemination of this concept. In order to help
organisations starting or improving SRL in TELEs, it
is very useful to have an implementation framework
to follow. This will be an important output of this
consortium to the market. The application of the SRL
concept in organisations should be tested in
cooperation with the Telepeers consortium, industry
and public administration, in order to achieve an
implementation framework of this concept.
REFERENCES
Gartner. (2004). Hype Cycle for Corporate e-
Learning 2004. Research Report G00120926, Gartner
Inc, Stamford, USA (June).
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
MÁRIO FIGUEIRA was born in Évora, Portugal
and went to the New University of Lisbon
(FCT/UNL), where he studied Industrial Production
Engineering and obtained his degree in 1990. He did
a post-graduate diploma in Developing
Entrepreneurship in SMEs at Durham University in
the UK. He is Associate Partner at Novabase, a
leading IT company in Portugal, is CEO of SAF-
47
Sistemas Avançados de Formação, the eLearning
company of Novabase group, and is the Portuguese
partner of Blackboard. He is now leading several
projects in eLearning and Human Capital
Management in large companies, Universities and
public administration.
In the past he was training director of ISQ-Instituto
de Soldadura e Qualidade and CIFAG (Management
Training Centre). He is author of several resources
for technology enhanced learning published by IEFP,
ISQ, IAPMEI. Recently INOFOR published his book,
‘Guide for Design of eLearning Contents’. He is an
invited teacher at Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
and Universidade Católica Portuguesa. He regularly
publishes articles in Portuguese newspapers and
magazines and is member of the editorial board of
Nov@Formação, a specialised magazine on new
ways of learning published by IQF.
48
About Novabase
Established in 1989, Novabase is one of the leading
IT companies in Portugal.
With an average number of 1287 employees in the
first nine months of 2005, Novabase has two business
divisions: Novabase Consulting (includes IT
Consulting, Systems Integration and Application
Outsourcing) and Novabase Engineering Solutions
(includes IT Infrastructures, Interactive TV,
Ticketing, Access Control, Telecommunications
Products and Infrastructures Outsourcing).
Novabase has been listed in the Euronext Lisbon
since July 2000.
More information about Novabase is available at
www.novabase.pt.
 TOWARDS AN INDUSTRY UPTAKE OF SELF-REGULATED
LEARNING
LukVervennne
Managing Director
Synergetics NV
Antwerp
Belgium
Email : luk@synergetics.be
©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005
KEYWORDS
Competency, context, corporate learning, ontology,
Self-regulated Learning (SRL)
ABSTRACT
In this contribution, I will argue that for companies,
time2competencies will soon be much more
important than time2market. Acquisition of relevant
competencies is part of a process of lifelong learning
and could be greatly facilitated by a self-regulated
learning approach .
To develop this argument, I will first have a look at
the eLearning scene in Europe and point out some
factors that have been obstacles to the growth of an
eLearning market and than point out others that
might spur this growth. In particular, I will discuss
requirements that need to be met if self-regulated
learning is to become relevant to the ad hoc business
process situation.
I will conclude by presenting suggestions for a
common occupational context model which could be
applied to self-regulated learning and be shared by
industry, education and employment services
INTRODUCTION
Combine competencies and lifelong learning and
what you get is a strong foundation for the final
countdown of enterprise based self-regulated
learning
Competencies are increasingly being used in
education, industry and public employment services.
Such competencies are in fact becoming the
“common currency of the labor market” at large.
And although there is currently no working ‘lifelong
competency framework’, competencies nevertheless
are an inherent part of ‘lifelong learning’ and its
related IMS ePortfolio 1.0 standard.
Combine the idea of user driven lifelong learning
with competencies and it is clear that the
employee/learner might be on the way to finally
becoming more aware and hopefully also more in
control of his own career planning.
For companies this will have a serious impact on
how corporate training and employee learning is put
into practice. The EU IST research program is not
exactly waiting for this to happen, and recently
awarded several proposals that will research this
learn@work paradigm. The IST Prolix Integrated
Project (starting December 1st 2005) for instance,
will research and implement a method to link people
& processes, examining how corporate learning can
be continuously adapted to an employee’s ever
changing work environment.
49
ELEARNING’S SECOND CHANCE: THE
USER IN CONTROL
eLearning in Europe was predicted to provide large
opportunities for growth for the eLearning market in
both Europe and the US (Barcelona AG, 2001,
“Wachstumsmarkt e-learning“).
Nevertheless, eLearning services in Europe still
remain limited in scope and are not widely used in
corporate training. In the corporate world, eLearning
remains limited to larger companies that can either
afford to buy expensive company-adapted eLearning
solutions or by setting up internal corporate training
organisations.
In light of this high cost, SMEs in particular only
have a minimal adoption rate of eLearning even
though they are in desperate need of (continuously)
educated employees to successfully compete in the
ever-changing global markets.
Another main obstacle is the lack of integration of
systems, technologies and services along the
eLearning value chain. Especially for learning at the
workplace, there is currently no seamless coupling
of learning processes with ongoing work and
business processes. Today, the planning and
execution of learning processes is not linked, let
alone integrated with those of work or business
processes.
Instead, human resource managers must identify
gaps in their employee’s education with rather
awkward simple methods, supported only by basic
tools and without a proper educational or corporate
context.
This leads to ineffective training with no or only
basic ongoing learning at the workplace, leaving
companies as well as their employees with only very
limited success in technology enhanced learning
applications.
This status is rather surprising as, from the company
perspective, integrating utility learning should be
accepted easily, because it enables the cost-effective
simple identification of training needs, the
monitoring and control of the company profile
development and the flexible management of the
company’s knowledge portfolio. And these criteria
are just the major success indicators for companies
in fast changing global markets.
50
Taking the employee’s perspective, the aligning
business and learning processes will enable
employees to improve their skills and performance
at the workplace in a verifiable and provable
manner. By enhancing and broadening their skills
they become even more valuable assets on the job
market enabling them to apply for new and even
better paid positions, securing their job, etc.
In order to create a learning paradigm capable of
significantly improving employee performance in
the workplace, employees should be able to learn
directly at their workplace when the need for
education is identified.
The delay between identification of a learning need
and the actual learning should not be minimal.
Furthermore, the learning material must be targeted
to the learner’s individual learning style and
behaviour.
Only by providing the necessary means to learning
in the workplace will corporate organisations be able
to react quickly, cost-effectively and successfully in
today’s fast changing markets, where for the
services economy, time2competency is becoming
more important than time2market.
One idea is to develop an open, integrated reference
architecture for process-oriented learning and
information exchange. The overall objective would
be to improve the performance of employees in their
workplace, where learning is driven by the business
processes in which employees are involved. An
alignment of individual and organisational learning
with business tasks and processes will ensure the
integration of technology-based learning into the
operational business world.
In order to support such a complete corporate self-
regulated learning process life cycle the following
elements should/could be essential:
1. The analysis of complex business situations;
2. The identification of individual and organisational
learning goals;
3. The analysis of competencies and their match
with individual skills;
4. The definition of appropriate learning strategies &
the simulation of learning processes;
5. The execution of improved learning processes;
6. The monitoring of learners’ performance
according to the defined goals.
In order for self-regulated learning to become
relevant to the ad hoc business process situation,
more attention is needed to make content ad hoc,
meaningful and contextualised. Semantic
descriptions for instance could enable an improved
context-sensitive exchange of business process
execution and an employee’s specific learning
and/or information needs.
THE LEARNER IN THE DRIVING SEAT
Just as with competencies, the IMS ePortfolio
standard also came out of the elearning domain, but
is now also heading to a more central position in
society somewhere in the midst of education,
industry and employment services. It is no co-
incidence that the ePortfolio 2006 conference will
have “ePortfolio’s and the labour market” as one of
its main topics.
In a way ePortfolio’s can be considered as the digital
home of self-regulated learning. Being a place
where the learner can develop, steer, track and
present their personal development and growth,
ePortfolio’s are inevitably bound to spur self-
regulated learning, if only by the fact that they
provide a management instrument for the learner
who wants to get a grip on his/her learning.
Combined with competencies this allows for a good
environment in which corporate learning can shift to
more self-regulation.
Take the Dutch situation for instance, where the
vocational education is now swapping to
competency driven education on a national scale. By
2008 hundreds of thousands of competency profiles
will stream to the market. It is unlikely that these
young employees who worked for years on their
competencies, often using ePortfolio’s, will
suddenly drop this paradigm. Instead the corporate
world should embrace this and provide for an
environment where the employee can keep
developing his/her employability.
All would stand to profit from such a situation:
corporate organisations could help to indicate their
competency needs, as business processes and even
the corporate strategy itself can indeed be expressed
in competencies.
The traditional training departments however would
need to gradually change into facilitators, providing
guidance to self-regulated learners. The learners
themselves, once provided with an appropriate
learning infrastructure, could align their process-
oriented learning with their overall career paths.
As mentioned this vision is currently the topic of
several larger research projects of the IST program.
It could also be the motor of a knowledge economy
where government, corporate and learners are all
working to promote self-regulated lifelong learning.
In fact lifelong learning can ONLY work through
self-regulated learning. There simply are not enough
tutors (nor should there be) to provide for Instructor
led training.
This however poses some serious challenges for
how organisations and learners can define a shared
environment (read: learning platform) which allows
organisations and learners alike to define, agree and
share goals and objectives.
For the organisations it is imperative that they are
able to translate their strategies into business and
work processes and the competencies needed to run
these processes. This is especially true for the
knowledge and services economy where
time2competency will be much more important than
time2market.
With change being the only certainty in these types
of economies, any organisational support system
will need to be able to adapt ‘ad hoc’ to the ever-
changing processes and their required organisational
and worker competencies. This is where and why we
see self-regulated corporate learning prevail.
In such agile environments, it is imperative for
organisations that strategy can be immediately
translated into action and consequently into the
learning, in order to act swiftly and effectively.
Organisations will therefore seek to hire workers
with real learning competencies, and on the other
hand will need to provide them with enough
incentives to learn by offering them a lifelong
learning opportunity, besides on-the-job-learning.
Being able to attract the best, learning oriented,
candidates might in fact prove to be an important
factor in whether organisations will be successful or
not.
Employees on the other hand will seek jobs where
this required learning is well organised, available at
all times and above all context-relevant and self-
51
regulated. Furthermore, they will also seek learning
that is benefiting more than just the organisation’s
immediate needs, but can also accommodate their
own ‘lifelong’ career planning.
With such goal ‘symbiosis’ between corporate and
employee, we are a long way from the traditional
corporate training department which decides on
what, when and how workers are trained. The
symbiosis model described above uses a far more
balanced perspective, where corporate and worker
both benefit from the common goal of a temporary
collaboration.
From this perspective, the absence of the European
labour unions in this debate is remarkable. Union
politics aside, it would seem natural that after years
of defending the interests of the working class at
large, labour unions would follow the
individualisation of society by offering better
career/learning support for the individual employee.
SELF-REGULATED CHALLENGES AHEAD
However, the ‘positivist’ symbiosis model for self-
regulated learning, described above, will face some
serious challenges before it even begins to become
effective in a corporate environment. One of the
main issues is the context-relevance of learning.
More research is needed in order to produce learning
that is both ad hoc, context-relevant and available.
The current prevailing constructivist learning objects
(IEEE LOM) and content packaging (IMS CP,
Scorm2004) paradigm is still somewhat primitive
vis-à-vis what is needed to allow for a context-
sensitive learning environment that is automated in
As corporate and employee interests differ, it is
essential to define a common language and a shared
context model in which both corporate strategy and
learning@work can be translated. Such a common
context model is for instance also being looked at in
the field of competencies. Education, industry and
employment services are starting to realise that they
need a common competency register. The way they
perceive and use competencies however, is
contextually different.
This could be overcome by developing a common
occupational context model (or a Task Reference
Model, as the US Department of Defence calls it)
and allowing different organisations to commit
differently to this model (thus following ontological
principles).
Applied to the domain of self-regulated learning
therefore, it would be a good idea to further
encourage the existing and mature research domains
of learning and competencies (and their XML-
syntax standards) to align and cooperate with the
semantic community.
Below you find an architectural overview of what
such a fully-fledged adaptive self-regulated learning
system could look like, and in any case would need,
in terms of its capability to provide context-aware
self-regulated learning services.
This SOA pictured below is what the Prolix IP
project (2005-2009) will eventually offer as an open
standard.
Context Ontology (systemic representation of the process/task domain)
Company Culture
Policies

such a way that the learning environment can decide Learning

Goals
Alignment Performance
Cockpit
on (1) its functional offering, (3) learning style (Complex Situation)

support, (2) group and/or individual learning

Competency
capability, and is (4) seeded with the most relevant Requirements
Learning
Process
al
content. tic ies
ac g
id te
an GAP
al
Execution
Modification

D tra ys
is
S

Resource
All of these topics are currently being researched Learning Scenario
Configuration Allocation
Semantic Matching Engine

and have been for some years, but no service Di

d
in
g
or ng
St iact yl ni
oriented architecture (SOA) is available as yet to ra
te ical
gi e
s
Ta etu hing
i
F a
n tc
M

link all of this in a coherent, standard way. Simulation

Requirements & Design Processing Execution

It is reasonable to assume that any such system will
be semantic by definition. Adding ‘meaning’ to
goals, context and content will be a ‘conditio sine Figure 1: the Prolix IP project
non’ in order to reach a serious foundation for self-
regulation to work.

52
Of course not all self-regulated learning research is
aiming for this level of technology integration. It
would nevertheless be a good idea for the academic
self-regulated learning domain to start looking at
what level of complexity their achievements and
proven theories can be mapped upon the business
process driven adaptive learning software
architecture described above.
Given that a meaningful consensus can be found on
how to integrate both research fields, one could
assume that finally a foundation is found for the
corporate uptake of self-regulated learning.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
LUKE VERVENNE is managing director of
Synergetics nv (www.synergetics.be), an Antwerp
(Belgium) based innovation company, specialising
in competency-based business processes, namely in
the Learning and HR domain.
He has been involved in several EU projects in the
semantics, learning and e-content related IST
programs. He is also business development manager
for VUB/Starlab (University of Brussels), co-
founder of HR-XML Europe, and recently started a
global ‘lifelong competency framework’ initiative,
which is to align further work on the current
competency standards.
53
54
 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

PART B: THE VIEW FROM ACADEMIA

55
56
 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: THE VIEW FROM ACADEMIA
Jean Underwood
Division of Psychology
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham
United Kingdom
E-mail: jean.underwood@ntu.ac.uk
© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005
KEYWORDS
Cognitive apprenticeship, game playing, learner
perception, motivation, self-regulated learning
(SRL), skilled performance, Technology Enhanced
Learning Environments (TELEs).
A SYNOPSIS
In this section of the proceedings from the Taconet
Conference on Self-regulated Learning (SRL) in
Technology Enhanced Learning Environments
(TELEs) we present four papers focusing on the
view from Academia. Our starting point is the role
of SRL: both the significance of that role and also
issues surrounding SRL when operating in a digital
environment. Recent developments in learning
styles and in new technologies show a clear synergy.
As learning becomes more individualised, learner-
centred, situated, collaborative, ubiquitous, and
extends across the life-span, new technologies are
becoming more personalised, user-centred, mobile,
networked, ubiquitous, and durable thus setting the
stage for a successful but challenging technology led
learning environments. The papers presented here
investigate issues surrounding these new ways of
learning, which are not necessarily classroom
dependent and from which new knowledge emerges
through interaction with others.
Alongside the main theme of SRL a number of other
themes are apparent in these four papers. We start
with Antonietti, who raises the interesting question
of what are the goals of any TELE as seen from two
perspectives the tutors and the learners. His thesis is
that the way a TELE is used (learner) and expected
to be used (tutor) will depend on their individual
mental models of the TELE. Any major
discontinuity in the two sets of perceptions can, and
probably will, damage the effectiveness of the
TELE. He provides a framework that captures
learner needs and realities them to TELE
characteristics, which is designed to support tutors
and institutions tin selecting TELES that will
effectively meet their outcome goals.
Underwood and Banyard continue with the theme of
individual learner’s response to a TELE by focusing,
not so much on the technology, but the degree of
SRL that any learner will bring to the learning
activity. Firstly they map the antecedents of SRL as
it emerged from the debate on self-regulated
behaviour. From this beginning they question the
degree to which self-regulation is possible in formal
educational settings and the equally important issue
of whether self-regulation is for all or just a sub-set
of able students. This raises the spectre of the
Mathew Principle (to them that have will be given).
As Nenniger (2005) points out, with all the euphoria
surrounding the value of SRL, hard evidence of its
impact is drawn almost exclusively from studies
whose participants tended to be academically
talented, highly educated or skilled learners in more
or less academic contexts.
57
A third theme emerging from these papers revolves
around issues of motivation and self-regulation and
raises the issue of the fun-way to learn. Rüppell
presents evidence on the value of educational game
playing to learning. He argues that real-time
competition tasks have features that promote
metacognition and the development of new learning
strategies. In this he is part of a movement extolling
the virtues of learning from game playing. Rüppell
occupies the middle ground of this debate suggesting
the putting game playing activities into educational
content will produce courses that are both
motivating and meaningful.
Game playing activities do not have to be confined
to educational software. A major debate is now
ensuing about the value of commercial video game
playing in the development of cognitive and social
skills. Johnson (2005) points out that most
traditional games such as chess or monopoly provide
the underlying rules of the game from the outset, but
video games are different in that they withhold
information about the underlying rule system. A
player is given some opening constraints but
subsequently the goals of the games and the
techniques by which they can be achieved become
apparent only through exploring the games world.
“You literally learn by playing “ (Johnson, 2005, p.
42). Gee (2003) has asserted that such games create
a ‘cycle of expertise’ as players develop strategies to
cope with well-designed problems, and then enjoy
sufficient practice to allow automaticity of skill to
develop. He argues that good games repeat this cycle
again and again and that this is how expertise is
produced in any domain. This is not a new argument
but that does not make it any less relevant today.
On the other hand, Beishuizen adds a timely
reminder that, while students generally enjoy
working in a TELE and this is particularly true for
those with game elements built in, they may not be
acquiring knowledge that is useful in other
circumstances. His thoughtful reticence here is
reminder not to be overtaken by techno-
romanticism.
Beishuizen’s main argument is directed towards the
value of good TELEs, a link here to Antonietti’s
earlier argument, in stimulating higher cognitive
skills. This he argues in achieved in part by
externalizing the process of thinking and problem
solving, thus aiding metacognitive awareness but
58
also aiding tutors in scaffolding the learner. He sees
TELEs as a possible stimulus to learning through
cognitive apprenticeship as extolled by Lave and
Wenger (1991). He finishes with a plea for more
structured research to guide us through this new
learning environment.
FINAL THOUGHTS
One question that we have yet to fully answer is can
TELEs help learners in distributed e-learning to
develop into independent SRL learners? Which leads
us to ask what will such TELEs look like and how
will we know we have been affective? Two
additional problem for all formal education is the
differential value placed on certain skills and
knowledge by tutors and students. A student may
learn many things from playing games but does
society value that learning and is such learning
transferable into social recognized and valued skills
and knowledge? These questions are beyond the
scope of these proceedings but they remain universal
issues that we should keep in mind.
REFERENCES
Gee, J.P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us
About Learning and Literacy? London: Palgrave
Macmillan
Johnson, S. (2005). Everything Bad is Good for You.
London: Allen Lane.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nenniger, P. (2005). Commentary on self-regulation in the
classroom: a perspective on assessment and
intervention. Applied Psychology: an International
Review 54 (2), 239-244.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
JEAN UNDERWOOD is currently professor of
psychology at Nottingham Trent University and was
previously Reader in Education at the University of
Leicester. A qualified teacher and teacher educator
she has worked in the field of educational
technology for 30 years, conducting a number of
national research projects for the UK government.
 A FRAMEWORK TO CONCEPTUALISE
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Alessandro Antonietti
Department of Psychology – Cognitive Psychology Laboratory
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
Largo Gemelli 1, Milano, 20123, Italy

E-mail: alessandro.antonietti@unicatt.it

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS different settings from the traditional ones. Thus, new

Computer-supported learning, metacognition, self-
regulation.
ABSTRACT
A two-circular two-directional framework to
conceptualise the relationships among learners' needs,
the technology enhanced learning environment
(TELE) that should satisfy those needs, the behaviour
to be held within the TELE and the expected learning
outcomes is proposed. This framework assumes that
learners develop personal perceptions and beliefs
about the TELE that they are invited to use.
Furthermore, the trainees are seen as persons who can
monitor what they do within the TELE according to
their own perceptions and beliefs. In this perspective
students are conceived as possessing
metarepresentational skills that allow them to reflect
upon themselves by shifting the focus of attention
from the TELE to what occurs in their minds when
engaged in the TELE. The framework might suggest
possible ways to devise and introduce TELEs in
training settings.
approaches are needed. In particular, individuals
should be trained to be autonomous learners who are
able to identify by themselves how to manage the
situations where they have to develop new
knowledge, skills and competence (Telepeers
consortium, 2005). Self-regulated learning appears to
be a promising approach to do so (Boekaerts et al.,
2000). How is it possible to encourage students to
become self-regulated learners? Technology
enhanced learning environments (TELEs) may be
relevant to promote self-regulation in learning
(Bereiter, 2002).
A general framework which is useful to conceptualise
this argument is the following.
1. There is a requirement that needs to be satisfied or
a goal to be reached (in our case, the self-
management of learning).
2. Instructors look for, choose, adapt or devise by
themselves a TELE matching their aims which should
help students in satisfying that need or achieving that
goal.

THE EDUCATORS' PERSPECTIVE
Nowadays we realise, as a matter of fact, that the
ways in which people learn are changing: For
instance, persons are asked to learn throughout their
life, in a flexible manner, working together, and so
on. Consequently, we have to take into account that
learning occurs, and will occur in the future, in
3. Then they invite learners to work within that
TELE.
4. The learning outcomes are measured in order to
test the alleged efficacy of the TELE.
We can label this perspective as "objective", since it
relies on the intrinsic properties of the TELE, and

59
"mono-directional" since it predicts a linear sequence
of causal relationships (Bryant and Zillman, 2002).
However, if we assume a broader and more
ecological point of view, the process seems to be
more complex. If we take into consideration how
people are involved in TELEs outside of strictly
controlled educational settings, we realise that
needs/goals, TELEs, ways of employing them and
outcomes are also connected by causal relations
which proceed in the opposite direction.
In fact, if we analyse the link between the needs or
goals and the learning environments which should
match them, we notice that in some circumstances
new needs and goals are highlighted or generated by
existing technological tools and not vice versa. This
could be because a tool, originally designed to satisfy
a need, appears to be useful for a purpose that was not
considered initially and, consequently, stresses the
importance to satisfy a further need. For example, a
platform designed to deliver online courses within an
educational institution might lead trainees to
collaboratively produce documents which appear to
be worthy of being freely accessed by everybody
interested in the topic. The initial need that the
platform tried to satisfy was to allow students to work
in a co-operative way to write joint texts. The
platform designed to do this actually satisfied this
need, but the further need to share the products of the
courses with people external to that educational
institution emerged as a consequence.
Also the relationship between learning environments
and their uses appears to be twofold. Most TELEs
can be used in a variety of manners, since flexibility
is a feature that they try to incorporate. Given the
open-ended nature of TELEs, new properties of the
environment can be discovered which, in turn,
suggest possible modifications of the original
environment in order to match the new opportunities
that have been identified. For instance, a teacher
might instruct students to create multimedia
presentations when they have to report on an issue
that they have studied. Thanks to their use of
multimedia presentations, learners realise that the
school journal might also become a multimedia
journal constituted not only by written pages, but also
by spoken interviews, movies reporting school
events, recordings of alumni music performances and
so on. So, the original software used for class
60
presentations has to be empowered to support the
realisation of the multimedia school journal.
Finally, the relationship between use and effects is
also twofold. On the one hand, the specific manner in
which a TELE is used produces the desired effects on
the learner's mind. On the other hand, the learner, so
affected by the TELE, is induced subsequently to
work differently within such a TELE according to
what he/she has learnt about the TELE itself through
its use. For instance, familiarisation or automatisation
effects will facilitate and/or speed up the subsequent
employment of the TELE.
Thus, the initial circular model of "objective"
relationships between needs/goals, TELEs, uses, and
effects has to become two-directional since feedback
reactions occur at each step of the causal chain. The
matter, however, is even more complex.
THE LEARNERS' PERSPECTIVE
It is worth noticing that in the circular chain
connecting needs/goals, TELEs, their uses and the
corresponding effects, an important role is played by
what the learner has in mind about the aims to be
reached, the relevant properties of the TELE, a
suitable way to work within it and the outcomes to be
achieved. In short, to assess the effects of TELEs, we
must take into account the student's subjective
reactions to the elements involved in the learning
process mediated by TELEs (Antonietti and Giorgetti,
2004; Antonietti and Giorgetti, in press; Antonietti et
al., 2000). Thus, a second chain has to be introduced.
It concerns the functions that personal perceptions
and beliefs about the TELE have in modulating the
relationships between the TELE and the effects that it
produces.
But what are the perceptions and beliefs that our
second ring encompasses? First of all, we must
recognise that needs and goals are not simply "facts"
that the learner encounters or is presented with and
that he/she accepts in a passive way. Needs are not
only natural entities but are culturally framed
constructs. Sometimes the needs and the goals are
identified by the trainers, who make the student aware
of what he/she needs and/or explicitly set the aims
that he/she must achieve through the TELE. The
needs and goals defined by the educators have a
"subjective" counterpart–which may or may not
match the objective needs and goals–within the
learners' mind.
Secondly the TELE is not only a "fact", a set of
devices incorporating "objective" properties. TELEs
also have psychological counterparts in that the
learner constructs a personal mental model of the
environment. In such mental models some features of
the TELE are emphasised, whereas other "objective"
features are neglected or underestimated. It is worth
noting a case reported by a teacher. He asked his
students to explore the computer-supported three-
dimensional reconstruction of an ancient Greek villa
with the aim of leading them to learn something about
its architectural structure. He was astonished when he
observed that some children were clicking on the
walls of the building to search possible hidden
passages and other children asked him some
unexpected questions such as «How many lives I
have at my disposal?» (Grove, 1997). In the learners'
mind the instrument that their teacher proposed to use
was conceptualised not as an educational simulation
but rather as a video-game. There was a mismatch
between the designer's and teacher's "objective"
model of the tool and the pupils' "subjective" model.
Thirdly, the work done by a learner within a TELE is
not only the implementation of a sequence of actions.
The student's behaviour is accompanied by beliefs
about the way of use which is thought to be the most
efficient, the operations which are considered
relevant, the skills which are presumably activated
and the cognitive styles which are perceived as
adequate (Wilson and Whitelock, 1998). The learner's
work within a TELE is also accompanied by beliefs
about the role that he/she should play within the
learning process and about the relevance/irrelevance
of the learning setting which has been set by the
trainer.
Finally, students may or may not perceive the
"objective" effects deriving from a TELE and develop
individual criteria to judge the benefits which are
expected, as well as the costs required. For instance,
teachers might appreciate TELEs above all since they
foster an inquiry-based approach to school subject
matters, whereas students might appreciate them
above all since they allow them to spend less time in
executing the tasks assigned. Learners might fail to
recognise the changes which occurred in him/herself
as a consequence of the TELE, and they might
perceive changes that did not actually occur. In any
case, learners perceive and appreciate or neglect and
under-evaluate the results raised by the TELE
according to their subjective criteria, based on the
corresponding beliefs.
MATCHING THE EDUCATORS' AND
LEARNERS' PERSPECTIVE
The two causal chains - the "objective" and the
"subjective" ones - are parallel but reciprocally
connected. The definition of the needs and goals set
from an external, authoritative source (the teacher, the
scientific community and so on) interacts with the
learner's personal beliefs.
Students can be informed about the teachers' or
experts' opinions about what is needed or requested
and can agree: In such case the external definitions of
the needs and goals overlap the personal definition.
However, if the external definition is not shared by
the student, he/she can react by developing an
alternative definition which may absorb only a part of
what the trainers think is to be achieved, integrate it
with what the individual believes or present
completely different issues. If the trainee's
interpretation of his/her needs and goals is expressed,
educators can in turn revise their ideas about such
topics, by trying to recognise and include in their
definition the needs and goals seen from the student's
point of view.
Also the model of the TELE that the student has built
in his/her mind and the opinions about the best way to
use it can be revised when he/she realises the
potential misconceptions. A better knowledge of the
environment may lead a learner to update his/her
mental model by encouraging him/her to recognise
that the tool does not possess some alleged features
or, conversely, to recognise that some functions, not
previously perceived, can be usefully exploited.
Similarly, reflecting on how the tool is actually used
can lead learners to modify their beliefs about the
strategies, the skills and the thinking styles that they
assume to be relevant.
An interaction between the students and the trainers
may also be helpful to detect possible mismatches
between the evaluation criteria of the effects
developed by the former ones and those established
by the latter ones, to reason about such mismatches,
to review the personal ideas and to reach an
agreement about what should be considered proof of
61
the validity of the TELE. As well as the
corresponding elements of the "objective" chain, the
mental counterparts of needs/goals, TELEs, their uses
and effects are related to one another in a causal
sequence.
The personal conception of a need or of a goal brings
learners to choose a TELE that is thought to be
relevant to that need. If we exclude the situation of a
learner compelled to work within a TELE without
any idea about why it must be employed or without a
personal commitment toward its use, we recognise
that there is a process that occurs in the trainee's mind
which leads him/her to recognise the existence of a
need to be satisfied and/or of a goal to be reached and
which orientates him/her toward a TELE that is
believed, according to the model that the student has
in mind, to be useful to satisfy that need or to reach
that goal.
The mental model of the TELE is connected to what
the learner thinks about its proper use and so drives
the user's behaviour. The mental model of the
environment will suggest how it must be used and
opinions about the relevant use, in turn, will inspire
the behavioural plan to be executed. The learner will
work within the TELE by trying to take advantage of
the potentialities that he/she attributes to it and by
following strategies, applying operations and
activating skills which are believed to be relevant to
achieve such aims.
Finally, the personal definition of the adequate use of
the TELE is linked to the personal definition of the
evaluation criteria to be adopted to assess the effects
produced.
INTEGRATING THE EDUCATORS' AND
LEARNERS' PERSPECTIVE
The subjective chain described below is mono-
directional. However the connections between the
elements of such a chain also appear to be two-
directional since feedback processes are likely to
occur.
It may be that initially the learner does not perceive
the needs or goals for which a relevant TELE has
been devised. Then he/she becomes familiar with the
TELE. The model of the TELE that the learner
constructs in his/her mind enables him/her to
appreciate the importance of the actions that the
62
TELE permits him/her to carry out. From this he/she
can recognise that there is a need that has to be
satisfied through that TELE.
If we consider the relationships between the beliefs
about TELEs and their uses, beside the causal link
connecting the former ones to the latter ones, the
inverse relationship may occur: The representation of
how to work within an environment can modify the
mental model of that environment. For instance:
students appreciating the possibility, offered by a
TELE, to control the learning process develop the
belief that structured distance learning maximises
such an opportunity. Alternatively students
appreciating independence in learning are led to
believe that open environments are the most relevant.
When a student works within a TELE, he/she can
discover new, more productive ways of working, and
so transform his/her representation of its proper use
and, in turn, the mental model of such a TELE.
Finally, the observation of the effects produced by the
TELE and the subjective appreciation of what has
been obtained through it, can suggest novel ways of
using it (different strategies, different control, and so
forth).
If we assume the two-circular two-directional
framework described above, we can recognise that—
beside the chain of causal influences that link
educational goals, features of the environment
devised to reach such goals, presumed ways to work
in that environment and learning outcomes (the
“objective” perspective)—a parallel chain links the
actual work within the TELE to what learners think
of the TELE itself (the “subjective” perspective). The
"objective" and "subjective" perspectives can be
conceived as two interacting perspectives. The needs
or goals set by the educators—and the corresponding
desired outcomes—interact with the learners’
representation of their own needs and goals; The
identification of the relevant TELE carried out by
instructors matches or mismatches students’ opinions
about the TELE (why it should be useful, what
advantages should be derived from its use, and so
forth); The planned use of the TELE is modulated by
what learners think is the best way of employing it;
The effects of TELEs and the criteria and procedures
requested to assess them may or may not be shared by
trainers and trainees. The two-circular two-directional
framework might suggest a possible way to address
the request of intervention to support an educational
institution introducing TELEs in training activities to
promote self-regulated learning.
The framework requires us first of all to clarify what
the "objective" chain of elements that teachers
identified is: What are the learners' needs which
emerged from the analysis of the situation? What
goals have been settled by people who want to
introduce TELEs? What are the specific technological
devices that they choose to apply and why? How did
they plan to present students with such environments
and how did they design the instructional settings, the
directions to be given to the students and the
behaviour to be captured? How did they intend to
assess the effects from the introduction of those
TELEs and what standard did they expect to be
achieved? Secondly, the framework suggests that
trainees should infer, by means of observations or
interviews, their perceptions and beliefs about the
same topics: What aims do they presume their
instructors have in mind? In students' opinion, what
are the needs that TELEs should address? What do
they think about the specific technological
instruments to be introduced? How do they figure out
their use of such devices (when, where, in what
manner)? What benefits might they expected? The
third step would be to link the teachers' perspective to
the students' one.
To conclude, TELEs ask students to upgrade their
ways of learning, whilst students' perceptions and
beliefs ask trainers to upgrade the design and
implementation of the TELEs.
REFERENCES
Antonietti, A. and Giorgetti. M. (2004). Students’
conceptions about learning from multimedia. In H.
Niegemann, R. Brünken and D. Leutner (Eds.).
Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning.
Waxmann, Münster-New York, 249-265.
Antonietti, A. and Giorgetti. M. (in press). Teachers’ beliefs
about psychological aspects of learning through
multimedia. Computers in Human Behaviour.
Antonietti, A., Rasi, C., Imperio, E. and Sacco, M. (2000).
The representation of virtual reality in education.
Education and Information Technologies, 5, 317-327.
Bereiter C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge
age. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.
Boekaerts, M., P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.). (2000).
Handbook of self-regulation. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA.
Bryant, J. and D. Zillman (Eds.). (2002). Media effects.
Advances in theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, N.J.
Grove, J. (1997). VR and history. VR in the Schools, 2 (1),
3-9.
Telepeers consortium. (2005). Self-Regulated Learning in
Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Draft
delivered on May 31.
Wilson, T. and Whitelock. D. (1998). What are the
perceived benefits of participating in a computer-
mediated communication (CMC) environment for
distance learning computer science students?.
Computers and Education, 30, 259-269.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
ALESSANDRO ANTONIETTI is full professor of
cognitive psychology at the Catholic University of the
Sacred Heart of Milano. He teaches in M.D., post-
graduate and Ph.D. courses in psychology and
education. He is head of the Department of
Psychology of the Catholic University and head of
the Service of Learning and Education Psychology
and co-ordinator of the Cognitive Psychology
Laboratory of the same university.
He has carried out experimental studies about
creativity, problem-solving, mental imagery, and
analogy. He is also interested in the applications of
cognitive issues in the field of school instruction,
empowerment and rehabilitation. He investigated
thinking processes involved in hypertext navigation,
multimedia communication, virtual reality immersion.
He has published books and articles in scientific
journals and devised tests and training programmes to
enhance children’s and adults’ abilities in reasoning,
visualising, and learning.
Personal website: www.psycholab.net/antonietti
63
 LEARNING AND TECHNOLOGY: A HAPPY CONJUNCTION?
Jean Underwood
Division of Psychology
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham
United Kingdom

E-mail: jean.underwood@ntu.ac.uk

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

Philip Banyard
Division of Psychology
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham
United Kingdom

E-mail: phil.banyard@ntu.ac.uk

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS ambition of educationalists to promote SRL while

Agency, learners, self-determination, Self-regulated
Learning (SRL), skilled performance, Technology
Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs).
ABSTRACT
The paper considers how Technology Enhanced
Learning Environments (TELEs) can contribute to
the development of Self-regulated Learning (SRL).
SRL is a sub set of Self-regulated Behaviour (SRB),
which is a mechanism for monitoring and restoring
well-being. A distinction is made between
autonomous and controlled behaviour regulation to
reflect the difference between goals set by the
learner and those set by the tutor. The role of the
tutor in facilitating SRL is discussed. SRL is also
affected by the various goals which compete for any
student’s attention and also by individual
differences. The question for TELEs is to identify
what added value they bring to the learner with
regard to SRL. TELEs have clear advantages in
terms of their anywhere, anytime flexibility and in
their intrinsically motivating properties. Despite
these advantages they do not necessarily promote
SRL. Finally, a paradox is posed concerning the
the constraints of formal education only allow
controlled behaviour regulation rather than
autonomous self-regulation.
STARTING POINTS
The starting point for this discussion is the EU
funded TELEPEERS project which has investigated
the opportunities provided in a range of Technology
Enhanced Environments (TELEs) to provide
opportunities for Self-regulated Learning (SRL).
While it is recognised that learning is a life-long
activity and that much learning takes place outside
of formal educational settings, in this discussion we
draw our exemplar arguments from formal learning
contexts, whether they are face-to-face in the class
or lecture room or at a distance. Further, there are
two underpinning assumptions of the argument
presented here.
The first is that the primary aim of education is to
facilitate the development of skilled performance;
the development of the cognitive and social abilities
of the learner is and should be the paramount goal of
education. The use of the term skills here is not

64
confined to low-level procedural competences rather
it includes the range of skills to operate effectively
within a complex dynamic environment. Such skills
include the ability to problem solve and to interact
effectively with others.
Learning Structures
- formal / informal
Task
Individual
Variables
- subject
Differences Education for - ŌwhatÕvs.
ŌhowÕ
- gender
- expertise Skilled
- moral
code
Performance
Organisation
- group
structures
- locus of
ICT control
- classroom computers
- e-learning
Figure 1: Education For Skilled Performance:
Factors Impacting Directly on the Learner
(Underwood and Dillon, 2004)
A second assumption is that the educational
environment is comprised of a complex set of
factors and relationships (see Figure 1) that impact
on the learner’s progress through the educational
system, including the prior knowledge and skills the
learners brings with them and the organisational
structures put in place by the educational institution.
There are, of course, a number of additional factors
that impact on learning that are not represented in
this diagram. Some are directly influential at the
learner level, and these include elements of the
home and community environments. Then there are
factors such as national and local policies, which
have a secondary impact in that they influence the
behaviour of educators and institutional policies.
From this myriad of factors we will focus on two. At
the learner level we are concerned with mechanisms
by which the learner controls the learning process
that is on the concept of Self-regulated Learning
(SRL). At the contextural level the focus will be on
the role of TELEs in supporting SRL.
SELF-REGULATED BEHAVIOUR AND SELF-
REGULATED LEARNING
The concept of SRL has emerged from the more
extensive literature on Self-regulated Behaviour
(SRB). Vancouver (2000) defines self-regulation as
the processes involved in attaining and maintaining
(i.e. keeping regular) goals, where goals are
internally represented desired states (i.e. within the
self). SRB involves: goal establishment including
adopting, adapting or rejecting goals; planning that
is preparing to pursue a goal; striving - moving
toward or maintaining a goal; and finally revision
which encompasses the possibility of possible
changing or disengaging from a goal (Austin and
Vancouver, 1996). However, Wood (2005) argues
this is too narrow a definition. Although it
encapsulates internal processes it does not capture
those transactional processes that Karoly (1993) sees
as essential in the purposeful pursuit of any goal.
SRB is a mechanism for maintaining and restoring
well-being and avoiding negative status in all
aspects of life and SRL is a subset of that more
general concept. Karoly (1993), defines the self-
regulation mechanisms underlying cognitive and
somatic based learning as those processes, internal
and/or transactional, that enable an individual to
guide his or her goal-directed activities over time
and across changing contexts. Goal seeking does not
necessarily lead to outcomes that society would
define as positive or beneficial. While goal
attainment and maintenance are seen as central to
self-regulation, goal disengagement may prove
equally important. Goal disengagement can be
beneficial to psychological well-being, particularly
if the initial goal is not achievable and if
disengagement results in the pursuit of new more
attainable goals (Wrosch et al., 2003).
Regulation implies modulation of thought, affect,
behaviour, or attention via deliberate or automated
use of specific mechanisms and supportive meta-
skills. The processes of self-regulation are initiated
when routinised activity is impeded (for example the
failure of habitual action patterns) or when goal-
directedness is otherwise made salient (for example
with the appearance of a challenge). Transactional
process provide the vital link between internal self-
regulatory processes and human action
Self-regulated learners draw on their knowledge and
beliefs to devise an interpretation of a given
academic task. These learners will set goals and
think about the skills and strategies for achieving
these goals. They monitor their progress toward the
goals by judging their success against these goals
(Zimmerman, 1989), and they recognise deviations
from their expected rate of progress.
65
SRL highlights academic performance and develops
through purposive engagement with the fundamental
concepts and structures of the domain knowledge as
students strive for academic success. However,
while traditional models of SRB assume that the
behaviour is determined by individual goals and
needs with limited influence from others or the
environmental context (Jackson, MacKenzie and
Hobfoll, 2000), the extent of the influence of factors
outside of the self are very apparent in the learning
context, where teachers, institutions and even
governments define acceptable learning goals. As
Garner et al. (2000) so poetically put it; the
classroom is where teachers dragoon learners into
doing things they think are good for them. While
this is possibly an overstatement, in the formal
learning context the learner whether child or
vocational trainee rarely sets key learning goals
although there maybe choice on the path to such
goals. Deci and Ryan (2000) sum this up in their
theory of Self-Determination, which makes a clear
distinction between autonomous and controlled
behaviour regulation. In the former goals emanate
from the individual and are set because of personal
importance. In the latter controlled regulation occurs
when the individual feels coerced or pressurised to
obtain a goal set by external but also internal forces.
Autonomous goals (e.g. desire to master a subject)
are more likely to lead to successful outcomes than
developed through controlled regulation (e.g. tutor
or parental targets to do well).
Of course self-regulation is not always the most
strategic approach to academic success. As Garner
et al (2000) intimate, students who fulfil the
perceived expectation of tutors will receive high
marks.
THE IMPORTANCE OF SELF-REGULATION
FOR LEARNING
Glaser (1996) asserts that a fundamental principle
underlying the acquisition of any level of
competence is the change in agency for learning as
expertise develops. Initially learning involves often
extensive external support on the part of significant
others (Vygotsky, 1978) such as a teacher, a parent
or an expert in the area of skill to be learnt but the
need for such support fades with growing
competence. This shift in agency is central to
concept of scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976) and
contingent tutoring (Wood and Wood, 1999). The
analysis of tutorial contingency is primarily
66
concerned with assessing the impact of social
interaction on task learning and is based upon
microanalyses of moment-by-moment interaction
between learner and tutor (mother, teacher or
machine). The concept has arisen out of dyadic
interaction rather than small group teaching.
Effective contingent instruction places heavy
demands on tutors - demands that good machine
based systems can in part meet, that is TELEs can
provide some aspects of contingent instruction.
From the Telepeers project the programming
environment produced by colleagues in Compiegne,
provides such support but in other TELEs such as
DIVIDU from the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdamthe
tutoring resides with staff and peers and the TELE
supplies the environment within which exchanges
take place. These individuals or TELEs play a vital
role as contingent tutors in the acquisition of skills
and knowledge.
The basic ideas of contingent instruction are
‘deceptively simple to state, though hard to achieve
in practice” (Wood and Wood, 1999, p.154). When
a learner exhibits difficulties the contingent tutor
offers help. If the difficulty is not resolved then the
tutor offers more extensive, some would say
intrusive, help until the learner resolves his or her
difficulties. Once the learner shows a degree of
competence with the material the tutor fades or
withdraws allowing more and more responsibility to
pass to the learner. It may appear at first sight that
the contingent help is rather didactic and that it is
couched in terms of what the tutor does to or for the
learner, but Wood and Wood (1999) argue that this
is a two-way model, an interaction between tutor
and learner and that contingency is an emergent
property of that interaction. Not only does the
learner’s knowledge change through the interaction,
the tutor develops an internal model of the learner’s
progress that is progressively modified by the
behaviour of the learner. The development of the
learner model allows the tutor to tailor feedback to
the learner. Wood et al (1976) suggest that effective
helping involves two ingredients. The first concerns
circumstances in which a child gets into difficulty.
Here the tutor immediately offers more specific
instruction or help than was offered previously. The
second ingredient of effective instruction is fading,
that is providing the child with the minimal help
needed to ensure joint success. This requires the
tutor to withdraw or fade from the interaction if the
learner is being successful.
As experience and competence increases the
individual increasingly internalizes control over the
learning situation and the honing of performance
that is they begin to self-regulate. However,
Bielaczyc et al. (1995) argue that the acquisition of
cognitive skill is affected not only by the quantity
but the quality of self-explanations produced by
learners. Learners need relevant strategies, which
lead them to ask not only do they know and
understand but also whether that understanding is at
a sufficient level.
In summary this chapter is predicated on the
assumptions that:
• Self-regulation is a general adaptive
process for maintaining and restoring well-
being.
• Self-regulated learning is a subset of SR
focused on academic success.
• The role of the tutor is to promote
academic success by mediating the change
in the student from controlled to self-
regulated learner.
• TELEs can enhance the role of the tutor in
this process and in some cases can replace
it.
SELF-REGULATION; A CONCEPT IN FLUX?
There are procedural, epistemic and conceptual
divergences in the models of self-regulated learning
in education (see Boekarts and Corno, 2005).
Models may variously emphasise volitional
behaviour (Corno, 2004), cognitive processes
(Winne, 1995) or cultural settings (McCaslin and
Hickey, 2001) but all assume that students who self-
regulate their learning
• Engage actively and constructively in a
process of meaning generation.
• Adapt thoughts, feelings and actions as
needed to affect learning and motivation
• Use standards to direct learning and set
goals
• Have individual differences whether
inherent or learnt which enhance or
interfere with self-regulation
• Mediate the relationship between
achievement and individual and contextual
characteristics through self-regulation.
Self-regulation guides behaviour along a specific
path to a directed aim or goal. In the goal selection
phase of SR, determinants of intention (goal
commitment) are hypothesised to play a key role. In
social cognitive models these include
• risk perception
• outcome expectancies
• social influences
• perceived competency (self-efficacy)
Although these models are good at
predictingintention they are poor at predicting actual
behaviours, that is they are not necessarily models
of behavioural change. Directions of behaviours are
influenced by long- and short-term, important and
non-important, and easy and difficult goals that are
prioritized and strategically implemented according
to individual aims during self-regulation. The
effectiveness of SRL is dependant upon the clarity
and power of the goal setting. Clarity needs little
explanation but by power we mean the strength of
the goal to stand up to other competing goals, which
the individual may have outside of the learning
context. SRL theory is challenged when the
individual has competing goals. A current example
from our own teaching will illustrate this balance of
long-term and short-term goals. The long term goal
of completing the final year degree project weighs
heavily on one of our students, but not so heavily
that she has turned down an offer of a tutorial she
badly needs and wants because she is attending a
21st birthday party the night before the tutorial!
COMPETING GOALS
There are then many goals or targets which compete
for any student’s attention. For example, in the
search for personal development, students may
strive to achieve:
• Academic success (look at my certificates)
• Personal validation (I’m proud of my
achievements)
• External validation (my mother will be very
proud)
• Personal discovery (climb every mountain,
or very small hill)
• Social acceptance (everybody loves me -
I’m successful / I don’t work)
Boekarts and Niemivirta (2000) suggest that there is
a tension between academic learning goals and ego-
protective goals and that is the balance achieved
between these opposing goals which controls the
direction the individual will take. Ego-protective
goals can be adaptive, for example unrealistic
67
optimism is a requirement for good mental health.
People have been found to consistently rate
themselves as healthier, wealthier and happier than
their peers (after Weinstein, 1982). Unrealistic
optimism about educational progress and potential
can be seen to be adaptive but it is likely to inhibit
self-regulation because self-monitoring of
performance has a self-serving bias. However, some
individuals, in an attempt to protect their ego from
self-criticism, may disregard vital information from
observation in a self-serving bias, and thus, limit the
effectiveness of self-monitoring (Baumeister et al.,
1993; Krosnick and Sedikides, 1990). However,
Carver and Scheier (2000) suggest that a resolution
to this impasse in the theory is to view the
competing goals as being on different levels in a
hierarchy of goals. Baumeister and Heatherton
(1996) argue not from a competing goal position
rather they suggest that self-regulation fails when an
individual makes false–assumptions about what they
can achieve, how they can achieve it or how
important it is to achieve the goal.
Once a specific self-regulation treatment has been
learned and adapted for a specific behaviour, it
becomes increasingly difficult to change treatment
to be congruent with long-term goals. In other
words, too much deviation from the original path
may lead to never finding the same path again.
Thus, clear and defined goal setting is essential in
the initial approach to self-regulation. This is
Gollwitzer’s (1990) Rubicon Model. Just as
Coriolanus crossing the Rubicon was a moment of
commitment to invade his home city of Rome,
Gollwitzer sees the learner standing on one side of
the river setting goals and intents but these can not
achieved until the individual crosses the river and
then an act of goal striving begins. Gollwitzer’s
work shows that once the commitment is made then
individuals find it very difficult, if not impossible to
review or revert back to previously espoused goals.
Once goal setting has been developed, the ability to
self-monitor becomes essential because attention to
internal and external cues, through greater self-
awareness, leads to faster and more appropriate
control of intervention strategies. Attention to
internal states (thoughts, feeling, sensations) and
external states (bodily movement and environment)
is a different phenomenon from attentional styles,
though there is overlap between the two.
Boekaerts (2005) points out that the deliberate focus
68
on mindful learning in the SRL literature tells us
little about the student who does not fit the pattern
of the SR Learner. It also fails to shed light on
achievement goals and other goals students pursue.
In the messy world of classrooms learning creates
different goals
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
There are strong individual differences in the degree
to which students engage in SRL activities. Some
students appear to use SRL whatever the study
program. While others appear never to engage in
SRL activities whatever the study programme. Then
again there are intermittent users of SRL
mechanisms and it is these in particular that we
might argue TELEs can support and provide added
value to existing educational environments.
For example, individuals differ in their attentional
style, the relationship of concentration and focus to
the environment (Zaichkowsky, 1984). Attentional
style is related to the degree of internal and external
distraction and the degree of conscious and
automatic control an individual possesses for a
given task (Hardy et al., 1996). That is, it is the
ability of the learner to intervene and separate
important mental content from non-important
derived from specific stimuli, and to know when to
consciously over-ride actions or to allow automatic
processes to continue. This process is governed by
the skill of the individual to self-monitor effectively.
The question to consider about TELEs is whether
they bring something new and effective to the
educational environment or is it just new packaging
for old techniques? In particular,
• Do TELEs have a particular impact on
occasional self-regulators?
• Are the effects measurable?
• Are the benefits real or just perceived (c.f.
benefits of PowerPoint described below)
THE TECHNOLOGY DIMENSION
Pintrich (2000) has questioned the strength of the
focus on the learner when considering the SRL
paradigm, arguing that the context within which the
learning takes place constrains self-regulation; that
is that learning is situated (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
New technologies have and are changing the
learning environment and TELES provide a range of
contexts within which learning takes place. What is
the impact of such technological changes? The
anticipation of the benefits of new technologies for
learning has increased with the proliferation of
computers, the rise of the Internet and increasing
levels of connectivity. Although the debate about the
value of technology in education rages on - see
Hokanson and Hooper (2000) for one of the more
balanced debates - here we are interested in the way
in which new technologies shape the context within
which learning takes place. As Innes (1954) says
“new technologies alter the structure of our
interests: the things we think about. They alter the
character of our symbols and the things we think
with. And they alter the nature of community: the
arena in which thoughts develop.” (p.20).
A very simple example, the use of PowerPoint
multimedia presentations in lectures, will suffice to
illustrate how new technologies change the learning
context. Across a range of studies (Apperson et al.,
2006; Pippert and Moore, 1999; Susskind, 2005) it
has been found that lecturers who use PowerPoint
presentations instead of older non-digital
technologies such as chalkboards or overhead
projector slides, are rated as better on a wide range
of teaching dimensions by their students. This
positive halo effect for technology users was seen to
spill over into activities unrelated to the lecture
format such as handing back papers on time,
providing helpful feedback, and assigning tasks
requiring critical or creative thought. The students
also held stronger academic self-efficacy beliefs
when PowerPoint presentations were employed.
Such lectures were perceived as being easier to
understand and take notes from. The students
believed that they took more notes and perceived
those notes as more organized and useful for
studying when PowerPoint multimedia presentations
accompanied lecture. At this point it should be noted
that little or no evidence has been published to show
that this positive response to the technology-
supported lecture has any preferential benefits on
learning outcomes. The point here is that students
see the learning environment as more beneficial to
them when the technology is used.
Recent developments in learning styles and in new
technologies show a clear synergy. As learning
becomes more individualised, learner-centred,
situated, collaborative, ubiquitous, and spans the
life-span; new technologies are becoming more
personalised, user-centred, mobile, networked,
ubiquitous, and durable setting the stage for a
successful but challenging technology learning
environment. Sharples (2000) states that there are
five approaches to using technology in learning and
the TELES studied in the Telepeers project are
represented in four of the five approaches. They are
as follows:
1. Intelligent tutoring systems (Underwood and
Brown, 1997) that have attempted to replace the
teacher. These have had limited success,
(Telepeers, Programming Tutorials)
2. Simulation and modelling tools that serve as
learner’s assistants or pedagogical agents
embedded in applications that act as mentors
providing advice, (Telepeers, Portfolio)
3. Dictionaries, concept maps, learning
organizers, planners and other resource aids that
help learners to learn or organize knowledge
with system tools and resources, (Telepeers,
Cognitive Psychology WebPages, Weblogs)
4. Personalised communication aids that can
present materials depending on user abilities and
experience with the system, and
5. Simulated classrooms and labs that engage
teachers and learners in an interaction similar to
real classrooms. (Telepeers, SWIM)
The advantages of learning with new technologies
particularly those supported through the Internet
include flexibility of anytime and anywhere learning
(Brandon and Hollingshead, 1999), self-paced
learning, ability to link resources in many different
formats, accommodating different learning styles,
and potential for widening access (e.g., work based
students). New technologies are also motivating
(Cavendish et al., 1997). Pintrich and Schunk (1996)
outline three general types of motivational beliefs;
self-efficacy beliefs (that is judgments of one's
capabilities to do the academic task); task value
beliefs (that is, beliefs about the importance of,
interest in, and value of the task); and goal
orientations (that is, whether the focus is on mastery
and learning of the task, grades or extrinsic reasons
for doing the task, or relative ability in relation to
social comparisons with other students). They have
shown self-efficacy is positively related to self-
regulated self-regulatory strategies such as planning,
monitoring, and regulating which have been shown
to lead to academic success
Not all is rosy in the technologically enhanced
learning environment. For example, staff feel it
might be difficult to authenticate learners' work
(Underwood, 2001) while students may experience a
69
lack of social interaction with peers, learners may
feel isolated at not being part of a more traditional
community (Motiwalla and Tello, 2000). However
the success of TELE learning depends largely on
learners’ satisfaction with the TELE as this will
impact on the learner’s intention to continue using
it. Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala et al.
(1983) argue that satisfaction results from the degree
to which the TELE is able to fulfill needs, facilitate
reaching goals, or affirm personal values as this will
determine the value of the TELE to the individual.
So one of the most desired characteristics of a TELE
is the degree to which it adaptive and personalized,
since it has to be used by a wide variety of students
with different skills and learning styles. E-learning
and the new mobile or m-learning offer increased
opportunities to the learner to personalise and to
self-regulate. Learners may be satisfied with the
technology based learning even when negative
aspects of it exist, provided that doing well when
using the system is important to them, for example
taking a Web-based learning courses relates to their
current and future career goals, and it is interesting,
enjoyable and fun.
FINAL THOUGHTS
A paradox exists in the debate concerning SRL.
While many theorists and indeed practitioners
espouse the value of self-regulation, both in learning
and as life-skill in general, the formal education
system sets the learning goals, requires students to
meet those goals and indeed rewards those that do. It
can be argued that in formal education we can only
promote controlled behaviour regulation (Deci and
Ryan, 2000) and not autonomous self-regulation, as
the latter requires individual choice of goals. We
would argue here, however, that TELEs cannot only
provide the choice paths within a controlled
behaviour regulation model. They are also capable
of subversion or novel use by students and in this
way they move us a little nearer to the autonomous
self-regulating learner.
REFERENCES
Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., Scepansky, J. A. (2006).
The impact of presentation graphics on students’
experience in the classroom. Computers and
Education. In press.
Austin, S.J. and Vancouver, J.B. (1996). Goal constructs
in psychology: Structure, process and content.
Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338-375.
70
Baumeister, R.F. and Heatherton, T.F. (1996). Self-
regulation failure: An overview. Psychological
Inquiry, 7, 1-15.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., and Tice, D. M.
(1993). When ego threats lead to self-regulation
failure: negative consequences of high self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
141-156.
Bielaczyc, K., Pirollli, P. L. and Brown, A. L. (1995).
Training in Self-Explanation and Self-Regulation
Strategies: Investigating the Effects of Knowledge
Acquisition Activities on Problem Solving. Cognition
and Instruction, 13, 221-252.
Boekaerts, M. and Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the
classroom. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 54,199-231.
Boekaerts, M and Niemvirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated
learning: Finding the balance between learning goals
and ego-protecting goals. In M. Boekaerts. P.R.
Pintich and M. Zeidner (eds.) Handbook of Self-
regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brandon, D. P., and Hollingshead, A. B. (1999).
Collaborative learning and computer-supported
groups. Communication Education, 48, 109-126.
Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (2000). On the structure of
behavioural self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts P.R.
Pintich and M. Zeidner (eds.) Handbook of Self-
regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cavendish, S. Underwood, Lawson, T. and Dowling, S.
When and why do pupils learn from Integrated
Learning Systems? In J. Underwood and J. Brown
(Eds.) "Integrated Learning Systems : Potential into
Practice." London: Heinemann,
Corno, L. (2004) Work habits and work styles: Volition in
education. Teachers College Record, 106, 1669-1694.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’
of goal pursuits; Human need and the self-
determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry,
11, 227-268.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B.,
Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., and Midgley, C. (1983).
Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T.
Spence (Ed.). Achievement and Achievement
Motivation. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
Garner, R., Zhao Y. and Gillingham, M. (2000). Editorial.
Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 223-226.
Glaser, R. (1996) Changing the Agency for Learning:
Acquiring Expert Performance. In K. A. Ericsson
(Ed.), The Road to Excellence. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gollwitzer, P.M. (1990). Action phases and mind sets. In
E.T. Higgins and R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Handbook of
Motivation and Cognition: Vol.2. Foundations of
Social Behavior. New York: Guildford Press.
Hardy, L., Mullen, R., and Jones, G. (1996). Knowledge
and conscious control of motor actions under stress.
British Journal of Psychology, 87, 621-636.
Hokanson, B. and Hooper, S. (200). Computers as
cognitive media: Examining the potential of
 computers in education. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 16, 537-552.
Innis, H.A. (1954). The Bias of Communication. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Jackson, T., MacKenzie, J. and Hobfoll, S.T. (2000).
Communal aspects of self-regulation. In M.
Boekaerts. P.R. Pintich and M. Zeidner (Eds.)
Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, 275-300
Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: a
systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23-
52.
Krosnick, J. A. and Sedikides, C. (1990). Self-monitoring
and self-protective biases in use of consensus
information to predict one's own behaviour. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 718-728.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:
Legitimate peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCaslin, M. and Hickey, D.T. (2001). Educational
psychology, social constructivism and educational
practice: A case of emergent identity. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 133-140.
Motiwalla, L. and Tello, S. (2000). Distance learning on
the Internet: An exploratory study. The Internet and
Higher Education, 2, 253-264.
Pintrich, P.R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting
and sustaining self-regulated learning. Educational
Research, 31, 459-470.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-
regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts. P.R. Pintich and
M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of Self-regulation. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, 452-502.
Pippert, T. D., and Moore, H. A. (1999). Multiple
perspectives on multimedia in the large lecture.
Teaching Sociology, 27, 92-109.
Sharples, M. (2000) The design of personal mobile
technologies for lifelong learning. Computers and
Education, 34, 241-255.
Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology: Vol. 12 New York: Academic Press.
Susskind, J. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom:
enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes.
Computers and Education, 45, 203-215.
Winne, P.H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-187.
Wood, R. (2005). New frontiers for self-regulation
research. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 54,192-198.
Underwood, J. (2000). Teachers are the key. Dialogue 24,
3-7 &19-21.
Underwood. J. and Brown, J. (1997). "Where now?" In
Jean Underwood and Jenny Brown (Eds.) "Integrated
Learning Systems: Potential into Practice." London:
Heinemann.
Underwood, J. D.M. and Dillon, G. (2004). Maturity
Modelling: A framework for capturing the effects of
technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
13, 213-224.
Vancouver, J.B. (2000). Self-regulation in
industrial/organizational psychology: A tale of two
paradigms. In M. Boekaerts. P.R. Pintich and M.
Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of Self-regulation. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, 303-341.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind In Society: The Development of
Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
Weinstein, N.D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about
susceptibility to health problems. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 5, 441-460
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. (1976). The role of
tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wood, H. and Wood, D. (1999). Help seeking, learning
and contingent tutoring. Computers and Education,
33, 153-169.
Wood, R. (2005). New frontiers for self-regulation
research. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 54,192-198.
Wrosch, C., Sheier, M., Carver, C. and Schulz, R.
(2003). The importance of goal disengagement in
adaptive self-regulation. When giving up is beneficial.
Self and Identity, 2, 1-20.
Zaichkowsky, L. D. (1984). Attentional styles. In W. F.
Straub and J. M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive Sport
Psychology. Lansing, New York: Sport Science
Associates.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
JEAN UNDERWOOD is currently professor of
psychology at Nottingham Trent University and was
previously Reader in Education at the University of
Leicester. A qualified teacher and teacher educator
she has worked in the field of educational
technology for 30 years, conducting a number of
national research projects for the UK government.
PHIL BANYARD is Senior Lecturer at Nottingham
Trent University. He has been involved in the
teaching of psychology in schools for over 25 years
including 15 years as Chief Examiner of A Level
Psychology.
71
 LEARNING BY COMPETITION:
COMPETE AND OPTIMISE YOUR STRATEGY
Hermann Rüppell
Department of Edcuation
University of Cologne
Albertus-Magnus-Platz
D-50923 Cologne
Germany

E-mail: Hermann.Rueppell@uni-koeln.de

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS games because they offer new possibilities to

Competition, learning strategies, Online gaming.
ABSTRACT
Competitive online learning games are technology
enhanced learning environments (TELEs) that are
highly suitable for the promotion of self-regulated
learning (SRL) because they involve a problem-
solving perspective, are intrinsically motivating, and
evoke emotions that are necessary for self-
development. In order to stimulate different learning
processes and different emotions we developed a
large set of game-like learning settings. A game-like
learning setting is a frame for competitive or
collaborative interaction in a group of four to twelve
learners. The development of these learning settings
is based on the adaptive learning environment (ALE)
which consists of a set of more than fifty game-like
learning settings.
INTRODUCTION
The basic idea of this paper is the following: playing
and gaming are self-regulated activities, while
learning – in most situations – is fundamentally
teacher-regulated. Therefore in order to develop self-
regulated learning it may be easier to enrich the self-
regulated gaming behavior with learning activities,
rather than to restructure the receptive classroom
learning behavior.
An optimal context for the enrichment of games by
learning activities is given in multiplayer online
stimulate well-defined learning processes. The
enrichment of competitive multiplayer online games
by learning activities leads to competitive educational
online-games – COME-ON games. Because of the
huge success of massively multiplayer online action
games, it seems to be an efficient strategy to design
the COME-ON games in analogy to these
multiplayer action games.
MULTIPLAYER ONLINE ACTION GAMES
Massively multiplayer online action games are the
ultimate extension of single player computer games.
These games connect a large number of people from
different locations to engage in complex social and
cognitive interactions and to compete with each other
in order to reach a shared goal. Multiplayer online
action games are designed for fun, skill and action in
a virtual social context. Examples of frequently
played games are Counterstrike, Everquest or
Warcraft. The dominant actions in these games are
planning, quick-decision-making, conquering and
fighting. Other multiplayer online games are card
games or skill games like Tetris. The driving force in
all these games is a distributed competition with
players all over the world. The stimulating force is
the immediate feedback without any time delay and
without any evaluation from trainers or teachers. This
immediate feedback together with the experience of
being more or less competent, or more or less skillful
than other players, strengthens the motivation to try
harder and to become better. The observation that
online gamers acquire complex decision and

72
coordination skills raised the interest of social
scientists and has stimulated systematic research.
Important studies of this online game research are the
Daedalus-Project, a large online-player-survey (Yee,
2005), the Academic Advanced Distributed Learning
Project from the Wisconsin Technology Network at
Madison (Gee, Squire and Steinkuehler, 2005) and
the results from the XEODesign research study
(Lazzaro, 2004) concerning the emotions that online
games induce.
The Daedalus-Project surveyed more than 35,000
Massively Distributed Multiplayer Online Role-
Playing Game players from a majority of the popular
US Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing
Games. Over the past five years, these findings were
presented in a variety of formats. The Daedalus
Gateway is an attempt to provide a coherent gateway
to all those findings (http://www.nickyee.com/
daedalus/).
The research of Gee and his colleagues at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison explains the
advantages of games over traditional teaching tools.
They argue that Massively-Multiplayer Online Games
are much more than mindless entertainment, and
derivatives of them could be used in schools or for
corporate training. Gee and his colleagues would like
to make similar games that let players be scientists or
take on other professional roles. Squire has worked
on a game called “Biohazard” in which firefighters
must react to dangerous situations. They learn the
most effective ways to, for example, evacuate people
from a mall after a sarin-gas attack.
One feature that is important for the analysis of self-
regulated learning is the description of what gamers
do: ‘They upload and they share information and
ideas, give each other commentaries and teach one
and another to play the game better. They make their
thinking visible in front of a community of experts
they have identified with. And they give feedback on
the same problem. This is real intellectual work
online because everyone is playing the same game
giving each other feedback. This is, what e-learning-
people would like to see happen’ (Gee, Squire and
Steinkuehler, 2005).
The XEODesign study revealed that multiplayer
online games have “four keys to releasing emotions
during play” (Lazzaro, 2004). Lazzaro conducted
analysis with online gamers concerning the emotions
that the games induce.
1. Hard Fun: Players like the opportunities for
challenge, strategy, and problem solving. Their
comments focus on the game’s challenge and
strategic thinking and problem solving. This “Hard
Fun” frequently generates emotions and experiences
of frustration and pride.
2. Easy Fun: Players enjoy intrigue and curiosity.
Players become immersed in games when it absorbs
their complete attention, or when it takes them on an
exciting adventure. These immersive game aspects
are “Easy Fun” and generate emotions and
experiences of wonder, awe, and mystery.
3. Altered States: Players treasure the enjoyment
from their internal experiences in reaction to the
visceral, behavioural, cognitive, and social properties.
These players play for internal sensations such as
excitement or relief from their thoughts and feelings.
4. The People Factor: Players use games as
mechanisms for social experiences. These players
enjoy the emotions of amusement coming from the
social experiences of competition, teamwork, as well
as opportunity for social bonding and personal
recognition that comes from playing with others
(Lazarro, 2004).
SELF-REGULATION AND LEARNING
The basic problem with self-regulated learning can be
seen in the fact that the dominant perspective of
learners in the traditional classroom is listening. Over
the years this perspective has been firmly established
with the consequence that the student expects the
teacher to be responsible for the stimulation and
regulation of his learning process. Connected to this
expectation is a critical attitude towards the teacher’s
behaviour and this attitude is transferred to other
innovative learning methods especially to multi-
media-programs and e-learning. According to our
observations many students are looking for
weaknesses and suboptimalities of multi-media-
programs or e-learning-programs in order to find a
reason to reject the new techniques. The generalised
consequence of this counter-productive attitude is the
belief that all controllable factors, like particular
strategies, are unimportant and that effort and ability
are the only factors for success.
73
The dominance of only one perspective in learning is
the main weakness of the traditional classroom
learning setting (Moore and Anderson, 1969). Moore
and Anderson explain this in the context of their
theory of Clarifying Learning Environments. They
developed their theory on the basis of an analysis of
the functions of games, where they show that every
culture has invented games in order to guarantee that
every child internalises the basic social and cognitive
competencies. Their main theoretical argument is that
human behaviour is regulated by four fundamental
action perspectives:
• The perspective of the recipient or
consumer,
• the perspective of the problem-solver,
• the perspective of the strategist and
• the perspective of an evaluator or referee.
Games are attractive for people because they offer the
possibility to freely change between these
perspectives. As a recipient or consumer perspective,
the learner absorbs the information without any
control over the ongoing events. A lecture or
television program induces this perspective in a
prototypical manner. As a problem-solver the learner
is actively engaged in generating hypotheses, in
planning, or in trial-and-error-behaviour. Moore and
Anderson call this perspective ‘games against nature’.
Solving brain-teasers or puzzles are prototypical
activities. The perspective of the strategists is
characterised by games against intelligent opponents,
where you have to take their strategy into account.
Chess for example induces this perspective. As an
evaluator or referee you have the opportunity to judge
the quality of the actions and to share your opinions
with others as you sometimes do after hearing a
lecture or watching television.
The dominance of only one or two perspectives in
traditional education is one of the reasons that self-
regulated learning rarely takes place. A closer look at
self-regulated learning shows that a consuming
attitude is incompatible with the cognitive and
motivational processes underlying self-regulated
learning. These processes can be seen in monitoring
and controlling emotions when obstacles are
encountered, generating thoughts of confidence and
diligence when motivation decreases, flexibility and
information seeking, allocation of time, seeing failure
only as a temporary setback or seeking help by
cooperation (Zimmermann, 1990). An efficient and
valuable form of self-regulated learning can be seen
74
in the creation of a complete learning strategy that
regulates the sub-processes of coding, rehearsal,
restructuring, elaboration, automation and that
supports the sub-processes of cognitive motivation,
adaptation to the learning situation, reflection to the
learning progress, and sustaining attention.
A clarifying educational environment in the sense of
Moore and Anderson, which is mainly based on the
concept of games, directly stimulates neither these
learning processes nor the creation of a coordinated
learning strategy. It is the stimulation of these
processes on which our competitive educational
online games – COME-ON-games – focus.
Because games are closely related to play it is
interesting to notice that Rieber (1996) developed a
theory of how play is related to self-regulation and to
microworlds in the sense of Papert (Papert, 1980). He
argues that microworlds have to be enriched with
elements of games in order to support intensive self-
regulation.
Rieber’s design is a hybrid interactive learning
environment, based on the constructivist concept of a
microworld and supported with elements of both
games and simulations. Rieber’s microworld concept
is based on components of Piaget’s theory of
intellectual development and the Flow Theory of
Optimal Experience developed by Csikszentmihalyi
(1990). Both illustrate the close relationship between
self-regulated learning and play. The best known
microworld is the LOGO programming environment,
developed by Papert and explained in his frequently
cited book ‘Mindstorms’.
THE ALE AND THE COME-ON GAMES
The competitive-educational-online games – COME-
ON games – are based partly on the concept of games
and partly on the results and the theory of the
Adaptive Learning Environment (ALE) (Rüppell,
1982). The ALE was our first approach to promote
self-regulated learning (SRL) by the development of a
complete learning strategy. The ALE was developed
with the aim of individualising the learning process
and to offer every pupil optimal learning conditions.
Our hypothesis was that these external learning
conditions would be internalised after an extended
period of time and that as a consequence, a self-
regulated learner would develop. A learning
condition is defined as a characteristic of the learning
situation, whose efficacy can be supported by
empirical data and theoretical arguments. The
learning conditions are grouped and harmonised in
order to regulate one of the above mentioned sub-
processes. These harmonised groups of learning
conditions form the sub-systems of the ALE:
The display system for the regulation of the coding
process; the regulation of the manipulanda system
for the restructuring process; the regulation of the
supervision system for the elaboration-process; the
regulation of the practice system for the automation
process.
Selected learning-conditions of the manipulanda
system are:
- peer controversy, i.e., the learners are
confronted with arguments or evidence that
are to some extent inconsistent with their
own beliefs;
- peer modelling: i.e., the thinking out loud of
one player of a small group during a difficult
thinking process;
- programmed peer tutoring, i.e., one member
of the small group who has been given more
information in advance to help the others;
- teach back: i.e., a pupil to whom something
has been explained, explains the same thing
to someone else.
Selected learning conditions of the supervision
system are:
- process feedback: i.e., a detailed description
of one’s own thinking difficulties;
- tutoring: i.e., giving feedback and
instructions on how to structure and how to
improve the learning process, social
reinforcement;
- meta-cognitive feedback: i.e., encouraging
the pupil to be retrospective about the
solution to a problem and to discuss all his
reasoning on the basis of the normative
thinking model,
- post organiser: i.e. constructing a flow
diagram of the course of one’s own solution
process; the display of a general conceptual
system so that the concepts that have
previously been studied thoroughly can be
logically integrated – as analogy to the
‘advanced organiser”.
In order to implement the sub-systems of the ALE in
the classroom, we invented the slides projector table
(see Figure 1). The learning content is projected to
the transparent surface of the table and in addition to
the content, specific activities are prescribed for every
learner. These prescriptions define game-like learning
settings. These game-like learning settings realise one
or more of the above mentioned learning conditions.
Figure 1: The slides projector table, the centre of the
ALE.
In the context of the Adaptive Learning Environment,
nearly 50 game-like learning settings were developed
and tested. These settings were very effective in
regulating the group behaviour.
The development of our competitive educational
online-games is based on the research with the slides
table and is extended to the new possibilities that
distributed learning through the internet offers. The
learners or players are now distributed all over the
world. The main difference between the ALE and the
COME-ON games is the balance of competition and
cooperation.
The social activities in the ALE were dominated by
cooperation and collaboration because the
environment was developed in order to increase the
chances for the slower learners. The COME-ON
games are more competitive because they are
primarily developed in order to foster the
achievements of the more competent or high-potential
students. Our work and some observations indicate
that this strategy will also increase the achievements
of the slower learners assuming that adequate
supporting learning conditions are realised.
75
Unfortunately, the slides and the slide projector table
were too expensive to be implemented on a large
scale in schools.
EXAMPLES OF COME-ON-GAMES
The COME-ON games are game-like learning
settings developed in analogy to the settings of the
Adaptive Learning Environment (ALE) with the
above stated difference that competition is much
stronger than cooperation. Three game-like learning
settings are described in order to demonstrate the
power of competition.
Setting: From Recognition to Free Recall
This setting has three consecutive parts:
1. speed matching
2. stimulated recall matching
3. free recall matching.
1. Hot competition by Speed Matching
- A word list e.g. a vocabulary of 12 words is
presented to each player for only one minute and
each player tries to memorise as much as
possible.
- The word-lists are now scrambled on the
screen.
- Simultaneously all players can now click pairs
of words.
- If one player clicks on a correct pair, this pair
immediately disappears from the screen of all
players wherever they are in the world.
According to this feature a player always has to
be aware that a pair on which he wanted to click
might vanish.
- The winner is asked to explain his strategies to
the other players in the chat, and give hints to the
other players.
2. Stimulated Recall Matching
In Stimulated Recall Matching only one part of the
word list is visible. In the other part every letter is
replaced by a dot and the player has to type in the
initial letter of the word.
3. Free Recall Matching
In Free Recall Matching no part of the word list is
visible and the players have to type in the initials of
the two words of a pair of the list he remembered.
The pairs appear one after the other on the screen.
76
From Recognition to Free Recall settings are a case of
hot competition because the chances of one player are
directly influenced by the speed and skill of the other
players.
Setting: Comparative Feedback
The rules are the same as in the setting “From
Recognition to Free Recall”, with the exception that
the vocabulary pairs do not vanish, so that every
player can try his chances with every pair of the list.
After some minutes the program shows how many
right choices were made by each player and how
much time each player took. This setting provides a
ranking of the players. Comparative Feedback is a
case of cold competition.
Setting: Learn and Take your Turn
1. A paragraph (7+-2 sentences) is presented to
each player for only 3 minutes and each
player tries to memorise as much as possible.
2. The paragraph disappears from the screen
and is replaced by a corresponding pattern of
lines. Now one player is requested to type
the initial letters of a sequence of 2 to 4
words from the paragraph.
3. This is done in a clockwise direction until no
player can remember an additional sequence.
4. If a player enters a correct sequence he will
get one point for every initial. A player can
also skip his turn, resulting in 0 points.
“Learn and Take your Turn” is a case of moderate
competition. Every player gets his chance or can skip
it at the expense of being evaluated by the other
players. This game results in a discussion of the
strategies used in a chat afterwards.
The COME-ON games are very cheap and can be
implemented in any location in the world. We are
probably able to invent and implement 50 game-like
learning settings for this new learning technology.
THE DANGER OF COMPETITION
"Compete and Win" is an American slogan.
Americans historically have enjoyed taking part in all
kinds of competition (Bainbridge, 1999). Occupations
and recreational activities routinely are based on
trying to exceed a standard or beat competitors. In
Europe this attitude is less pronounced although the
Olympic model is well accepted.
The Olympics is the model for genuine competition
because athletes like the competition and - what is
more important - like the activities. In some cases,
participating is less about winning than about
discovering what human beings are capable of doing.
All participants can feel good about being a part of
the community because it brings out the best in all of
us and it helps set new standards for what individuals
or teams are capable of. This is the right spirit of
Olympic competition resulting in a win-win
philosophy.
When people compete in games, it requires that they
act on certain social assumptions about their
relationships and on the rules of the game - just like
cooperation. In this sense the players have to
cooperate in order to compete. However, every
pedagogical conception of a competitive game has to
consider some negative aspects of competition,
especially the negative interpersonal emotions.
In distributed competition, interpersonal emotions are
less involved as in face-to-face competition because
players only know each other virtually and they are
not taking their actions at the expense of others,
which sometimes happens in face-to-face games.
Another danger of competition is the fact that the
aptitude-treatment-interaction-research (ATI) shows
that the best instruction involves treatments that differ
in structure and completeness and high or low general
ability measures. Highly structured treatments (e.g.,
high external control, explicit sequences and
components) seem to help students with low ability
but hinder those with high abilities (relative to low
structure treatments) (Cronbach, 1977).
It is argued that real-time competition tasks have
features that promote metacognition and the
development of new learning strategies. In real time
competitive tasks you can see what the other players
are "thinking" by trying to solve their problem. The
rules of some games encourage the players to change
their strategies. Players must learn to change their
goals quickly depending on which strategy the other
player has chosen. As can be imagined, complex
strategies arise. So a player is always able to
supplement his own strategy by adding an element.
This is comparable to the co-evolution of complex
strategies that takes place in the area of artificial
intelligence. In this area fitness is based on direct
competition and immediate feedback. Competitive
co-evolution can lead to an “arms race”, in which the
two populations reciprocally drive one another to
increasing levels of performance and complexity. The
hope is that increasingly sophisticated strategies will
utilise increasingly complex structures, preventing the
arms race from stagnating. The competitive task is
challenging when the players always start out with
exactly the same configuration and resources.
In conclusion, it is stressed that the main advantage of
learning games is their motivating character. Exciting
games energise behaviour and direct learning
behaviour. The arousal leads to high competition, to
persistence and high concentration, and may only
sometimes lead to aggressive competition. In order to
manage aggressive competition some of our COME-
ON games are played with an administrator. The
administrator regulates the emotions, promotes the
communication, asks the players to explain their
strategies or exchange ideas. Technically this is
realised by a chat tool which is connected to every
game.
No matter whether this is intended or not, the results
of competitions will put the player into a rank order,
i.e. player A is considered to be the most competent
and therefore players B, C and D look less competent,
but in a game-like competition this frustration has
another quality. It is “pleasantly frustrating” and this
may be the reason why frustration in a game more
often leads to motivation than to demotivation.
REFERENCES
Bainbridge, J. R. (1999). Motivation Through Competition?
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/
SepOct99/MS418.htm
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of
Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and
Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on
Interactions. New York: Irvington Publishers.
Gee, P., Squire, K. & Steinkuehler, C. (2005): How Games
are Reshaping Business. http://wistechnology.com/
media/accel_games/viewer.html
Lazzaro, N. (2004): Why we play games: four keys to more
emotion without story. Abstract March 8, 2004. Player
Experience Research and Design for Mass Market
Interactive Entertainment. XEODesign, Oakland, USA.
http://www.xeodesign.com/
whyweplaygames.html
77
Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic
motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-
based education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.),
Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, III: Conative and
Affective Process Analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 255-286.
Moore, O. K. & Anderson, A.R. (1969). Some principles
for the design of clarifying educational environments.
In Greenblat, Cathy and Richard S. Duke (Eds.). 1975.
Gaming Simulation; Rational, Design, and
Applications: New York: John Wiley & Sons, 47-71.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and
Powerful Ideas. New York: BasicBooks.
Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: designing
interactive learning environments based on the blending
of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 44 (2), 43-58.
Rüppell, H. (1982). Das Adaptive Lehr-Lern-System. Ein
pädagogisch-psychologisches Interventionsmodell mit
multipler Zielsetzung. Habilitationsschrift.
Philosophische Fakultät. Universität Bonn.
Yee, N. (2005, in press). The Psychology of MMORPGs:
emotional investment, motivations, relationship
formation, and problematic usage. In R. Schroeder & A.
Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at Work and Play:
Collaboration and Interaction in Shared Virtual
Environments. London: Springer-Verlag.
Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: An overview. Educational
Psychologist, 25 (1), 3-17.
78
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
HERMANN RÜPPELL studied Psychology at the
University of Hamburg and received his PhD in 1973.
In 1973 he became Assistant Research Scientist. His
first project was “The teaching of intelligence by
games”. In 1975 he became Assistant Professor at the
University of Bonn. There he developed the Adaptive
Learning Environment – an application of Cognitive
Psychology to classroom learning. 1985 he became
director of the Department of Education at the
University of Cologne and full professor. Since then
he developed Multi-Media-Training-Programs. The
most important of these MM-programs are: DANTE -
a test for the diagnosis of giftedness, ANA-META -
training analogical thinking, ALICE – a multi-media
lecture for Educational Psychology, TESTING THE
LIMITS – a training for intelligence and problem-
solving, ROLLING CUBES – a training for special-
visualisation abilities, GLIEVIS – automation of
cognitive processes for reading and writing. At the
moment he is working on the implementation of the
Adaptive Learning Environment in the context of
distributed multi-player online-games.
 PLANNING AND CONTROL IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Jos Beishuizen
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Centre for Educational Training, Assessment and Research
De Boelelaan 1105
1081 HV Amsterdam
e-mail: j.beishuizen@ond.vu.nl
© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005
KEYWORDS
Educational games, self-regulation tools, simulation,
transfer.
ABSTRACT
Technology enhanced learning environments
(TELEs) have been developed to create favourable
conditions for cognitive apprenticeship. However,
the outcomes of arranging these powerful learning
environments have often been disappointing. Two
possible causes are discussed: the lack of
opportunities for both low road and high learning,
and the lack of tools to exert control over the
learning process thereby increasing the motivation
to develop transferable knowledge. Several
examples are discussed of successful experimental
TELEs in which proper measures have been taken.
An integrative approach to enrich TELEs may turn
the school into a true workshop for cognitive
apprenticeship.
INTRODUCTION
Technology enhanced learning environments
(TELEs) have created high expectations as far as the
quality of learning processes and outcomes are
concerned (De Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998; Lee,
1999). Because of the availability of abundant
information in various modalities, the dynamic
character of game designs and simulation
environments, TELEs are often a closely resembling
model of the real world, allowing students to work
on quasi authentic tasks. Students are enabled to
work according to their own interest and level of
expertise, often in close collaboration with other
known or even unknown students. Complex
decision making processes are supported by all
kinds of tools, hypothesis scratchpads, models,
information resources and history facilities.
Complex modelling and probabilistic reasoning may
be executed by agents in the learning environment,
thereby enabling the student to focus on the essential
process of problem solving. By externalising the
processes of thinking and problem solving, the
student can experiment without changing the status
of the environment, or share and negotiate ideas
with other students. TELEs make the ideal of the
school as a workshop for cognitive apprenticeship
attainable. As Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989)
have explained, creating a learning environment for
cognitive apprenticeship requires the application of
a number of instructional principles. For instance,
the student should be supported by scaffolding
measures, which are gradually withdrawn. Problem
solving strategies should be developed in a specific
order: from simple to complex, from homogeneous
to diverse, from global to local.
Meta analyses have shown only moderate positive
effects of TELEs on learning (De Jong & Van
Joolingen, 1998; Lee, 1999). These effects have
been confirmed throughout the recent history of the
use of computers in education. In this contribution I
want to explore some potential reasons for these
79
disappointing results by distinguishing playing or
running a simulation or inquiring in the TELE from
learning. Elaborating on this point, I will explore the
difference between motivation to play and
motivation to learn. Finally, I will suggest an
approach to improve the learning potential of
technology enhanced learning environments by
including planning and control tools.
MINDFUL ABSTRACTION
The fact that students generally enjoy working in a
TELE does not necessarily imply that they acquire
knowledge that is useful in other situations, that can
be transferred outside the TELE itself. Salomon and
Perkins (1989) emphasised that, in order to establish
transfer, two roads are open; the low road and the
high road. The distinction between low road and
high road learning has been visualised in the
learning triangle (Figure 1). By sheer practice and
receiving feedback on his or her performance, the
learner acquires low level skills. This kind of low
road learning is amply analysed and documented by
Anderson (1982, 1993). However, high road
learning requires "the deliberate, usually
metacognitively guided and effortful,
decontextualisation of a principle, main idea,
Figure 1. The Learning Triangle.
The inclusion of a preliminary prediction and
discussion phase raised the quality of process skills
and logical thinking skills, the level of mastery of
the science concepts involved and increased positive
attitudes towards science. As Lavoie (1999)
explained, developing hypotheses and stating
predictions are essential inquiry and problem
80
strategy, or procedure, which then becomes a
candidate for transfer; or, alternatively, the rarer
case of learning of such a principle, idea, and so on,
in abstract form in the first place" (Salomon en
Perkins, 1989, p. 126). Salomon and Perkins (1989)
gave the example of a manager who, as a student,
had acquired planning skills in the context of
preparing for an examination, and realises that he
can use the same skills in his current job.
Induction and deduction are basic steps in the
process of acquiring transferable knowledge and
conceptual change. Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett, &
Thagard (1989) defined induction as "all inferential
processes that expand knowledge in the face of
uncertainty" (p. 8). Expanding knowledge will result
in transfer to new situations. Lavoie (1999) added a
prediction and discussion phase to a series of
biology lessons prepared for 10th grade students, in
which the students had to explore the concept of
homeostasis by measuring body temperature and
context of a cold and hot environment, elaborated on
the concept itself and applied it in group discussions
to new problems.
solving skills. These skills further inductive
processes and facilitate the application of concepts
or abstract schemas to new problem situations. As
Karmiloff-Smith and Inhelder (1974) put forward a
long time ago, the "quest for control" of both the
external environment and the internal domain of
thinking is fundamental to children’s cognitive
development. Human beings cannot stop trying to
get a cognitive grasp on the world they live in by the
processes of induction and deduction. However, the
world may be so complex or may be changing so
rapidly that necessary time or resources are simply
lacking, preventing any learning from occurring
apart from simple low road habit formation. TELEs,
in particular educational games and simulations, are
examples of complex and dynamic environments. In
order to allow for learning in these environments,
measures should be taken to enable students to
acquire transferable knowledge.
MOTIVATION AND LEARNING
Low road learning requires extensive practice and
appropriate feedback enabling the student to adapt
his or her performance to the pre-set standards and
work towards the pre-set goals. In educational
games and simulation environments these
preconditions are usually well met. Students are
often motivated to prolonged periods of playing,
simply by the intrinsically motivating characteristics
of the environment.
Malone (1980) explained that the essential
characteristics of good computer games can be
captured in three categories: challenge, fantasy, and
curiosity. He later expanded these in collaboration
with Lepper (Malone & Lepper, 1987) to five
categories. These categories have been proposed for
TELEs with a game scenario, but they are relevant
for TELEs in general.
• Challenge: The activity should be of
appropriate difficulty level for the player.
This is achieved through clear short- term
and long-term goals, uncertain outcomes,
and facilitating investment of self-esteem
through meaningful goals. Furthermore
clear, constructive, encouraging feedback is
essential.
• Curiosity: The information in the game
should be complex and unknown so as to
encourage exploration and organisation of
the information, both in relation to the
sensory area and the cognitive area.
• Control: The player should gain the overall
feeling of being the controlling party. This
is done through a responsive environment,
high degree of choice in the environment,
and by equipping the player with the ability
to perform great effects.
• Fantasy: The activity can increase intrinsic
motivation by using fantasies as a part of
the game universe. These should appeal to
the target group emotionally, serve as
metaphors for the learning content, and be
an endogenous part of the learning
material.
• Interpersonal motivations: This refers to the
increased motivation resulting from the
social context of the computer game, most
directly competition and collaboration with
peers. Also the recognition of your peers
will serve to motivate.
Motivation has been defined as the tendency to start
and continue with an activity when (1) the intended
outcome is perceived as valuable, and (2) the
expectancy of attaining that particular outcome is
considered favourable (Rotter, 1954). Four of
Malone’s categories refer to intrinsic motivation, the
value component of motivation. The category
control represents the expectancy part of motivation.
High road learning in a TELE requires another layer
of motivating characteristics. These characteristics
should challenge the student to create knowledge,
both declarative and procedural knowledge, at an
abstract level. Moreover, students should be able to
control and monitor their high road learning process.
The TELE should contain tools for self-regulation.
Gick and Holyoak (1980) studied the way people
use their knowledge about a particular problem to
solve a new, analogous problem. They presented
their participants with a story of a general's military
assault on a fortress on top of a hill. Because the
roads to the top are narrow and full of mines, the
general has to divide his troops into small groups
which simultaneously approach the fortress through
many roads. Subsequently, Gick and Holyoak
(1980) asked their participants to solve Duncker's
(1945) tumour problem in which a stomach tumour
has to be destroyed by sending small bundles of
weak X-rays from various sources which do not
harm intermediate tissue but, together, are strong
enough to kill the tumour. Participants used the
dispersion solution of the general problem to solve
the tumour problem when they noticed the structural
similarity between both problems. In a subsequent
experiment, Gick and Holyoak (1983) provided two
examples prior to the tumour problem. Two variants
of the general problem were used, and two new
analogous problems were developed, in which a fire
had to be extinguished by throwing small amounts
81
of water from many sources around the fire.
Participants who received two structurally similar
example problems from different domains (like the
general and the fire problem) were more successful
in solving the tumour problem than participants who
received two example problems from the same
domain. So, the process of knowledge construction
is more successful when two or more examples from
different domains are available as a source of
experience. If these problems were embedded in a
TELE, then the student may be encouraged to
transfer solution principles from one problem
situation to another, analogous, problem, either by
explicit hints or implicitly. Such a TELE would
increase the motivation to create abstract schema
and, in this way, foster learning.
Tools for controlling and monitoring the ongoing
learning process may be provided by encouraging
learners to keep an electronic portfolio of their
achievements in the TELE. Students may store
solutions to particular problems in a concise format
enabling them to inspect or replay previous
episodes. By comparing these episodes, in particular
the student's own actions and strategies, conclusions
may be drawn on improvements in solution
strategies or continuing obstacles. These reflections
may lead to renewed attempts to overcome certain
problems. The opportunity to log one's performance
and reflect on it is, in this way, an aid to controlling
and monitoring the high road learning process.
FOSTERING HIGH ROAD LEARNING IN
TELES
Ko (2002) emphasised that educational computer
games require the user to make decisions (e.g., gain
maximising or probability matching) and that
decision making and problem solving require
inferences, that is, induction and deduction. Ko
(2002) asked a group of 7- year-old children and a
group of 10-year-old children to play an inferential
problem-solving game eight times at a row. Ko
(2002) established developmental changes in
inferential problem solving. 10- year-old children
made better and fewer moves towards the goal than
7- year-olds. Furthermore, there were significant
differences between good and weak performing
children that remained stable over the course of
eight games. Overall, the children improved
significantly over consecutive games. Ko (2002)
concluded that general knowledge about how
82
children think and learn enables us to value the
promises of educational games.
Beishuizen (1992) offered 10th grade students a
simulation environment to explore the concept of
erosion. Students worked in the game-like
environment but needed a debriefing session; a
classroom discussion highlighting the relationships
between the game and the reality of erosion in third
world countries, in order to be able to explain the
concept during a post-test. The classroom discussion
was necessary to abstract the acquired knowledge
from the concrete game environment. When this
abstraction process is not initiated, high road
learning will not occur. The absence of opportunities
to create abstract knowledge is an important cause
of lack of learning benefits from TELEs.
De Jong and Van Joolingen (1998) reported several
studies in which an attempt had been made to
support high road learning in a TELE. Van
Joolingen and De Jong (1991) provided students
with a "hypothesis scratchpad" to support the
process of hypothesis generation. Njoo and De Jong
(1993) offered students a list of hypotheses to
choose from. This improved both learning processes
and learning outcomes. Other successful add-ons to
TELEs consisted of experimentation hints or
graphing tools to specify predicted relationships
between independent and dependent variables (De
Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998).
In an experimental training study, Beishuizen,
Wilhelm and Schimmel (2004) compared two
groups of 9 and 10-year-old children. The training
group received off-line inquiry learning training
with a focus on fostering strategies for proper
inferencing and designing experiments. The practice
group conducted four inquiry learning tasks during
two practice sessions. Learning outcomes and
inquiry learning process measures were collected to
find out whether training and practice resulted in
desired changes in learning behaviour. Both training
and practice resulted in better performance during
the test problems. Compared to the practice group,
the training group showed some advantage in
discovering an interaction effect. Practice and
training effects appeared to be dependent on type of
domain.

FOSTERING SELF-REGULATION IN TELES
According to Nelson and Narens (1990), learning
always takes place at two levels: the object level and
the metalevel. The metalevel contains a model of the
object level. On the basis of this model, which is
continuously updated, the learner exerts executive
control over the learning process. Moreover, the
learner monitors the learning process. Monitoring
leads to (1) adaptation of the model on the object
level, and, consequently, to (2) adaptation of the
learning process. Combinations of object level and
metalevel can be nested into the object level of a
higher control and monitoring loop, leading to
recursive cycle of self-regulation activities. TELEs
that foster self-regulated learning should provide
tools for controlling, monitoring and representing
the learning process (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Nelson and Narens’ (1990) view on
metacognition.
In the TELEPEERS project, Steffens et al. (2005)
distinguished three steps in self regulation: "(1)
planning the learning activity, (2) executing and
monitoring the learning activities and (3) evaluating
the outcome of the learning activity." (Steffens et
al., 2005, p. 5). These steps require planning and
control tools in the learning environment and
opportunities for reflection afterwards, either within
the TELE itself or within the context of the
classroom.
De Jong and Van Joolingen (1998) reported several
measures that have proven successful to support
self-regulation in a TELE. As far as planning is
concerned, signalling questions have been added to
simulation environments to help users to plan their
explorative activities. Assignments have been
developed for the same purpose. Prins (2002) added
assignments to a simulation environment with an
optical workbench to help student discover Snellius'
Law. Without these assignments students were
unable to discover any cause-effect relationships.
Monitoring can be supported by providing students
with tools to keep a record of their discovery
process. Such notebook facilities have been added to
various TELEs like Reimann's (1991) Refract,
Shute and Glaser's (1990) Smithtown, and Lesgold
et al.'s (1992) SHERLOCK.
Van Tartwijk et al. (2003) showed that electronic
portfolios can be used to document individual
students' processes of learning. Portfolios may
contain materials representing (1) previous work
experience, (2) previous courses taken within or
outside the current programme, or (3) the
competencies or skills to be acquired and the extent
to which they have been mastered by the learner
(Van Tartwijk et al., 2003, p. 23). These processes
are important when various roads lead to achieving
the goals set in a particular learning environment.
Because of this variety of roads, decisions have to
be made about the road to choose. Recording these
decisions and the products of learning, collected
during the process of learning may help the learner
to reflect on the learning process and on the progress
made. As Van Tartwijk et al. (2003) argued,
electronic portfolios may serve to show the
development of the learner or may be used to
evaluate and assess the learner's progress.
Creating alternative
methods of action
4
Awareness of 5 Trial
essential aspects 3
Action
1
2
Looking back on
the action
Figure 3. Korthagen's ALACT model reprinted from
http://www.uu.nl/content/LevelsinreflectionDEF.doc
83
Korthagen, Koster, Melief & Tighelaar (2002)
introduced a spiral model describing the process of
reflection; the ALACT model (see Figure 3). The
acronym ALACT stands for Action, Looking back
on the action, Awareness of essential aspects,
Creating alternative methods of action, and Trial.
In the context of working in TELEs, a learner may
have run a number of simulations and is now
looking at the results of the simulations in order to
figure out what kind of model behind the simulation
is responsible for the outcomes. The learner may
discover that his or her manipulations of
independent variables are related to changes in the
value of outcome variables, but that s/he cannot
conclude any kind of causal model because of the
fact that s/he did not systematically alter one
variable at a time. S/he therefore may decide to try
out a more systematic experimenting strategy in
order to arrive at justifiable conclusions about the
underlying model. This process of reflection may be
supported by an electronic portfolio in which
various actions and accompanying outcomes have
been stored.
CONCLUSIONS
Two conclusions can be drawn. The first one is that
technology enhanced learning environments often
lack tools for high road learning. The second
conclusion is that motivation to enhance self-
regulation skills, as part of the high road learning
outcomes that belong to the aims of using
technology enhanced learning environments, is often
not properly taken into consideration. Both factors
may account for the lack of learning benefits of
TELEs.
However, this is not the end of the story. As we have
seen, planning and control tools and opportunities
for reflection, enabling students to develop self-
regulation skills, can be devised and added to
technology enhanced learning environments. A first
step is the actual identification of the availability or
lack of necessary tools and opportunities. The
instruments developed in the TELEPEERS project,
are useful in pinpointing the availability of
necessary preconditions for acquiring self-regulation
skills. The next step is to develop the tools and
enrich technology enhanced learning environments
to such an extent that they become real opportunities
for low road and high road learning. An example of
84
a successful integrative approach is Zhang, Chen,
Sun, & Reid's (2004) experimental learning support
system to simulation environments in which 13-
year-old students had to explore the upthrusts
(buoyant forces) upon objects either submerged or
floating in water. The learning support system
encompassed three components: (a) interpretative
support fostering knowledge development and
conceptual understanding, (b) experimental support
enabling students to develop and carry out valid
experimental methods, and (c) reflective support
increasing the students' self-awareness and helping
them in the processes of induction and deduction.
Such an integrative approach, aimed at fostering low
and high road learning by providing tools for
planning and control, offers promising opportunities
for turning the school into a successful workshop for
cognitive apprenticeship.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill.
Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Anderson, J.R. (Ed.) (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Beishuizen, J.J. (1992). Studying a complex knowledge
domain by exploration or explanation. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 8, 104-117.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S., and Newman, S.E. (1989).
Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of
reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick
(Ed.). Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in
Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum,
453 - 494.
De Jong, T., and Van Joolingen. W.R. (1998). Scientific
discovery learning with computer simulations of
conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research,
68, 2, 179 - 201.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem- solving (translated by
L.S. Lees). Psychological Monographs, 58, 270.
Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem
solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
Gick, M.L., and Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction
and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-
38.
Holland, J.H., Holyoak, K.J., Nisbett, R.E., and Thagard,
P.R. (1989). Induction. Processes of Inference,
Learning, and Discovery. Cambridge, MA: Bradford
Books/MIT Press.
Karmiloff-Smith, A., and Inhelder, B. (1974). If you want
to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition, 3, 195 - 212.
Ko, S. (2002). An empirical analysis of children's thinking
and learning in a computer game context. Educational
Psychology, 22, 2, 219-243.
Korthagen, F., Koster, B., Melief, K. and Tighelaar, A.
(2002). Docenten leren reflecteren. Systematische
reflectie in de opleiding en begeleiding van leraren
 [Teachers learn to reflect. Systematic reflection in Van Tartwijk, J., Driessen, E., Hoeberigs, B., Kösters, J.,
teaching and coaching teachers]. Soest: uitgeverij Ritzen, M., Stokking, K. and Van der Vleuten, C.
Nelissen. (2003). Werken met een eletronisch portfolio
Lavoie, D.R. (1999). Effects of emphasizing hypothetico- [Working with an electronic portfolio].
predictive reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Utrecht/Groningen: SURF/Wolters Noordhoff.
Teaching, 36, 10, 1127-1147. Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y. and Reid, D.J. (2004). Triple
Lee, J. (1999). Effectiveness of computer-based scheme of learning support design for scientific
instructional simulation: a meta analysis. International discovery learning based on computer simulation:
Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 71-85. experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted
Lesgold, A., Lajoie, S., Bunzo, M., and Eggan, G. (1992). Learning, 20, 4, 269-282.
SHERLOCK: A coached practice environment for an
electronics troubleshooting job. In J.H. Larkin & R.W. AUTHOR BIOGRAHPY
Chabay (Eds.), Computer-Assisted Instruction and
Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared Goals and JOS BEISHUIZEN studied psychology study at the
Complementary Approaches. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (major: cognitive
201-239.
Malone, T. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A
psychology). His PhD thesis reported a study on
study of intrinsically motivating computer games. searching for information in electronic databases, in
Unpublished dissertation. Stanford: Stanford which different search strategies (depth-first and
University. breadth-first search) were identified and
Malone, T.W. and Lepper, M.R. (1987). Making learning subsequently trained by a computer coach. He is
fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivation for learning. currently professor of educational science and
In R.E. Snow & M.J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, leading the Centre for Educational Training,
and Instruction, Vol. 3, Conative and Affective Assessment and Research at the Vrije Universiteit
Process Analyses. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 223 – 253. Amsterdam. This institute provides teacher training
Nelson, T. O., and Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A
theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H.
courses for university graduates, and services for
Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and quality assurance, improvement of university
Motivation. New York: Academic Press, 125-173. education and development of electronic learning
Njoo, M., and de Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning environments.
with a computer simulation for control theory:
learning processes and instructional support. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 821-844.
Prins, F. (2002). Search & See. The role of metacognitive
skillfulness and intellectual ability during novice
inductive learning in a complex computer-simulated
environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Leiden: Leiden University.
Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social Learning and Clinical
Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reimann, P. (1991). Detecting functional relations in a
computerized discovery environment. Learning &
Instruction, 1, 45-65.
Salomon, G., and Perkins, D.N. (1989). Rocky roads to
transfer: rethinking mechanisms of a neglected
phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113 -
142.
Shute, V.J., and Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale
evaluation of an intelligent discovery world:
Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51-
77.
Steffens, K., et al. (2005). Self-regulated Learning in
Technology Enhanced Learning Environments.
Manuscript in preparation.
Van Joolingen, W.R., and De Jong, T. (1991). Supporting
hypothesis generation by learners exploring an
interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science,
20, 389-404.

85
86
 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

PART C: THE VIEW FROM COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

87
88
 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS:
THE VIEW FROM COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
Donatella Persico
Institute for Educational Technology
Italian National Research Council
Via de Marini 6
16149, Genova
Italy
E-mail: persico@itd.cnr.it
©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005
KEYWORDS
Cognitive apprenticeship, communities of practice,
computer supported collaborative learning, self-
regulated learning, situated learning, social
constructivism, virtual learning communities,
INTRODUCTION
There are several ingredients that bring together the
papers featured in the third section of this volume.
The first is, of course, the very concept of Self
Regulated Learning (SRL), as it has been developed
both in the related literature and, more specifically,
within the TELEPEERS project. The second is the
idea of Community of Practice (CoP), first
investigated by Lave and Wenger (1991) and
reinforced by studies on knowledge management and
virtual learning communities. But besides these two
core concepts, whose relationship is quite problematic
for the reasons that are outlined in the following,
there are other ingredients that make up the recipe of
this enlightening series of papers: social constructivist
learning, cognitive apprenticeship and situated
cognition, as well as practice-based research as a
master route for teachers’ professional development.
The relationship between the SRL and the CoP
concepts turns out to be quite problematic, especially
if SRL refers to individual learning, as it usually does
in the field literature. There is, in fact, an intrinsic
contradiction between the idea of individuals
controlling how, when, what and where to learn, and
the need to negotiate the same aspects, or parts of
them, with the other members of a learning
community. However, if we consider that there is no
CoP without social, motivational, emotional and
cognitive control of its inner processes, then its strict
relationship with the component model of SRL
clearly follows.
While early studies about CoPs concern professionals
working for organisations or companies, many of the
following papers share the view that teacher
professional development is one of the fields where
CoPs appear to be very promising. As a matter of
fact, most of the teachers’ knowledge is tacit and
quite difficult to make explicit, and is often
distributed among several people. It is therefore
suitable to be dealt with within a CoP. Furthermore, it
is best developed through experiential learning or, to
use Preston’s words, through “practice-based
research”, where competence is built through
dialogue and critical reflection of both theory and
practice.
It is at this point that the learning theory of social
constructivism and the ideas of cognitive
apprenticeship (Collins et al., 1989) and situated
learning (Brown et al., 1989) come into play. They
provide the theoretical background for CoPs and,
more generally, for learning communities. These
kinds of environments require a certain amount of
self-regulation, but they also foster the development
of related skills. Learning communities, by definition,
tend to encourage the development of the social
89
component of SRL. The emotional and motivational
components, even when not explicitly addressed by
the software environment, are often catered for by the
members of the community. The well known
techniques of scaffolding and fading, as well as
confrontation with authentic problems, also favour
the assumption of responsibility and autonomy both
in cognitive and meta-cognitive activities.
Besides these common points, the views that emerge
from the papers in this section are quite diverse and
rich.
A SYNOPSIS
Bettoni provides the theoretical framework by re-
elaborating the literature on CoPs in light of recent
developments in knowledge management where the
importance of community learning is stressed as
opposed to individual learning.
Preston proposes a very good example: the
MirandaNET Fellowship, a community of teachers
that seems to possess a number of important features
identified as key factors for the success of an
educational CoP. Indeed, these features have allowed
MirandaNET to stay alive and active for more than a
decade!
Frank and Dommaschk focus on the relationship
between SRL and the constructivist paradigm by
illustrating first the theoretical aspects, including
CoPs as self-regulating entities, and by then
discussing an example from their experience in the
“Leipziger Online Seminar”. A complementary view
of the same example is provided by Brüggen, whose
contribution presents the results obtained by
analysing the ILIAS TELE with one of the tools
proposed by the TELEPEERS consortium. The
conclusions reached by Brüggen are in agreement
with Dettori and colleagues where they claim that
much of the TELEs potential to support collaborative
learning at a distance comes from the educational
model adopted and the learning community itself. In
addition, their findings tell us that there are strategies
that lend themselves better than others to encouraging
and developing SRL. A very powerful strategy
consists of putting the learners in the shoes of the
designers and tutors of learning events, as Brüggen
and colleagues have done. More generally, role-play
seems to lend itself to this purpose particularly well.
90
Correia and Lencastre take us away from the world of
mature learners and discuss the challenge of
developing SRL skills in children. They present a
study concerning Dragons Pathways, a TELE that
intends to stimulate and develop creativity and
imagination. The potential for SRL with this software
has been evaluated in the light of a very rich literature
review, including the results of the TELEPEERS
project. In particular, the software appears to promote
SRL due to the features that allow users to establish
their own goals and strive to attain them by “being
strategic”, rather than “having a strategy”.
Still within the domain of young students but moving
to a more institutional context, the classroom, Pape
discusses the Classroom Connectivity Project. This
project focuses on the teaching and learning of
algebra and physical science in secondary schools.
The goal is the development of higher order cognitive
skills including SRL strategic behaviours, so
important in scientific competence. According to the
author, teachers can be helped to reach this goal by
connected classroom technology, a “networked
system of handheld calculators and a computer
combined with aggregation and control software
specifically designed for interactive teaching”. The
value added of this TELE consists in allowing
teachers to provide timely and accurate feedback on
students’ strategic effort, therefore scaffolding SRL
development.
To conclude, it appears that the concepts of CoP and
SRL intertwine a great deal both in theory and in
practice. One of the fields where studies and
experiments on this subject are giving very promising
results is teacher professional development. Powerful
support to SRL in this area can be provided by several
kinds of TELEs: from systems that allow computer
mediated communication, to applications that
encourage children’s strategic reasoning. The tools
and ideas developed by the TELEPEERS consortium
will hopefully inform further research in this field.
REFERENCES
Brown, J. S., Collins A. and Duguid P. (1989). Situated
cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.
Collins, A. Brown, J. S. and Newman S. E. (1989).
Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),
Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor
 of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
453-494.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
TELEPEERS consortium (2005). Self-Regulated Learning
in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Draft,
Version 1.0 (May 31, 2005)
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
DONATELLA PERSICO has been working since
1981 as a researcher at the Institute for Educational
Technology of the Italian National Research Council.
Her main interests include the theory and application
of educational technology, with particular reference
to instructional design, e-learning, teacher training
and self-regulated learning. She is the author of
educational material and scientific publications of
various kinds, including books, educational software,
multimedia material and several research papers
concerning aspects of educational technology. She is
on the editorial board of international and national
journals on educational technology and has been in
charge of several national and international projects.
91
 COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AS A METHOD
FOR KNOWLEDGE-ORIENTED COOPERATION
Marco Bettoni,
Research & Consulting
Swiss Distance Learning University
of Applied Sciences (FFHS)
Postfach, Überlandstr. 12, 3900 Brig
Switzerland

E-mail: mbettoni@fernfachhochschule.ch

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS requirement that people must be placed in the centre

Communities of practice, human-oriented knowledge
management, knowledge-oriented cooperation,
knowledge stewarding, participation.
ABSTRACT
After a short historical review of the development of
the concept of “Communities of Practice” (CoP) we
present examples of organisational Knowledge
Management (KM) in which Etienne Wenger's CoP
model has been applied. In the main part we focus on
the business orientated CoP framework that Wenger,
Snyder and McDermott proposed in 2002 for KM by
extending the original approach of 1998. Finally we
conclude with a critical reflection over the necessity -
within KM frameworks - to explicitly emphasise
participation in stewarding knowledge as a condition
for bridging the gap between knowledge and its
management.
INTRODUCTION
How can the employee pawn her knowledge to her
team or enterprise without doing harm to herself?
This difficulty shows us that a vital gap exists
between individual knowledge and organizational
knowledge management (KM), a gap similar to that
between freedom and politics (Rousseau, 1762).
Communities of Practice (CoP), as a method for
knowledge-oriented cooperation (KOC), can help to
bridge this gap especially because by them the
of KM could be realized.
In the last 15 years the “knowledge environment” of
most teams and enterprises has become increasingly
more dynamic, products and processes more
knowledge-intensive (Probst et al., 1997, p.30) and it
has become clear „that the person, the subject, the
individual employee deserves again a more important
role in the production process” (Dick and Wehner,
2002, p.12).
In this context, dealing with tacit knowledge became
an important challenge and this contributed to the
development of the discipline of knowledge
management. Since then, the claim that the human
being must be placed in the centre of KM has been
raised again and again, in the management literature
although, „up to now almost no means or even tools
have been elaborated, for meeting this requirement”
(Clases and Wehner, 2002, p.46). Why? An important
reason might lie in the reduction of the “human
factor” to its individual dimension. Such a concept of
a „one dimensional person” indeed matches the
insight, that strictly speaking only individuals are able
to produce knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995,
p.59 and p.239), but leads however, by overlooking
the social dimension, to a contradiction with the
conception of knowledge as socially mediated
knowledge (Clases, 2003): this contradiction then
prevents the fulfilment of the mentioned claim. The
great importance for KM of the concept of
Communities of Practice lies in the opportunity to
overcome this contradiction because together with
technological and organisational aspects, now also

92
human aspects - for example human factors (Bettoni
and Schneider, 2002), socialisation (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995) and social capital (Lesser and
Prusak, 1999) - can be taken into account, both in
their individual and social dimension.
HISTORICAL RETROSPECT
Communities of practice (CoP) were recognized
relatively early by single researchers and organization
consultants as a suitable unit of analysis for research
in work organization (Jordan, 1994) as well as
excellent as “platforms for knowledge work” and
therefore for successful knowledge management
(Schmitz and Zucker, 1996, pp.156ff). The CoP
concept continued, however, to be largely
unmentioned for the time being in the mainstream
KM literature: for example two KM bestseller (Probst
et al., 1997; North, 1998) did not even outline the
CoP approach.
Lave and Wenger had initially specified the CoP
notion only intuitively as “an intrinsic condition for
the existence of knowledge” (Lave and Wenger, 1991,
p.98). Wenger further developed later the intuitive
CoP term in a systematic, comprehensive manner
(within the framework of his social theory of learning
focused on participation, Wenger, 1998b, p.7) as a
special kind of community in which practice served
as a source of inner cohesion and justified as follows
the choice of the term (Wenger, 1998b, p.72): „…
collective learning results in practices that reflect
both the pursuit of our enterprises and the attendant
social relations. These practices are thus the property
of a kind of community created over time by the
sustained pursuit of a shared enterprise. It makes
sense, therefore, to call these kinds of communities
'communities of practice'." (Wenger, 1998b, p.45).
In the second half of the 90ies communities and
networks were more and more recognized and used as
valuable concepts for implementing new forms of
knowledge sharing (North et al., 2000; Schmidt,
2000; Henschel, 2001; Lesser and Storck, 2001) and
many organizations began to design their KM
solutions as communities or as networks (Le Moult,
2001; Kok et al., 2003; Saint-Onge and Wallace,
2003). They had intuitively recognised that a big gap
separates knowledge and KM as well as individuals
and enterprises - because every person is inseparably
bound to his or her tacit knowledge - and that
communities and networks allow this to be bridged.
COP EXAMPLES
Communities of practice which tried to implement
Wenger's CoP model as an instrument of KM were
built in many industrial and commercial
organizations. Since 2003 Volkswagen has promoted
so called “Job Families” which are company-wide
competence communities (Schultz et al., 2003).
Daimler Chrysler supports since 1997 so called “Tech
Clubs” which are networks of engineers in car
development (Wenger et al., 2002). At Airbus, British
Petroleum, Cap Gemini Ernst and Young, Clarica, Eli
Lilly, Ford, Hewlett Packard, IBM, McKinsey,
Mercedes-Benz, Schlumberger, Shell Oil and the
World Bank, Wenger and his colleagues were
involved in implementing different kinds of CoPs like
helping communities, best practice communities or
innovation communities (Wenger et al., 2002;
Wenger and Benninger, 2002). The Australian
National Training Authority (ANTA) financed 16
CoPs within its national program for vocational
education (Mitchell, 2002). Siemens has a company-
wide CoP for knowledge sharing among people
working in implementing knowledge management
initiatives (Enkel et al., 2000). Achmea (one of the 3
greatest insurance groups in Holland) has employee-
networks for exploiting synergies between a great
number of independent business units (Dignum and
van Eeden, 2003).
Wenger's CoP model was used also as an analytical
instrument, however, only as a very coarse frame of
reference so that essential parts (as for example
“participation”) remained mainly unconsidered.
Arnold and Smith (2003) analyzed an Online
Learning Community with regard to the interplay
between context and technology; Ruuska and
Vartiainen (2003) have identified social structures
and used them as reference for analysing knowledge
sharing; Osterlund and Carlile (2003) examined the
knowledge sharing practice in complex organizations
from a relational perspective on social realities;
Stuckey et al. (2002) have investigated how to
support teachers and doctors in the utilization of
innovative ICT technologies; Smith and Coenders
(2002) implemented and tested a feedback-instrument
for an Online workshop; finally Manca and Sarti
(2002) dealt with means for supporting virtual
learning communities: they have analyzed their needs
and derived functions of ICT systems which can
satisfy those needs.
93
THE EXTENDED COP MODEL AS A KM
APPROACH
Wenger (1998), in his social theory of learning
published under the title "Communities of Practice" -
still today the most comprehensive theoretical inquiry
into the CoP topic - had focused on learning as social
participation. ‘Social participation’ meant for him
“not just participation to local events of engagement
in certain activities with certain people” but “a more
encompassing process” including (Wenger, 1998b,
p.4):
• the active participation to the practices of social
communities
• the construction of identities in relation to these
communities
• the way in which life and the world are
experienced as meaningful.
In the course of the application of this theory to the
development of communities of practice for
international companies and organizations it became
however clear that cultivating a CoP was a very
challenging task in face of which most managers
seemed rather helpless. Wenger and his colleagues
recognized that: „…it is not particularly easy to build
and sustain communities of practice or to integrate
them with the rest of an organization“ (Wenger and
Snyder, 2000, p.140) and that managers, since they
were unable to deal with the social theory of learning,
had to be supported with other means than theory for
accomplishing the task of cultivating CoPs: “The first
step for managers now is to understand what these
communities are and how they work. The second step
is to realize that they are the hidden fountainhead of
knowledge development and therefore the key to the
challenge of the knowledge economy. The third step is
to appreciate the paradox that these informal
structures require specific managerial efforts to
develop them and to integrate them into the
organization so that their full power can be
leveraged.” (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, p.145). This
led to the development of a practical guide for the
implementation of CoPs in organizations (Wenger et
al., 2002); in this work the original, theoretical CoP
concept of 1998 was extended with explicit references
to Knowledge Management and so became a truly
structured, application oriented KM approach.
The substantial theoretical innovations in relation to
the theory from 1998 are (Bettoni et al., 2004):
94
• the concept of knowledge as an organisational
challenge and the seven design principles
• the organisational learning loop within the
knowledge system of the enterprise
• the structural CoP model
• a clarification of the CoP definition
• the five stages of development
All these innovations extend the original CoP concept
to a complete model of a new organizational form and
can thus be used as a method both for designing and
sustaining a CoP as well as for the analysis of its
structural aspects and development characteristics.
They represent the main points, to which one should
pay attention, when designing, developing and
supporting communities of practice.
The concept of knowledge and seven design
principles
Understanding the concept of knowledge represents
one of the main problem areas for the functioning of
real knowledge communities (North et al., 2000, 56).
Furthermore it determines the first 2 of 7 „deadly
sins” of KM (Schneider, 2001). More than ever
before, today in our “small planet” the task of
stewarding knowledge individually or collectively,
privately or in organisations, requires first of all the
insight that knowledge is not a „thing“ that can be
managed like other assets. In line with recent
developments in knowledge theory (von Glasersfeld,
1995) the reasons for this view can be summarized in
four key points about the essence of knowledge
(Wenger et al., 2002, pp.8ff):
• Knowledge lives in the human act of knowing
• Knowledge is tacit as well as explicit
• Knowledge is social as well as individual
• Knowledge is dynamic
It is exactly this „interactive” nature of knowledge
which makes organisational and transorganisational
knowledge management a challenge. Knowledge
cannot be considered as material of enterprise
processing (for example in order procedures or other
business processes) but should be seen as a tacit
resource intimately bound to the human being - as a
„subjective model of reality” (Dick and Wehner,
2003, p.14) - and to his social interactions as a
socially oriented model of reality.
Given this knowledge challenge, how can we design
for sustainable knowledge interactions? The
following principles focus on the insight that CoPs
are living entities and require an approach that
acknowledges the importance of passion,
relationships and voluntary activities in organizations
(Wenger et al., 2002, pp.51ff):
• design for evolution
• open a dialogue between inside and outside
perspectives
• invite different levels of participation
• develop both public and private community spaces
• focus on value
• combine familiarity and excitement
• create a rhythm for the interactions

The organisational learning loop within the

knowledge system of the enterprise
Figure 1: Organisational Knowledge System
Every company, every organization has a knowledge
system which, however, is rarely consciously
perceived and systematically organized (Wenger et
al., 2002, pp.166ff). Many knowledge resources
remain thus unused. A knowledge system consists of
two closely connected process groups:

a) Stewarding knowledge - This group encompasses

processes like acquiring, developing, making
transparent, sharing and preserving knowledge. They
are used for handing down, reproducing and renewing
knowledge and experience. What should be noticed
here is that these processes are not considered at a
cognitive but at a coordinative-cooperative level (see
the cooperation model by Wehner et al., 1998):
knowledge stewarding therefore does not directly
intervene in individual cognitive processes, as too
easily alleged by certain critics of KM (Malik, 2001). Figure 2: Experience and Knowledge Flow in the
Organisational Learning Loop
b) Applying knowledge – This group collects what
happens when knowledge resources are used, for The structural CoP model
example in business processes. In an enterprise an
organisational learning loop is established, if A CoP consists of three fundamental elements or core
employees of the formal organization (teams, design dimensions that mutually influence each other
departments) also participate informally and and should be kept in balance (Wenger et al., 2002,
simultaneously in CoPs (Wenger et al., 2002, pp.27ff): knowledge domain, community and
pp.18ff). practice:
This multiple membership creates a learning loop - The knowledge domain is a collection of topics, key
which has its focal point in the employee: she gains issues, problems and open points that CoP members
experiences in her daily work within business commonly experience in their daily work and that are
processes and can incorporate them in the CoP, where of great importance to them. It is an area of expertise
this knowledge is stewarded collectively and prepared that brings people together with passion, guides the
for filtering back to the business processes from questions they ask and the way they organize their
where it originated. knowledge and creates a sense of accountability to the

95
development of a practice. CoP members can take
responsibility to provide the organization with the
best knowledge and skills in the domain to which they
are committed.
- The community consists of the personal and
institutional relationships between the members and
includes the members as persons, their ties, their
interactions (regularity, frequency and rhythm), the
atmosphere, the evolution of individual and collective
identities and, last but not least, spaces (physical or
virtual) for meeting together. This element is very
important because it accounts for the social aspects of
stewarding knowledge, applying it and learning
together.
- The practice covers frameworks, standards, ideas,
instruments, stories, experiences, lessons learned and
documents that community members share. It denotes
a specific, collectively elaborated know how about
ways of doing things in a specific domain.
These three elements form together an ideal
knowledge structure as a social structure which can
take over the responsibility for stewarding a specific
domain of expertise in an organization.
A clarification of the CoP definition
The three elements of the structural model facilitate a
clarification of the definition of CoP through a clearer
differentiation from other social structures. They also
represent different aspects of participation and
identity and can therefore help in understanding the
motivation of the members. A CoP can thus be
defined as a group or network of persons (Wenger et
al., 2002, p.4 and pp.40ff), that functions as an
informal organisational structure, whose members
participate voluntarily, based on collegial
relationships not reporting relationships, share the
interest and the passion in a knowledge domain,
develop as persons by mutual relationships which are
grounded in the collective stewarding of a knowledge
domain and apply the results in their daily job. All the
members come together from different hierarchical
and functional fields of the organization attracted by
“self identification” and form an „open and
organically developing group of persons“ (Lakoni at
al., 2001, p.81).
The five stages of development
96
Features for the analysis and design of a CoP can also
be identified from structuring its evolution into
distinguishable moments (phases or stages). The life-
cycle of a CoP can be subdivided into 5 stages
(Wenger, 1998a, p.3; Wenger et al., 2002, pp.68ff):
potential, coalescing, maturing, stewardship,
transformation. In the course of this evolution the
features to be developed change; hence the related
management challenges and activities must also be
modified accordingly.
(1) Potential: in the first stage the CoP does not exist
at all or it is only a weak network of persons that are
facing similar problems and tasks but meet only
rarely; although the potential members already carry
in themselves the potential for the development of
stronger relationships, a CoP would be unlikely to
arise spontaneously. For this purpose you need
explicit planning and launch activities. Many authors
restrict the CoP concept to spontaneously arisen,
informal networks: Wenger has however explicitly
denied this restriction (Wolf, 2003a): from his
experience it does not matter how the community
started (spontaneously or at the instigation of
management), in both cases they require engagement
on the part of people and some kind of sponsorship
from the management. In the potential stage the main
task consists in planning the CoP: determining the
knowledge domain and its scope, finding persons that
are already connected in the chosen field, identifying
common needs for knowledge and skills.
(2) Coalescing: In the second stage the members
should be supported in building relationships by a
suitable interaction model. The main task consists
here of ‚nurturing' the CoP: determining the value that
sharing knowledge in the chosen field has for the
members and for the organization, building trust and
personal relationships between the members, for
example by promoting mutual understanding,
discovering the kind of knowledge whose sharing
would be most useful and determining suitable ways
of sharing. In this stage of incubation the great
challenge for the CoP consists in balancing two
opposite demands: „the need to let its members
develop relationship and trust against the early need
to demonstrate the value of the community” (Wenger
et al., 2002, p.83).
(3) Maturing: This stage is characterized by an
increase in the mutual engagement and a higher
dynamics. The CoP deals particularly with the
clarification of its primary intentions, its role in the
organization as well as its boundaries. The members
feel more and more the need to organize the
knowledge of the community, the core group
identifies gaps in the knowledge of the CoP and seeks
opportunities to focus on that systematically, for
example through the development of a “knowledge
repository”. The number of members can rapidly
increase in this stage and introduce new impulses but
also thwart the plans of the core group. The challenge
consists of resolving the tension between growth and
internal focus: for this purpose the CoP must both
preserve the existing trust in spite of its growth as
well as further develop spontaneous mutual help in
spite of systematization.
(4) Stewardship: In this stage the CoP continues its
work for the systematic organization of the common
body of knowledge: expertise and personal
relationships are extended and deepened, tools and
instruments are further developed. The CoP feels
pride now for its own achievements, it sees itself as
an owner of the knowledge domain it is in charge of
and is conscious of its own identity and voice in the
organization. In order to maintain the relevance of its
knowledge field however, the CoP also needs to be
open to new ideas, approaches and relationships: „A
community needs to balance its sense of ownership
with receptivity to new people and ideas” (Wenger et
al., 2002, p.105). This openness must however be
more than just a willingness to accept new members:
it requires the active search for new ideas, new
members and renewal in the leadership.
(5) Transformation: The end of a CoP can have very
different causes: technological evolutions can make
the knowledge domain obsolete, structural
modifications can let the benefit for the organization
disappear, or the interests of the members can
progressively diverge. As a result of such events the
attraction of the CoP and the influx of new topics can
be reduced, the community progressively loses
members and reduces its activities more and more
until nobody shows up to the community events. A
CoP can also merge with another, split into several
smaller CoPs or be institutionalized as a department.
Whatever the transformation will be, the heritage of
the CoP will live on in the experiences of its members
and increase the ability of the organization to build
further communities of practice.
PARTICIPATION AND KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT
Although it seems to be obvious that „in a knowledge
organization participation is no more merely a
normative postulate, but necessary and natural”
(Dick and Wehner, 2002, p.18) and although social
participation plays a central role in the theory of
Wenger (1998), in the extended CoP approach,
Wenger et al. (2002) have not directly addressed
participation in the social practice of the community
except for in two places: a short consideration of the
structural elements as aspects of participation, and the
explanation of the third design principle (Wenger et
al., 2002, pp.44-45 and pp.55-58). Besides this, the
term „participation” is not mentioned at all, so for
example in connection with the discussion of internal
leadership tasks, what is especially amazing here is if
one considers that all members of the CoP should in
principle contribute to the different leading roles
(coordination, facilitation, domain stewarding and so
forth) or be internally trained for that. Wenger et al.
(2002) defend also with respect to CoP, that
leadership is a very participatory approach although
they do not refer to it explicitly. Why this discrepancy
between the theory of 1998 and their later extension
in the work of 2002 in the consideration and
exposition of participation? One reason is probably
that participation is so to speak “integrated” in the
extended approach so that it would not have to be
mentioned - in the ideal case - explicitly. The problem
in this case is, however, that an important element
remains hidden so that faulty interpretations - in
which participation remains unconsidered - become
more probable.
However, without taking social participation
seriously, the crucial questions of KM (Dick and
Wehner, 2002, p.18) can barely or only
unsatisfactorily be answered and a community of
practice can hardly be successful. Wenger presented
the reasons for that in his main work from 1998. He
defined participation as „social experience of living in
the world in terms of membership in social
communities” (Wenger, 1998b, p.55), which forms a
unit with reification as a “process of giving form to
our experience by producing objects that congeal this
experience into ‘thingness’” (Wenger, 1998b, p.58).
Unit means that the two processes cannot be
considered in isolation, that one cannot be understood
without the other one, that only in co-ordination can
they generate meaning.
Hence the ‘conditio sine qua non’ for having
communities of practice becomes a reliable way to a
human oriented knowledge management lies in taking
97
seriously legitimate participation in stewarding
knowledge: this is necessary for cultivating them
successfully and succeeding in bridging the gap that
separates knowledge and knowledge management.
REFERENCES
AACE (2002). Proceedings of the World Conference on E-
Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and
Higher Education (E-Learn 2002 CD-Rom). Montreal:
October 15-19, www.aace.org.
Arnold, P. and Smith, J.D. (2003). Adding connectivity and
losing context with ICT: Contrasting learning situations
from a community of practice perspective. In Huysman,
M., Wenger, E. and Wulf, V. (2003), 465-484.
Bettoni, M., Clases, C. and Wehner, T. (2004). Initiierung,
Einführung, Evaluation von Communities of Practice.
In: Reinmann, G. and Mandl, H. (2004) Psychologie
des Wissensmanagement. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Bettoni, M. and Schneider, S. (2002). Experience Mana-
gement - Lessons Learned from Knowledge Engine-
ering. In Minor, M. and Staab, S. (2002), 117-128.
Clases, C. (2003). Eine arbeitspsychologische Perspektive
auf soziale Dynamiken kooperativer Wissens-
produktion. In Franz H. W., Howaldt, J., Jacobsen, H.
and Kopp, R. (Hrsg.): Forschen - Lernen - Beraten. Der
Wandel von Wissensproduktion und -transfer in den
Sozialwissenschaften. Berlin: sigma.
Clases, C. and Wehner, T. (2002). Handlungsfelder im
Wissensmanagement. In Lüthy, W., Voit, E. and
Wehner, T. (2002), 39-56.
Dick, M., and Wehner, T. (2002). Wissensmanagement zur
Einführung: Bedeutung, Definition, Konzepte. In Lüthy,
W., Voit, E. and Wehner, T. (2002), 7-28.
Dignum, V., van Eeden, P. (2003). Seducing, engaging and
supporting communities at Achmea. In Proceedings of
the Fourth European Conference on Knowledge
Management, Oxford, 18-19 Sept., 253-262.
Huysman, M., Wenger, E. and Wulf, V. (2003).
Communities and Technologies. Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Communities and
Technologies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Jordan, B. (1994). Ethnographic Workplace Studies and
Computer Supported Cooperative Work. IRL Report
No. IRL94-0026. In Shapiro, D. et al. (1996).
Kok, G., Jongedijk, S. and Troost, J. (2003). Insights from
KPMG's European Knowledge Management Survey
2002/2003. KPMG Knowledge Advisory Services,
Netherland. http://www.kpmg.nl/kas.
Lakoni, S., Schwämmle, U, and Thiel, M. (2001). Zwischen
Chat-room und Kantine. Wie "Communities of
Practice" zu Innovation und Veränderung beitragen.
Profile, 2, 74-84.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning.
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Le Moult, D. (2001). How to make a CoP fly.
KnowledgeBoard, 6.12.2002.
98
Lesser, E., and Prusak, L. (1999). Communities of Practice,
Social Capital and Organisational Knowledge. White
Paper, IBM Institute for Knowledge Management,
http://ikm.ihost.com.
Lesser, E. L., and Storck, J. (2001). Communities of
practice and organizational performance. IBM
SYSTEMS JOURNAL, 40 (4), 831-841.
Lüthy, W., Voit, E. and Wehner, T. (2002). Wissens-
management - Praxis. Einführung, Handlungsfelder und
Fallbeispiele. Zürich: vdf.
Malik, F. (2001). Wie Kopfarbeiter gemanagt werden.
Basler Zeitung, 16.07.2001, Ressort: Wirtschaft, Rubrik
„Der BaZ-Gast“, (163), 14.
Manca, S. and Sarti, L., (2002). Comunità virtuali per
l'apprendimento e nuove tecnologie. Tecnologie
Didattiche, 25 (1), 11-19.
Minor, M. and Staab, S. (2002). 1-st German Workshop on
Experience Management. Lecture Notes in Informatics
(LNI) Vol P-10. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI).
Mitchell, J. (2002). The Potential of Communities of
Practice to underpin the National Training Framework.
Melbourne: ANTA.
Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-
Creating Company. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
North, K., (1998). Wissensorientierte Unternehmens-
führung. Wertschöpfung durch Wissen. Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
North, K., Romhardt, K. and Probst, G. (2000).
Wissensgemeinschaften. Keimzellen lebendigen
Wissensmanagement. io management, 7/8, 52-62.
Osterlund, C. and Carlile, P. (2003). How Practice Matters:
A Relational View of Knowledge Sharing. In Huysman,
M., Wenger, E. and Wulf, V. (2003), 1-22.
Probst, G., Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. (1997). Wissen
managen. Wie Unternehmen ihre wertvollste Ressource
optimal nutzen. Zürich: Verlag NZZ.
Rousseau, J.J. (1762). Du contrat social. In: Oeuvres
Complètes, III. Paris: Gallimard, 1964.
Ruuska, I. and Vartiainen, M. (2003). Communities and
other Social Structures for Knowledge Sharing. A Case
Study in an Internet Consultancy Company. In
Huysman, M., Wenger, E. and Wulf, V. 163-183.
Saint-Onge, H. and Wallace, D. (2003). Leveraging
Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Schmitz, C. and Zucker, B., (1996). Wissen gewinnt.
Knowledge Flow Management. Düsseldorf:
Metropolitan.
Schneider, U. (2001). Die 7 Todsünden im Wissens-
management. Frankfurt a/M: FAZ
Schultz, F. and Pucher, H.F. (2003). www.deck – Wissens-
management bei Volkswagen. Industrie Management,
19 (3), 64-66.
Shapiro, D., Tauber, M. and Traunmüller R. (Eds.) (1996).
The Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work
and Groupware Systems. Amsterdam: North Holland /
Elsevier Science.
Smith, J.D. and Coenders, M. (2002). E-feedback to reflect
legitimate peripheral participation. In AACE, 2002.
Spiess, E. (1998). Formen der Kooperation. Göttingen:
Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.
Stuckey, B., Buehring, A. and Fraser, S. (2002).
Communities of Practice and On-Line Support for
Dissemination and Implementation of Innovation. In
AACE, 2002.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical Constructivism. A Way
of Knowing and Learning. London: Falmer Press.
Wehner, T., Clases, C., Endres, E. and Raeithel, A. (1998).
Zwischenbetriebliche Kooperation. Zusammenarbeit als
Ereignis und Prozess. In E. Spiess (Hrsg.), Formen der
Kooperation Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte
Psychologie, 95-124.
Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities of Practice. Learning as
a Social System. Systems Thinker, June 1998, 1-10.
Wenger, E. (1998b). Communities of Practice: Learning,
Meaning, Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Wenger, E., Benninger, M.L. et al. (2002). Communities of
Practice for Improved Learning Systems in the
Corporate, Government, Higher Education and Health
Care Sectors. In AACE, 2002.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. (2002).
Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to
Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Wenger, E., and Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of
Practice: The Organisational Frontier. Harvard
Business Review, 78, (1), 139-145.
Wolf, P. (2003)a. Interview with Etienne Wenger on
Communities of Practice. Knowledge-Board, 3.11.2003,
www.knowledgeboard.com.
Wolf, P. (2003b). Erfolgsmessung der Einführung von
Wissensmanagement. Münster: Monsenstein und
Vannerdat.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
MARCO BETTONI was born in Legnano (Italy) in
1952. Since September 2005 he has been Director of
Research & Consulting at the Swiss Distance Learning
University of Applied Sciences
(www.fernfachhochschule.ch).
After receiving his masters degree in mechanical
engineering in 1977 (ETH Zürich) he worked until
1987 for industrial (Rieter, Siemens), banking (UBS)
and academic (ETH) organizations in the domains of
machine design, engineering education, IT
management and IT development. From 1987 to 1991
he has been project leader and knowledge engineer in
the development of knowledge-based systems and has
been privately involved in cognitive science
foundations research since 1981.
Between 1991 and 2004 Marco Bettoni was Professor
for Knowledge Technologies at the Basel University of
Applied Sciences (FHBB) where his main tasks were
teaching post-graduate courses, consulting with
enterprises and government and doing applied research.
His main domain of competence is that of Knowledge
Technologies which include Artificial Intelligence
(especially Knowledge Engineering) and Knowledge
Management, focusing on human aspects and
Knowledge Cooperation. In June 2003 ETH Zürich
(www.ethz.ch) appointed him as ‘guest researcher’ as a
special recognition for his research contributions in the
individual and social aspects of Knowledge
Management.
CO-AUTHORS
Christoph Clases
Solothurn University of Applied Sciences (FHSO)
Riggenbachstrasse 16, CH - 4600 Olten, Switzerland
christoph.clases@fhso.ch
Theo Wehner
Center for Organizational and Work Sciences
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich
(ETH Zürich)
Kreuzplatz 5, CH - 8032 Zürich, Switzerland
twehner@ethz.ch
99
 THE MIRANDANET FELLOWSHIP: A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
DEVELOPING SELF-REGULATING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
FOR CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Chistina Preston
Director
MirandaNet International Reserach Centre
Southampton University
Highfield Campus, Southampton
SO 17 1 BJ, UK
E-Mail: Christina@mirandanet.ac.uk
©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005
KEYWORDS
Communities of practice, continuing professional
development, information and communication
technologies, self-regulated learning.
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the results of the MirandaNet
Fellowship approach to self-regulated learning in
Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in
Information and Communications Technology
(ICT). The theories and practice, which have been
developed by MirandaNet Fellows since 1992, are
innovative in the sense that they base the model on
practice-based research, the building of communities
of practice (CoPs) and attention to the semiotics of
multimodal learning environments. The focus of the
paper is a pilot ICT CPD programme in e-
facilitation that was delivered face to face and in a
customized VLE which had the qualities of a
dynamic e-journal. What is interesting is that the
teachers in this pilot on e-facilitation who embarked
on this model of self-regulation did significantly
better in conventional essay accreditation than
teachers who follow a more traditional academic
training route. The discussion expresses concerns
that much of what was learnt about the process of e-
facilitation was not accredited because conventional
higher education assessment had no space for
multimodal processes. The discussion also
summarises the notions about professionalism,
which appear throughout the paper. Suggestions are
100
made in the conclusions about the potential of e-
journal publication to facilitate the sharing of
professional evidence. The purpose of this would be
to increase the opportunities for teachers in England
to engage not only in self-regulated learning, but
also in a self- regulated profession.
INTRODUCTION
The focus of this article is about appropriate
Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
programmes for teachers in Information and
Communications Technology (ICT). The article
examines strategies to introduce self-regulated
learning. This term refers to circumstances where
the teachers as lead-learner are free to decide what,
when, where and how to learn. This implies that the
learning in traditional institutions - in schools and
universities- is only partly self-regulated and partly
teacher/instructor regulated or regulated by the
affordances and requirements of the leaning
environment of which the teacher/instructor may be
a part (Steffens, 2005).
Self-regulated learning is investigated in relationship
to teachers’ professionalism from three theoretical
perspectives. These are:
• how the social development of
communities of practices as self-regulating
entities has developed;
 • how the relationship between practice-
based research and the self-regulation of
the teaching profession operates;
• how a deeper understanding of the social
semiotics of virtual learning environments
might contribute to professional self-
regulated learning .
The theories are exemplified through descriptions of
MirandaNet Fellowship practice. MirandaNet is a
professional organization of teachers, teacher
educators, researchers, policy makers and company
partners established in 1992. The core aim is to
provide innovative Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) programmes for
teachers that focus on empowering the professional
to manage change in teaching and learning.
The article concludes with some observations on the
contradictions between self-regulated learning and
the mono-modal forms of professional accreditation
generally available to teachers in England.
HOW THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF
COMUNITIES OF PRACTICE (COP) AS
SELF-REGULATING PROFESSIONAL
ENTITIES HAS DEVELOPD
The background to CoP theory and practice
The idea that learning can be described in terms of
participation was first put forward by Lave and
Wenger who coined the phrase, ‘community of
practice’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991). They argue that
learning is a process of increasingly central
participation in communities of practice, a
movement from the ‘legitimate peripheral
participation’ of a newcomer to the full participation
of ‘old timers’. Wenger, who had been observing
business practices in the first instance, stresses how
the mutual constitution of agent, activity and world,
means that learning becomes a process of the
construction of identities, adding that identity
formation is negotiated in the course of doing the
job and interacting with others (Wenger, 1998).
While this theory does not illuminate every kind of
learning (Greeno, Collins et al., 1996) it does seem
to fit well the experience of teachers engaging in
continuing professional development (CPD) through
participation in online communities of practice.
The ‘community of practice’ notion does not stem
from education. It emerged from the late nineteenth
century pursuit of utopian social communities
(Morris, 1899; Livingstone and Parry, 2005).
Education commentators such as Sachs, Hargreaves,
Goodson, Whitty, Lave and Wenger see the building
of an authoritative and democratic community as an
important step in reinstating the professional
teachers’ authentic voice after the legacy of a top-
down approach, which began in the 1980s
(Hargreaves and Goodson, 1996; Wenger, 1998;
Lave and Wenger, 1999; Hopkins, 2002; Whitty,
2002; Sachs, 2003).
Progressive governments have been persuaded for
more than a decade that, at its best, online learning,
communication and publication can be an effective
spur towards self-regulated learning and democratic
participation for teaching professionals. The
Chileans began this process of creating a CoP for
their teachers online in 1994 (Preston, 1995).
English education policy makers started the National
Grid for Learning (NGFL) around the same time,
and predicted the rise of Virtual Learning
Environments (VLEs) in education (Stevenson,
1996). On the other hand the same policy makers
did not predict that the lack of internalized online
skills in the profession might negate the value of the
money spent both on both national services. For
example, the use of a commercial VLE was
recommended for the National ICT Continuing
Professional Development (CPD) programme from
1999-2003. However, this proved unstable for such
large numbers. Even when the recommended VLE
was working, there were insufficient advisers and
teacher educators with e-facilitation skills in the
country to scaffold effective learning (Preston,
2004). This short fall is now being addressed by the
National College for School Leadership (NCSL) and
by the General Teaching Council (GTC) who are
using MirandaNet Fellows as trainers and e-
facilitators.
MIRANDANET AS A COMMUNITY OF
PRACTICE
The background to CoPs
This paper relates the experience of MirandaNet
Fellows who founded a community of practice in
1992 based upon Lave and Wenger’s discoveries
about business communities which were developed
in parallel (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Lave and
Wenger began observing this phenomenon in
101
education in 1998 (Wenger, 1998). By 2002 the
definition of CoPs from Wenger et al. which
emphasizes the human interaction in CoP’s comes
close to MirandaNet Practice (Wenger, McDermott
et al., 2002):
"A community of practice is not just a web site,
a database, or a collection of best practices. It is
a group of people who interact, learn together,
build relationships, and in the process develop a
sense of belonging and mutual commitment.
Having others who share your overall view of
the domain and yet bring their individual
perspectives on any given problem creates a
social learning system that goes beyond the sum
of its parts" (p. 34).
The MirandaNet Fellowship was established some
ten years before the working parts of communities
of practice in education became a topic for debate.
In early 2005 MirandaNet was included in Stuckey’s
study of ten internet-mediated communities of
practice. Stuckey points out that, in her study at
least, communities of practice in education are
characterised by the need for the community to
enhance the professional status of its members
Taking an overview Stuckey identified certain
common features of successful Internet-based CoPs.
These features were to
- Invite different levels of participation
- Develop an active and passionate core
- Celebrate rituals of community life
- Provide news and events that are constantly
changing
- Develop both public and private spaces
- Harness the power of the personal connection
- Actively generate content
(Stukey, 2005).
It is not surprising that MirandaNet presents all the
Stuckey characteristics as she found that, from a
study of six groups, the MirandaNet community best
exemplified a community of practice, which
functioned well over a long period. Each of these
characteristics was revisited by MirandaNet Fellows
when the study was published to see how the
community had developed. By this time members
were already moving onto the importance of
partnership with external bodies, empowerment of
professionals and the extension of publication
opportunities. The theory that was also occupying
the community by the summer of 2005 was the
102
power of the Braided Learning concept developed
within the MirandaNet Fellowship (Preston, 2002a).
The concept has emerged from the communal
constructivist school which attempts to move
beyond social constructivism and capture specific
elements of the additional value that ICT
applications bring to the learning and teaching
environment. (Holmes, Tangney et al., 2001; Leask,
Ramos et al., 2001; Aspden and Pountney, 2002).
The constant change of features which characterizes
vibrant online communities like MirandaNet
indicates how difficult it is for academics with a
long publishing period to keep up with the flow of a
lively, multi-headed and dispersed community
(Preston, Wegerif et al., 2005). Stuckey has now
joined the Fellowship and is influencing the growth
of theory and practice from the inside. This
opportunity for co-construction is another feature of
an informal community which facilitates sharing.
Academics should be careful of assuming that a
general CoP label will cover all the practices to be
seen within CoPs like MirandaNet. Two emergent
trends in other kinds of communities can be cited
here. In the first case Nardi and Engestrom have
observed home workers who are able to activate
dormant nodes of specialists who they need for a
particular project by email even though this is not a
continuous relationship (Nardi and Engestrom,
1999). This use of e-networking for consultancy,
which is not quite the same as being a continuous
member of a community of practice, can already be
observed in MirandaNet activities which do not
enjoy a regular funding stream. Some expert groups
may have breaks in their international links because
of funding gaps. However, as soon as more funding
is achieved they are quickly able to regroup often
including new colleagues as well.
Gee’s observations which relate to young games
players are also relevant. He talks of ‘online affinity
spaces’ that offer an alternative model to a CoP.
These online groups tend to be more transient and
allow people from different ages, classes, sexes and
ethical backgrounds to learn collaboratively in a way
that they might not be able to in a face-to-face
community (Gee, 2005). The MirandaNet
Fellowship is already experimenting with Gee’s
model of self-regulation by building the World E-
citizens website (www.worldecitizens.net). This is a
web-space where young global citizens from diverse
backgrounds are encouraged to share ideas in a
Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) although they
may never met. This might provide a valuable
perspective from which to question the
appropriateness of the CoP model amongst students
who have different lifestyles from their teachers and
a different relationship with technology.
The social aspects of CoPs
What is common in these different approaches to
learning in groups is the evidence for a strong,
social strand in the teaching and learning process.
This has been worked on since Vygotsky’s time
although applying this information to internet
working brings a new freshness to the notion. These
principles for social engagement online are outlined
in an important conversational framework
(Laurillard, 2002). The underlying Laurillard design
imperatives used in MirandaNet course designs are
that :
learning is experiential – one aspect of learning
is the application and trial of new concepts, or
new perspectives on previous ideas, in practice.
learning the skills of e-facilitation is reflexive –
learning how to manage an online group arises
from active experience in online groups and
reflection on the issues and processes involved.
learning is cyclical - understandings develop
over time. The development is at least partly a
result of engagement in personal reflection and
with the reflections of others; engagement with
the feedback loop afforded by mentor and peer
critique; and the application of ideas in practice
theory and practice are mutually informing -
informed professional practice relies on the
integration of theory and practice, and the
ability to reflect critically on both.
learning is mediated through dialogue - deep-
level learning is associated with an insight into
the intentions of the speaker/writer and the ways
in which language and ideas are structured and
organised to convey meaning (Marton and
Saljo). Further, Laurillard’s framework models
how the action of articulating a representation of
a concept can lead to self-evaluation of one’s
own understanding, in addition to the
opportunities afforded for feedback, questioning
and evaluation from others.
There are few VLEs designed for teachers that
promote this kind of social learning although more
work in appropriate software use has been
considered for pupils (Wegerif, 2004). Scardamalia
and Bereiter have actually developed software to
promote dialogical learning between pupils: their
Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), the
Knowledge Forum. In this model learners build a
virtual knowledge base which reflects the interests
of the learners and grows in complexity as more is
stored and shared (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1996).
The explicit aim is to widen the pupils’ empirical
understanding of the value of this kind of learning
against the information transmission paradigms that
still predominate in schools because of the
examination system.
In contrast, in higher education the use of virtual
learning environments (VLEs) has been largely
information transmission driven refelecting the
university teaching paradigm. This can be because
the affordances of the VLE design do not encourage
ownership by the learners of online debate and
discussion. The other reason why learning in VLEs
remains traditional is because most tutors are not
experienced in the skills they require online to
encourage participation in this process, although
they may be expert in stimulating classroom
discussion. Teaching in this vital skill of e-
facilitation , which is akin to like hosting a party
when the guests are invisible, is not yet offered in
teacher education as a general rule.
A pilot CoP in e-facilitation
In response to the perceived need, MirandaNet
started a pilot in e-faciliation for Fellows in 2002
which was funded by the Department for Education
and Skills (DfES) and the General Teaching Council
(GTC), called 'Teachers as Researchers'. Fellows
designed a pilot VLE in the form of an e-journal for
this course which encouraged the same social
learning and community building which was
happening face to face. Two two-day residential
workshops contributed to the cohesion of the group.
In the independent evaluation of the Diploma
module, teachers found that the process of building
an online community of practice was an important
scaffold for their learning (Earle, 2004). This finding
triangulated with earlier research, which indicated
that the online activity in professional communities
was the main motivation for continuing professional
development (Preston, Cox et al., 2000).
103
Whereas Scardamalia and Bereiter Knowledge
Forum software focuses on children in school as
self-regulated, social learners, the MirandaNet
model focuses on the use of an Internet-based
community of practice for teachers which builds a
dynamic knowledge base owned by the profession.
An important aspect of the online learning in
MirandaNet which brings the strategy close to the
Laurillard framework has been this development of
e-facilitation skills which has enriched the learning
dialogue.
Acquiring e-facilitation skills appears to be helping
to build a collaborative MirandaNet voice in the
forums and e-journals which is self-regulated.
Collaborative, constructive and co-constructive
learning is at the core of the process. This building
of shared knowledge in autonomous communities of
practice can provide a learning environment where
new pedagogical techniques can be tested, risks can
be taken and failure can be a source of learning
between colleagues who trust each other.
HOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PRACTICE-BASED RESEARCH AND SELF-
REGULATION OF THE TEACHING
PROFESSION OPERATES
The background to practice-based research
E-facilitation is only one of the new role teachers
need to assume if some of their teaching is online.
Teachers can feel threatened when they are asked to
promote self-regulatory learning processes like this
in their classrooms when they have never learnt in
this way themselves. They may also be resistant
because they are unsure of the value of this kind of
learning when traditional examinations are still the
testing mechanism. The use of practice-based
research in teacher education helps to overcome
these professional doubts by putting teachers in self-
regulated learning situations. The assumption is that
personal experience helps them to make judgements
about how and when these strategies can improve
students’ learning.
This is why practice-based research underpins the
collaborative, constructive and co-constructive
learning processes in MirandaNet that are owned by
practitioners. Practice-based research is an extension
of the well-known term, ‘action research’. This
globally recognized term describes the process
which encourages teachers to conduct a small-scale
104
enquiry in their own classrooms with their own
students. This process is intended to develop a
greater sense of the ownership of learning, which is
part of professionalism. One important principle of
action research is that teachers as researchers should
control the process of change and development by
fact-finding, planning, implementing a course of
action, evaluating that action, reassessment and
modification. The iterative cycle encourages
learners to take risks, experiment and adapt because
they are not constrained by the need to be right first
time (Elliott, 1991; Somekh and Davis, 1998;
Hopkins, 2001).
This iterative cycle is similar to the self-regulatory
approach to learning described in Telepeers
findings: planning a learning project, monitoring its
execution and evaluating its outcome. This learning
cycle is now an important topic in educational and
psychological research. One reason for this is that
the extent to which learners are capable of
regulating their own learning has a marked effect on
the success of the outcome (Telepeers, 2005).
Action research has an impressive history which
started in the 1980s. In The Reflective Practitioner
Schon (1983) creates the action research process to
underpin how professionals think in action. He saw
this as a means of empowering teachers
professionally, facilitating their participation in
professionalism, encouraging them to share their
stories and to rethink what they know. Since then
other researchers have investigated story telling as a
means of developing professional identity (Thomas,
1995; James, 1996; Preston, 1998; Preston,
Mannova et al., 2000, Preston, 2002b).
But Barnett doubted whether the process of telling
stories was enough to ensure deep professional
learning. He contended that uncritical story telling
encourages a local focus which might result in the
neglect of the theory and practice of others.
Teachers must further engage with professional
issues and practice their critical skills on
comparative exercises (Barnett, 1997). Brown and
Dowling make the same case for teachers being
given the space to pursue an apprenticeship in
research methods, rather than concentrating entirely
on the process in their own classroom or institution
(Brown and Dowling, 1998). Lawes also deplores
the decrease of the teaching of theory in teacher
education and contends that, as a result of reflective
practice approaches practice and theory have
become confused. In her view ‘theory’ often means
nothing more than ‘talking about practice’ (Lawes,
2003, p.22).
As a result of this kind of objection to action
research this term is often replaced by ‘practice-
based’ or ‘evidence-based research’ in England.
Lamb, on the other hand, uses the term, ‘practitioner
research’. She claims that practitioner research is a
vital ingredient of Continuing Professional
Development which provides opportunities for
active learning. In addition, in this method teachers
are offered the space and capacity to build critically
on theoretical knowledge in order to think the
unthinkable. The critical phrase here is ‘to build
critically on theoretical knowledge’ (Lamb and
Simpson, 2003, p.62). Saunders sees the knowledge
base made up of evidence-based case studies
authored by teachers not as a body of finite
knowledge to be prescribed and imposed on
teachers, but rather as a living process built around
and tested on practical experience in classrooms,
developed from and adapted to particular teaching
and learning settings (Saunders, 2002).
This means of sharing knowledge seems to be
attractive to teachers as one thousand five hundred
from all over the world access the MirandaNet
website to download materials every day. These
materials are constantly being renewed by the
Fellows who are encouraged to engage with the
literature and to publish their studies for the rest of
their learning community All MirandaNet scholars
go through an interactive cycle of learning. When
they are ready to publish for their peers they are
promoted to become lead-learners and e-mentors.
This ownership of outcomes, therefore, facilitates
the opportunity for Fellows to gain a ‘strong and
principled voice’ and learn how to use it effectively
(Freidson, 1994).
Supported by this kind of evidence, the teachers’
voice is gaining credence with academic readers.
Fellows' studies which were contributed to the
MirandaNet e-journal have now been rewritten in a
more academic mode for the first edition of the more
formal e-journal, Reflecting Education, published by
the Institute of Education, University of London.
The target readership is teachers, taking professional
studies, who have evidence of practice to share
(Pachler, 2005). By adopting this constructive form
of learning, teachers in England may become a self-
regulated profession in the future. Having a voice in
policy issues will be an important gain.
The activist professional
On the subject of a self-regulated profession, Sachs,
the Australian commentator on teacher
professionalism, is sanguine about the emergence of
the democratic professional towards the end of the
twentieth century. What she hopes will grow from
this is the development of the activist professional
who will be empowered to influence policy making
in education rather than merely enacting commands
which have been passed down the line by politicians
(Sachs, 2003). In pursuit of the activist professional
ideal, the e-facilitation pilot course also offered a
platform where the learners could influence policy
making.
MirandaNet presented an opportunity for course
participants to influence policy at the end of the
Teachers as researchers CPD Programme in 2004.
A platform was offered in the final workshop to a
key government policy maker, the Head of the
Schools Division in the Department for Education
and Skills (DfES). He was inviting public
consultation at that time on the national e-learning
strategy (DfES, 2003) . The teacher professionals on
the pilot worked in groups to summarise the
evidence for presentation in conection with this
consultation exercise. This was a different mode of
professional communication, which invited the
students to present the contents of their essays in
different modes. This project evidence and
discussions with representatives from academic and
government organisations, concerned with policy-
making in education indicated that the learning
process had not just been ‘an academic exercise’
but an opportunity to influence policy. This last
element of the course was not accredited, as the
mechanisms do not yet exist for the accreditation of
collaborative oral submissions for assessment. This
fact is explored in more detail in the discussion on
accreditation.
HOW A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF
SOCIAL SEMIOTIC THEORIES CAN
CONTRIBUTE TO SELF-REGULATED
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
The background to social semiotics
As the Fellows become more experienced in
105
multimodal communication their professional voice
no longer depends exclusively on the written word.
They now use a portfolio of complex tools which
present knowledge in graphics, music, sound,
moving image and E-forums that record
asynchronous conversations. Web casting is being
developed and a new MirandaNet website is
currently being designed to encourage a wider range
of expression and communication. A new and
complex digital tool with great power is the virtual
learning environment (VLE). Interactive VLE
features are embedded in the e-journals for teachers’
publication and in the World E-citizens website for
student exchange. This widening range of
multimodal tools takes cognisance of the
affordances of the screen rather than the page.
These multimedia developments in the MirandaNet
resources not only promote self-regulated learning,
but are also designed to expose teachers to the
impact of new media affordances on contemporary
communication. MirandaNet Fellows believe that
an understanding of the power of computers cannot
be achieved simply by a mastery of technical skills
and know-how. Therefore, an important aspect of
ICT CPD is a critical grasp of the emerging science
of social semiotics as well.
Sassure offered the first definition of social
semiotics as ‘the life of signs in society’ (Sassure,
1974). Since 1988 Kress with a range of
multidisciplinary partners has been employing the
tenets of this emergent science to explore more
closely the tools teachers and learners use to
represent meaning in the education process (Hodge
and Kress, 1988; Kress, 1996; Kress et al., 2001;
Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress, 2003; Kress,
2004; Kress, 2005). MirandaNet Fellows employ
the precepts of this growing body of theory in
practitioner projects and workshops because they are
interested in the changing balance in global
communication between words and pictures.
Jewitt and Kress challenge traditional assessment
systems by asserting that language is only a partial
element of communication (Jewitt and Kress, 2003).
In fact, in their view, modes like gesture, image,
posture and speech are all partial in the assembly of
meaning in a learning event. This attitude towards
the value of signs is a significant challenge to the
assumptions that the modes of reading and writing
are superior to other modes in the making of
meaning. What matters in this emergent school of
106
thought are the affordances of each mode and the
learners’ capacity to chose judiciously.
Social semioticians are looking beyond mono-modal
literacy in reading and writing to celebrate the multi-
modal tools that teacher bring to pedagogy.
Performance aspects of the teacher’s craft include
gesture and modulation and tone of voice (Jewitt,
2003). Emotional literacy is also relevant in
creating contexts for effective learning (Goleman,
1996). The challenge to conventional academics is
that this emergent area of research draws on a wide
range of disciplines rather than drilling deeply into
only one discipline. Social semioticians also tend to
ignore the hierarchy of values that are traditionally
accorded to these disciplines.
MirandaNet learning activities are developed to
stimulate the students’ explicit understanding of
these new media issues not only through reading the
literature, but through the critical use of multimodal
tools. This is quite a different slant from the package
skills training approach to ICT training that too
often dominates training in ICT for teachers. The
active learning that is promoted in practitioner
research means that teachers produce designs that
customise and adapt the multimodal products
available as well as create new ones.
Face-to-face and online activities are delivered and
conducted in a variety of communication modes in
order to extend this aspect of the participants’
multimodal literacy. In the Teachers as Researchers
CPD Programme participants reported on each of
the stages of their practice based project in an
interactive MirandaNet e-journal, where they
received feedback and critical review both from
their peers and course tutors. This is a multimodal
publishing environment which includes graphics and
multi-layering. It is superior to email for this kind of
learning as the learning processes and the
information routes can be seen as a coherent entity
with clear navigation pathways signed by the parts
of a rose. (see figure 1)
The graphical metaphor is intended to scaffold an
understanding of the different elements which make
up a full study and how they may relate to each
other. The parts of the rose are deconstructed: thorns
and branches signify the polarity of forum
discussion; the head of the rose represents the
summary or abstract; the roots depict the underlying
evidence in the form of the case study. The
students’ statement about their own learning is
depicted by the reassembling of the full rose – a
reference to the Gestalt theory of holistic learning
developed in the 1930s. From this perspective the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Figure 1: The MirandaNet rose
When this image was first introduced, practitioners
following the MirandaNet e-facilitation course
found the rose metaphor helpful in relating the
purpose of and interrelation of different academic
activities (Earle, 2004). The subliminal impact of the
rose, which was a subject for discussion in the
workshops, introduced the notion of situated
cognition in instructional design which is so familiar
to young learners (Collins, Brown et al., 1989).
Situated cognition which was also a focus of Lave
and Wenger’s work emphasises studies of human
behaviour that have 'ecological validity': that is,
which take place in real situations. This is
particularly relevant to the learning of young people
outside the classroom (Somekh et al., 2002;
Sutherland, 2004). The use of a VLE helps to make
more visible although only in text how ideas are
woven together overtime by a group of learners. The
practice based research studies also record in details
the reality of school change in terms of student
behaviours, barriers to change, real-world
complications such national agendas, lack of time,
timetabling constraints and private agendas which
necessarily change the nature of the classroom
activity. Situated cognition attempts to integrate
these complexities into its analytic framework. The
subliminal effect of signs is just one aspect of this
wider picture of situated learning.
Discussed from this theoretical perspective, the sign
of the rose became used as an illustration of the
complexity of the learners response to a self-
regulated learning in a VLE. In particular, the rose
metaphor, which provided the navigational guidance
for the VLE, raised some of these visual design
issues associated with screens with the practitioners.
The rose was a deconstruction of the MirandaNet
logo which is based on the style of the Scottish
artist, Rennie Mackintosh. This was recognized by
the teachers as a rare reference to the past on the
web, and in ICT CPD. Some participants in the
workshop debate were also aware that this rose also
refers to the notions of the value of craftsmanship,
of a socialist dream of human equality and the
building of a utopian paradise on earth which are
inherent in the Arts and Crafts movement at the turn
of the twentieth century. The notion is that ICTs can
be used to make a better world, just as in the last
century arts and crafts were seen as having this
potential. Because the substitution of design content
in this VLE is trivial, the participating teachers were
invited to make the e-journal community their own
by providing a graphical metaphor which had some
resonance for the group. However, they preferred to
stay with the given image because as a learning
community they decided that this sign was
appropriate for the group’s philosophy (Earle,
2004). Half the group became MirandaNet Fellows
after the course and continued further studies about
the use of ICT.
Impact on classroom practice is anticipated by
MirandaNet through making semiosis explicit in the
learning experience of teachers. In turn it may be
that the motivation of young learners might be
improved by attending to a more rounded view of
situated learning than conventional mono-literal
environments offer.
Accreditation in the multimodal domain
To summarise the argument so far: the MirandaNet
practice-based process of knowledge building
promotes teachers’ ownership of their learning as
well as community collaboration. Underlying this
process is the promotion of a deeper understanding
of the semiotic affordances of ICT through a VLE as
well as face-to-face.
What is interesting is that this comparatively
innovative approach to ICT CPD appears to be
producing higher attainment for teachers in the
traditional products of professional studies, the four
thousand word essay. The teachers who were invited
107
to submit their evidence-based case studies to the e-
journal, Reflecting Education, were amongst the
eleven teachers who were awarded A grades on the
MirandaNet pilot e-facilitation course Teachers as
Researchers which was held at the Institute of
Education, University of London. The external
evaluator and the independent assessor commented
on the high number of As. The norm would have
been about two As in a cohort of 20. These marks
can partly be explained by the selection process
which resulted from a national competition and by
the bursaries provided from the Department for
Education and Skills (DfES) to pay for study
expenses like supply cover, books, travel and
residential workshops. However, the independent
evaluator said that it was unlikely that these factors
alone guaranteed the creativity and the scholarship
that was displayed in the final essays. The supported
and costed use of practice-based research and the
community building was a major factor in the
success.
The teachers reported in the independent evaluation
that the fact that the VLE design mirrored the design
of the induction course and the e-facilitation module
was an important scaffold in understanding the
relationship between the subtasks. They also valued
the writing course online and the ensuing discussion
between participants, which has continued in
support of the other modules that some participants
have undertaken. Membership of a learning
community during the course was another factor
which seemed to be important (Earle, 2004).
These findings triangulate with an earlier study
about what motivates teachers to use Information
and Communications Technology in classrooms
(Preston et al., 2000). In this context, other research
findings suggest that innovation and change come
more from teachers’ informed professional practice
around teaching and learning than from target
setting and ‘performativity’ (OECD, 2001; Hudson,
2002; Saunders, 2002).
The MirandaNet tutors’ questions
The questions that the tutors for the Teachers as
Researchers course asked in their evaluation were
harder to answer. The Diploma accreditation
required a four thousand word written essay in a
conventional format as the sole mono-literate means
of testing the achievements of the participants. The
tutors did not think that this essay had showcased all
108
the learning gains on this e-facilitation course. For
example, some students designed additions to the
MirandaNet environment that were developed by the
web editor. Other students customised other
commercially distributed VLEs themselves or
designed their own. These design skills required
knowledge that was superior to the tutors’
knowledge in these specifics. E-facilitators also had
to navigate a multi-layered environment with vastly
different affordances from the medium of writing or
talking. No accreditation criteria were linked to this
kind of effort when the course was prepared. Should
the tutors have linked with a computer science
department? What kind of multi-disciplinarian
higher education department would be required to
prophesy what might be achieved?
Other questions emerged over the accreditation of
the e-facilitation induction course. The induction
into the skills of e-facilitation considered was too
vocational and competence-based to be accredited at
post graduate level. As this was a very new area a
BBC forum e-facilitator was asked to provide the
criteria and support the tutors in marking the
performance of the e-facilitators which could be
judging in on-line dynamic activity. The forums
which were being e-facilitated by the course
members were open to the teaching profession.
Some debates were poorly attended. Some of the
teachers who joined the debates were openly hostile
and destructive because they did not like the
establishment of the GTC. Tutors had to make
allowances for these negative factors in the process
of making judgements about the e-facilitators
performance.
In hindsight the tutor team decided that the quality
of the interaction moved far beyond mere
competence in handling the mechanics of this
operation. The students running forums devised
strategies in teams to draw the best from the forum
members. In essence the e-facilitators, at their best,
were providing the links and scaffolding for a
collaborative text developed in digital space and
asynchronous time. At the same time they were
dealing with poor online etiquette and sometimes
generating activity which did not happen without
them, Peers were weaving together ideas, intellect to
intellect, without the distractions of body language,
appearance, gender, tone of voice, gesture or any of
the other mediations that hang in the air of face-to-
face talk. These capacities were not rewarded in the
Diploma.
In the course evaluation discussion, tutors
questioned whether this human empathy, intellectual
energy and capacity to scaffold a rich learning
dialogue should have been marked below the level
of a Diploma module as it was. Should these tasks
have been assessed as a post-doctoral activity
instead? Was enough known about multimodal
literacy and situated learning, the tutors asked, to
make the marking secure? At the core of this tutorial
discussion was the realisation that the students were
achieving mastery of more multimodal skills and
understanding than the tutors had envisaged when
the course was planned. The effect of the
community of practice also meant that new skills,
notions and ideas were being fashioned, used and
published in the forums as the course progressed
which were not yet in the e-facilitation canon. How
could these be rewarded? The notion of
‘competence’ seemed to be crossing a wider range
of disciplines than had been envisaged.
The preface of the Kress and Jewitt edited book on
Multimodal Literacy is illuminating on the
assessment of ‘competence’ in the use of
multimodal tools. They comment that in an era of
profound and rapid change, neither the goal of
competence nor the (imagined) reality behind that
goal is any longer serviceable and sustainable. In the
face of a product from the learner they suggest
instead a change in the assessment question from,
“How does what is here match what a teacher
expected and wanted to be there?” to “How does
what is here give a teacher insight into the interests
of the maker of what is here?” They suggest that a
tutor or a teacher might also take an interest in the
different ways in which a learner has chosen to
represent concepts presented by the teacher and
enjoy the diversity of interpretation rather than
pronouncing on what is right or wrong. In such a
conception of the assessment of learning, ‘error’ has
a different place in the process of assessment (Jewitt
and Kress, 2003).
Tutors on the Teachers as Researchers course
decided that next time they would lower the
weighting given to the literature search and raise the
assessment weighting for the personal learning
statement as a result of their study of Jewitt and
Kress’s comments on the value of critique. These
social semioticians question the role of ‘critique’ in
learning because critique necessarily acts on what
has already happened in past performance, and on
the effect of the (past) agenda of others. Instead
Kress and Jewitt promote the notion of ‘Design’,
which refers to how people make use of resources
that are available at a given moment in a specific
communication environment to realise their interests
as makers of a message or text. Kress and Jewitt
affirm that if the aim of education should be to
promote productive action in a period of rapid
change, and in one’s own interests, then Design
must replace competence and critique as the
essential goal of educational practice, of theories of
learning, and of theories of representation much
more generally (Jewitt and Kress, 2003).
The tutors would also wish to give more
consideration to the notion of Design and develop
marking criteria that were more multi-disciplinary.
This would give greater value to the situated
learning which took place in the e-facilitation
activity. This activity approximates to the Design
recommendations that Jewitt and Kress make.
Concentration on the practice-based research
process rather than the case study products was one
way in which tutors had already foreseen some of
these challenges and avoided prescribing what kind
of e-learning case study was to be undertaken.
However it was the case study product not the
process that attracted Diploma marks.
It was from this rich mix of approaches that both the
students and the tutors were able to learn more about
e-facilitation than had been envisaged. This
content-free practice-based approach would seem to
be an important means of accrediting courses that
cover multimodal affordances in the future. Since it
can take up to five years to have a pilot course
formally accredited in the higher education sector, it
is hard to see how multimodal and multimedia
curriculum content and literature could be
effectively specified over this time scale.
For the future
A new discussion for tutors in the multi-modal field
in the future might be whether teachers who make
the grade in representation and communication on a
professional activists course are at pre- or post-
doctoral level. Are teachers and children as
researchers in multimodality engaging in doctoral
work at a much earlier level than we might have
thought in the past? Social semioticists would
contend that representations and communications
are always ‘interested’ rather than ‘objective’. In
fact, Jewitt and Kress argue that the elevated
109
position of objectivity is, in fact, unattainable.
Therefore, there can be no bias, as no norm exists.
Around and beyond this thought lies the need for a
radical rethinking of learning as a multimodal
process and a re-analysis of the accreditation
principle as it stands in relation to teachers as
activist professionals. The use of VLEs might be one
multimodal pressure which helps to transform the
way in which teachers are educated and promote
further the idea of self-regulated learning for
teachers.
Thanks to Rupert Wegerif, Southampton University
and Russell Francis, Oxford University Department
of Educational Studies, who commented on early
drafts.
REFERENCES
Aspden, L. and Pountney, L. (2002). Community and
constructivism: implicit pedagogical models in virtual
learning. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-
Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and
Higher Education 2002 Norfolk, VA/ACCE.
Barnett, R. (1997). Critical Professionalism. Higher
Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: Open
University Press, Chapter 10, 132-144.
Brown, A. and Dowling, A. (1998). Doing
Research/Reading Research, A Mode of Interrogation
for Education. London: Falmer Press.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S. et al. (1989). Cognitive
apprenticeship : teaching the crafts of reading, writing
and mathmatics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing,
Learning and Instruction: Essays In Honor of Robert
Glaser. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum., 453-491.
Department for Education and Skills (2003). Towards a
Unified e-learning strategy: consultation document.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/elearningstrategy/strategy.stm
Earle, A. (2004). An evaluation of an Advanced Diploma
Module, 'Reflecting on professional practices: an e-
journal approach' for the Institute of Education,
University of London. London, Collaboranda.
Earle, A. (2004). Reflecting on Professional E-learning
Practices: an e-journal approach. Collaboranda.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational
Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism Reborn: Theory,
Prophecy and Policy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gee, J. P. (2005 ). Why Video Games are Good for your
Soul. Australia, Common Ground.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can
matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. et al. (1996). Cognition and
Learning. In D. Berliner and R. Calfee (eds.).
Handbook of educational psychology. New York:
MacMillan, 15-46.
110
Hargreaves, A. and Goodson, I. (1996). Teachers'
professional lives: aspirations and activities. In I.
Goodson and A. Hargreaves (Eds.). Teachers'
Professional Lives. London: Falmer Press, 1-27.
Hodge, R. and Kress, G. (1988). Social Semiotics.
Padstow, Cornwall: Polity Press.
Holmes, B., Tangney, B. et al. (2001). Communal
Constructivism: Students' constructing learning for as
well as with others. 12th International Conference of
the Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education (SITE 2001), Charlottesville, VA, USA,
Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.
Hopkins, D. (2001). A Teacher's Guide to Classroom
Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hopkins, D. (2002). Keynote. Teachers on Teaching and
Learning, GTC/IOE Joint Conference, London.
Hudson, B. (2002). Holding complexity and searching for
meaning: teaching as reflective practice. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 34 (1), 43-57.
James, P. (1996). The transforming power of story-telling
among peers: an exploration from action research.
Educational Action Research, 4 (2), 197-220.
Jewitt, C. (2003). A multimodal framework for computer
mediated learning: the reshaping of curriculum
knowledge and learning. Culture, Language and
Communication. London, Institute of Education,
University of London.
Jewitt, C. and Kress, G. (2003). Multimodal Literacy.
New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London:
Routledge.
Kress, G. (2004). Learning, a semiotic view in the context
of digital technologies. In N. Davis and A. Brown
(eds.). Digital Technology. Communities and
Education. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
Kress, G. (2005). A fond farewell to language as we know
(knew) it: some navigation marks for contemporary
communication. CAL'05 Virtual Learning? University
of Bristol, UK.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images:
The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. and Tsatsarelis, C.
(2001). Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The
Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London:
Continuum.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal
Discourse: The modes and media of contemporary
communication. Arnold: Hodder Headline Group.
Lamb, T. and Simpson, M. (2003). Escaping from the
treadmill: practitioner research and professional
autonomy. Language Learning Journal, 28, 55-63.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching : a
framework for the effective use of learning
technologies. London: Routledge Palmer.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Learning in
Doing: Social, cognitive and computational.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1999). Learning and Pedagogy
in Communities of Practice in Learners and
Pedagogy. Open University.
Lawes, S. (2003). What, when, how, why? Theory and
foreign language teaching. Language Learning
Journal, 28, 22-28.
Leask, M., Ramos, J. et al. (2001). Communal
Constructivist Theory: ICT Pedagogy & Technology Effectively in Teaching and Learning.
Internationalisation of the Curriculum.
Livingstone, L. and Parry, L. (2005). International Arts
and Crafts. London: V&A Publications.
Morris, W. (1899). Arts and Crafts. Essays. London.
Nardi, B. and Engestrom, Y. (1999). A Web on the Wind:
The Structure of Invisible Work,
http://www.best.com/~nardi/InvisibleW.htm.
OECD (2001). Knowledge and Skills for Life: First
Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development.
Pachler, N. (2005). Reflecting Education Institute of
Education. London: University of London.
Preston, C. (1995). Best Defence. The Times Higher
Education Supplement: xii.
Preston, C. (1998). Is Teaching Less of a Job? Let's Make
it a Profession Again. The Independent. London.
Preston, C. (2002a). Braided Learning: teachers learning
with and for each other. National Interactive Media
Association: Learning Together. Tokyo, Japan: NIME.
Preston, C. (2002b). Identity in the age of the Internet:
Web based Community Publications. IFIP Conference,
Manchester.
Preston, C. (2004). Learning to use ICT in Classrooms:
teachers' and trainers' perspectives : an evaluation of
the English NOF ICT teacher training programme
1999-2003. London: MirandaNet and the Teacher
Training Agency www.mirandanet.ac.uk/nof.
Preston, C., Cox, M. et al. (2000). Teachers as
Innovators: an Evaluation of the Motivation of
Teachers to use ICT. London: MirandaNet.
Preston, C., Mannova, B. et al. (2000). Collaboration
through Technology Now and in the Future: Linking
New Europe with the World. Culture and Technology
in the New Europe: Civic Discourse in Transition in
Post-Socialist Nations. D. L. Lengel. USA, Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Preston, C., Wegerif, R. et al. (2005). MirandaNet: An E-
community of Practice. 8th IFIP World Conference on
Computers in Education. Stellenbosch, South Africa:
IFIT.
Sachs, J. (2003). The Activist Teaching Profession.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Sassure, F. (1974). Course in General Linguistics.
London: Fontana.
Saunders, L. (2002). Evidence-led professional creativity.
GTC/IOE Joint Conference, Teachers on Teaching
and Learning, London.
Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1996). Schools as
knowledge building organisations. In D. Keating and
C. Hartman (eds.). Today's Children, Tomorrow's
Society: The Developmental Health and Wealth of
Nations. New York: Guildford.
Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic
Books.
Somekh, B., Mavers, D. and Restorick, M. (2002).
Impact2. Coventry: DFES.
Somekh, B. and Davis, N. (1998). Using Information
London: Routledge.
Steffens, K. (2005). Technology Enhanced Narrative
Learning Environments: a pedagogical perspective.
Kaleidoscope : Guide for the implementation of
Narrative Learning Environments Version 1.0 ( Sept
22).
Stevenson, D. (1996). Information and Communications
Technology in UK Schools, Independent Inquiry
Pearson Group.
Stuckey, B. (2005). Growing an on-line community of
practice: Community development to support in-
service teachers in their adoption of innovation.
Doctoral Thesis (in Press). Research Centre for
Interactive Learning Environments, University of
Wollongong, Australia.
Sutherland, R., et al. (2004). Designs for learning: ICT
and knowledge in the classroom. Computers &
Education 43 (1-2), 5-16.
Telepeers consortium. (2005). Self regulated learning in
technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Draft
for discussion, EDU-ELEARN - European
Commission.
Thomas, D. (1995). Teachers' Stories. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Wegerif, R. (2004). The role of educational software as a
support for teaching and learning conversations.
Computer & Education, 43 (1-2), 179-191.
Wenger, E, McDermott, R. et al. (2002). Cultivating
Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing
Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wenger, R. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning,
Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Whitty, G. (2002). Re-forming Teacher Professionalism
for New Times. Making Sense of Education Policy.
London: Paul Chapman, 64-78.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Christina Preston is the Founder and Chair of the
International MirandaNet Fellowship, which spans
national, social, cultural, commercial and political
divides. This 'community of practice' was
established in 1992 in response to a need expressed
amongst teachers for a supportive community of
peers who would mentor each other in the
investigation of the potential of new media in
teaching and learning. Education researchers,
teachers, teachers’ educators, policy makers and
111
company partners are equal members of this
professional organisation which aims to support
other builders of web based communities as well as
involve teachers as researchers in shared reflection
on practice. Recent projects have focused on:
evaluating the UK national ICT training programme
for teachers and the European Computer Driving
licence; innovative models for ICT Continuing
Professional Development; investigating the roles of
supply teachers, and the building of international
web-based communities of practice. Another
112
MirandaNet focus has been the use of Interactive
Whiteboards in constructive or transformational
learning and the sharing of practice-based research
case studies between the UK, South Africa, Mexico
and China. Research is based at the MirandaNet
International Research Centre at Southampton
University and continuing professional development
programmes are hosted by the MirandaNet
Academy at Bath Spa University.
(www.mirandanet.ac.uk)
 ONLINE LEARNING GROUPS AS SELF-REGULATED ENTITIES

Stephen Frank
Department of Media Education and Further Education, University of
Leipzig
Emil-Fuchs-Str. 1, 04105 Leipzig, Germany
E-mail: s.frank@uni-leipzig.de

Anke Dommaschk
Department of Media Education and Further Education, University of
Leipzig
Emil-Fuchs-Str. 1, 04105 Leipzig, Germany
E-mail: domma@uni-leipzig.de

©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS made by the group, the tutors have to realize them

Action regulation theory, constructivist learning
theory, educational model, self-regulated learning,
social learning.
ABSTRACT
The concept of ‘self-regulated learning’ (SRL)
usually refers to individual learners. In this paper the
idea of SRL is extended to the perspective of learning
groups. The discussion is based upon the experience
of the ‘Leipziger Online-Seminar’ – a students’
online project of the Department of Media Education
and Further Education at the University of Leipzig.
The Department of Media Education and Further
Education has been interested in online learning
groups as self-regulated entities in tele-learning
arrangements since 1999. For this purpose, ILIAS has
been used since 2002.
individually. In order to keep the group capable of
acting, each member of the tutor group has to have a
high social competence. On the one hand, different
opinions must be discussed, compromises as well as
solutions have to be found, and on the other hand, all
decisions made have to be accepted and realized by
the individual. The tutor group is coached by
university lecturers, who stimulate and guide the
reflection on the group processes and their outcomes.
An essential tool is ILIAS, which supports the
communication between the members of the group as
well as the process of finding solutions and tracing
results. The online course is also planned, designed
and realized on the ILIAS platform.
This article demonstrates that processes in online
learning groups can be described with an SRL
process model, and concentrates, further, on the
social component of self-regulated learning.

In the ‘Leipziger Online-Seminar’, student groups are INTRODUCTION

trained as online tutors within a period of three terms.
During that period, they take on more responsibilities
and act with more independence. In the first term, the
students take part in an online course. Next, they plan
and design in a tutor group their own online course,
which is realized in the third term. In this period the
tutor group is seen as an SRL entity.
Although decisions in the process of planning,
executing and monitoring as well as evaluating are
Learning almost always happens in social contexts.
Almost all learning processes are imparted socially –
be it by a teacher or by cultural artefacts.
Additionally, new knowledge is often acquired in
group situations. The focus here is not the learning
process of the individual, but the (re-)construction
and assessment of it within the group process. This is
especially true for Social Sciences and Humanities,
where interpersonal discourse forms of learning are a

113
long and elaborate tradition. Nevertheless, most
theories that deal with learning focus on the
individual. Within these theories, we can distinguish
between ones that examine the course of a learning
episode as action, and ones that try to explain the
build up of knowledge and skills in the individual.
The theory of self-regulated learning belongs to the
first group. The Constructivist Learning Theory
belongs to the second. The Action Regulation Theory
brings together both perspectives on the cognitive
level: learning as a process and the learning itself. But
in order to be able to describe learning in a
comprehensive way, in addition to the cognitive
aspects, emotional, motivational and social aspects
also have to be taken into account. In this way, we
can describe learning within social contexts, as in the
“Leipzig Online Seminar” of the Department of
Media Education and Further Education at the
University of Leipzig.
SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN GROUPS
Self-regulated learning and the constructivist
paradigm
In the Constructivist Learning Theory, learning is
understood as a construction process of mental
activities and their internal representations.
Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl (1999) write, that
knowledge is not a copy of reality, but a construction
by humans, and that knowledge is neither an external
object which can be transported from teacher to
learner, nor is it a true internal representation of a
particular subject. This means that learners interpret
their perceptions on the basis of previous knowledge
and construct new knowledge as a result. From this
Gerstenmeier and Mandl (1995) conclude, that in
order to evade the problem of inert knowledge,
learners should not see themselves as passive
recipients of knowledge but as active, self-controlled
learners. They should be increasingly able to plan,
organise, carry out and evaluate their learning by
themselves. You can find this in the instructional
models of the Constructivist Approaches (Anchored
Instruction, Cognitive Flexibility Approach,
Cognitive Apprenticeship Approach). Characteristics
of these instructional models are described by
Gerstenmeier and Mandl (1995) as:
• authenticity and situatedness
• multiple contexts and multiple perspectives
• social context
114
In order to describe self-regulated learning, we can
use component models as well as process models.
The notion of self-regulated learning, in the way in
which it is the basis for the Telepeers project
(Telepeers consortium, 2005), tries to combine these
two aspects. Following Zimmermann (2000), the
learning process – the ideal course of a learning
episode – is divided into three stages: (1) the planning
of the learning action, (2) executing and monitoring
the learning activity, and (3) the evaluation of the
outcome. Permanent feedback on the learning process
takes place by the ongoing monitoring and the final
control. In addition to this control circuit model, it is
emphasised that different components play a role in
learning. The component model distinguishes four
components: (1) cognitive, (2) emotional, (3)
motivational and (4) social aspects.
Self-regulated learning and the Action Regulation
Theory
The cognitive part of the learning process – the
course of a ’learning episode’ – is explained in more
detail by Hacker (1978) in his Action Regulation
Theory. This theory derives from occupational
psychology and was originally designed for
conveying motor work sequences in industry. Its
description of cognitive action regulation in the
learning process suggests its application to general
learning processes. Hacker understands human acting
as a foresighted, target-oriented action on the basis of
internal representation.
When planning an action, a target is fixed, from
which sub-goals can be derived, and from this
subordinated targets can then also be derived. In this
way, a hierarchical order of targets is generated and
the targets can be dealt with in sequence. In this
context, the Action Regulation Theory talks of
hierarchical-sequential organisation in the regulation
of an action. Each of these steps of dealing with the
individual targets represents a complete cyclic action.
As in the process model of self-regulated learning,
these steps consist of a planning, execution and a
control stage. Therefore, permanent controls take
place even on the lowest target levels. In this way, the
action is permanently monitored, and the planning
can be corrected if necessary, even on the higher
levels. It is quite possible to obtain advances in the
different target levels at differing velocities.
This analysis of building a hierarchical order of
targets is called action regulation in the Action
Regulation Theory. It is only possible to build target
orders if ideas of the action are present, or if they can
be developed. The totality of these ideas of what has
to be done is called operative cognitive task
representation in the Action Regulation Theory and
comprises, besides the targets, also the necessary
actions to reach the targets and the execution
conditions. The generation of an operative cognitive
task representation and the generation of an action
regulation are called learning (Duscheleit, 1983).
For the educational support of cognitive learning
processes, we can derive that the learning target is
first divided into sub-goals in order to stimulate the
generation of an Operative Cognitive Task
Representation. In this way, the combining of
individual, already practiced action steps into new,
bigger action sequences will be facilitated for the
learner. In these processes, reflection plays an
important role, so that the learner is enabled to
increasingly regulate his actions independently.
Self-regulated learning and learning in groups
The Action Regulation Theory concentrates on the
cognitive process of learning. The remaining aspects
of the component model are not considered. But in
this context, self-regulation does not mean only the
freedom to decide what, when, where and how one
wants to learn. It also places additional requirements
on the learner: The learner himself is responsible for
all stages of the learning process. He does not only
have to possess the cognitive capacities to plan his
learning process independently, i.e. to generate
sensible sub-goals and operative cognitive task
representations, he must also continually motivate
himself, be emotionally available to the subject matter
and the different forms of delivery, and finally,
navigate a successful social integration as learning
almost always occurs within a social context.
If the learner is left to himself, frustration can easily
arise. In order to sufficiently support the motivational,
emotional and social aspects of learning, a
comprehensive educational model is needed (cf.
Brüggen in this volume), which also takes into
account the co-learners. Many fields – especially in
Humanities – can best be made accessible within
discourse. Therefore, learning groups also have an
essential function in the cognitive treatment process.
Here, it is of crucial importance that the focus is not
only the acquisition of pure facts, but also dealing
with different opinions and generating an individual
point of view.
Negotiating meanings in discourse and finding
solution strategies together will have positive
influence on the motivation of the group. Through
common events and experiences a sense of group and
community emerges, which again strengthens the
identification with the group and the subject material.
Also, competition amongst the group and mutual help
create bonds. Within this, emotions play a crucial
role, which are to a degree also socially determined.
Within this context, learning groups must be seen as
self-regulated entities. They execute the learning
processes in the sense of the Action Regulation
Theory as cyclic complete actions: they plan, act and
control the process. In this sense, the group as a
whole is responsible for the success of their learning
activities. The individual does not decide by himself,
but has to co-ordinate and deal with the other group
members in all learning stages. On the one hand
compromises must be found, opinions have to be
forwarded and solutions found in discourse, and on
the other hand, decisions that have been taken must
also be supported and put into practice by all group
members. In this way, the group can remain capable
of action in all stages of self-regulated learning
processes. The social skills of the group members are
an essential contribution to the success of the learning
activities. The social climate within the group has a
high level of influence on the emotions and the
motivation of the group members. In short, the
outcomes of the learning activities of self-regulated
groups are only as good as the degree to which each
individual integrates into the group and acts within it.
Even though the group is the entity of self-regulation,
the individual group member actively takes part in the
process: He will be involved in the construction of
the group opinion and group organisation. In this
way, the individual group member will acquire and
further develop social and communicative
competencies. Moreover, within the group, a bond is
generated, a group sense, which bears a higher level
of motivation.
TUTOR TRAINING IN THE “LEIPZIG
ONLINE-SEMINAR”
115
The Department for Media Education and Further
Education at the University of Leipzig has been
testing the implementation of self-regulated learning
as a group process in a TELE since 1999. The
‘Leipzig Online Seminar’, an online seminar on the
subject of media literacy, is combined with a tutor
training for e-learning within a master plan. Students
from media studies and educational careers from
different institutions for higher education within
central Germany take part. In a curriculum of three
terms (cf. Figure 1) with a consistent didactic
concept, the students, together with the teachers, deal
in practice and in theory with new media. Herein, the
students increasingly take on responsibility and act
independently.
online course tutor training
execution &
1st term participation evaluation 3rd term
planning & 2nd term
designing
execution &
1st term participation
evaluation 3rd term
Figure1: The three term training of the
‚Leipziger Online-Seminar
Each year around fifty students on average take part
in the online seminar; the subsequent tutor training
usually takes place with eight to ten students. Since
2002 the educational platform ILIAS has been used
as a tool throughout the whole cycle. The online
seminar takes place on the platform, and participants
use it as communication tool for their group tasks and
for the communication with their tutors. In the tutor
training, the tutor group works with the educational
platform as author and uses the integrated author tool.
The platform also serves as a documentation and
communication tool. In this way, students get to
know the possibilities and limits of the platform from
both perspectives – from the point of view of the
learner and from the point of view of the teacher.
The Online Seminar
At the beginning of the training cycle, an online
seminar is organised, in which participants deal in
116
theory and in practice with the notion of “media
literacy”, which is crucial to media education. The
seminar consists of two online stages, which are each
concluded with a two-day attendance meeting. In the
first online stage, participants deal in groups with
different topical media, educational concepts of
media literacy, elaborate the basis and results of
recent research on the promotion of media literacy in
young people and adults through literature, and get to
know methods for conveying media literacy. The
different lectures are made available to the students
weekly. In the first stage of the seminar, the students
learn and apply the working methods of self-
regulated learning in an online seminar, e.g.
discussing an issue in online forums, planning and
organising group work online and presenting
common work results. The first attendance meeting
takes place at the end of this theory stage. It serves
the consolidation and deepening of the basics that
have been elaborated up to this point and the
homogenisation of the knowledge level of the
participants, as well as the presentation and
discussion of the group results that have been
achieved online. Moreover, this attendance meeting
leads to the second phase of the seminar which is
more practice-oriented.
In the second online phase students apply their
theoretical knowledge to concepts for media
educational projects for the promotion of media
literacy. Students develop scripts. These project
conceptions are presented at the end of the seminar in
the second attendance meeting to the other work
groups. They are discussed and tested in play. This
final meeting is also used for a qualitative evaluation
of the seminar.
In the first part of the online seminar, participants are
lead by student tutors, in order to familiarise them
with the way of working in the seminar. Each week, a
new lesson is enabled, in which a linear navigation
clearly indicates the way for learning and the sub-
goals that are to be reached. There are concrete tasks
and instructions, and the tutors approach participants
actively. In this phase they acquire as a byproduct, the
competencies in planning and execution of common
work on the Internet. The tutors stimulate reflection
of the group work. With the increasing confidence of
the participants, the tutors give less and less advice on
the ways of working and promote self-regulation
within the groups.
In the second online phase learning groups elaborate,
largely through self-regulation, a script for a media
educational project. Tutors set up sub-goals, provide
advice and stimulate evaluation of the script drafts.
On the second attendance meeting, the group presents
its project to the whole seminar, and in doing so the
results are evaluated under authentic conditions.
In the course of this term, students learn how to deal
with problems in online communities in an
increasingly independent way. They acquire the tools
for the following two terms of tutor training in which
they apply their knowledge to a real project, a new
online seminar.
The tutor training
The tutor training, with a focus on conception and
production of an online seminar, starts in the
following summer term. Interested students from the
previous online seminar form a tutor group and
prepare the next seminar, execute it the following
winter term and present it to the new participants. In
changing from the perspective of participants to the
perspective of provider, their own experiences as
learners are dealt with again, reflected and applied to
a new seminar. Herein, the group as a whole acts as a
self-regulated entity. The decisions in the processes
of planning and acting are negotiated in the tutor
group and afterwards they are applied by the
individual. An essential part of the group work is
reflection on group processes and group results. This
serves the ongoing assessment of the whole project
and its sub-processes.
In the planning phase, the tutor group elaborates in
discourse the hierarchical sequential organisation of
the development process as well as of the
implementation of a new online seminar. It sets itself
goals, devises acting strategies and monitors the
execution phase. The most important tool for the
group is the platform ILIAS; it supports the
communication between the group members, decision
processes are documented in an understandable way,
and last but not least the new seminar is planned,
produced and finally realized on the platform.
The third term of this cycle is the execution of the
seminar which has been drafted by the tutor group, as
well as the control of the planning of the seminar.
Flaws in the conception have tangible consequences
under the authentic conditions of the every-day
academic life with real students. This ‘pressure of
reality’ is a huge motivation for the tutors.
In all its activities, the tutor group is guided and
attended by two members of the Department of Media
Education and Further Education. At the beginning of
the development, teachers do not only prefix the
framework within which the seminar will take place,
but also stimulate regulatory processes and moderate
the discourse in the group. In the course of the work,
the group identifies itself increasingly with the
product of their work and acts more and more
independently. In the execution in the winter term the
tutor group as a whole, but also every individual
tutor, feels responsible for the positive outcome of the
seminar.
Conclusion
Thus, in the course of their three term training,
students first deal with the notion of media literacy
and experiment with new forms of teaching and
learning as participants of the online seminar.
Subsequently, they apply their experiences to a new
seminar and change from the side of the participant to
the side of the provider in further developing and
creating the seminar as tutors.
The group is the authority of self-regulation in the
tutor training, but the individual contributes actively
to the learning process and is highly involved. It
cannot be suggested that the skills for self-regulation
and group work are already fully developed. This is
why the tutor training is integrated into the process, in
which students are lead from guided learning to
increasing independence. They do not only learn how
to draft, produce and create an e-learning course, but
also the necessary acting strategies for such a project
and respectively enlarge their social competence.
REFERENCES
Duscheleit, S. (1983). Arbeitspädagogische Maßnahmen
auf der Grundlage der psychologischen
Handlungstheorie. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und
Wirtschaftspädagogik, 79, 163-173.
Gerstenmaier, J. and Mandl, H. (1995). Wissenserwerb
unter konstruktivistischer Perspektive. Zeitschrift für
Pädagogik, 6, 867-887.
Hacker, W. (1978). Allgemeine Arbeits- und Ingenieur-
psychologie. Huber: Bern.
Reinmann-Rothmeier, G. and Mandl, H. (1999). Unter-
richten und Lernumgebungen gestalten. Forschungsbe-
117
 richt Nr. 60. Institut für pädagogische Psychologie und
Empirische Pädagogik, LMU München.
TELEPEERS consortium. (2005). Self-regulated Learning
in Technology Enhanced Learning Environment, Draft,
Version 1.0 (May 31, 2005).
Zimmermann, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a
social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts; P.
Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-
regulation. New York: Academic Press, 13-39.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
ANKE DOMMASCHK was born in
Herzberg/Elster, Germany. She studied at the
University of Leipzig and University of Groningen
(Netherlands) and graduated as M.A. in
communication and media studies and American
studies. Since 2002, she has been working as a
researcher and lecturer at the Centre for Media and
Communication and at the Department of Media
118
Education and Further Education of the University of
Leipzig. Since then, she has been involved in
different e-learning projects and has been coaching
the tutor groups of the ‘Leipziger Online-Seminar’.
STEPHEN FRANK was born in Kiel, Germany.
After graduating with a Diploma in Pedagogics at the
Technical University of Braunschweig, he worked at
the ‘Centre for Man-Machine-Interaction’ at the
Technical University of Kaiserslautern. From 2002,
he has worked at the ‘Bildungsportal Sachsen’. Until
2005, he has advised and supported high school
teachers in several e-learning projects and has been
coaching the tutor groups of the ‘Leipziger Online-
Seminar’. He also lectures Didactics of tele-learning
at the Universities of Leipzig and Braunschweig and
works toward his doctorate at the University Leipzig.
 THE USE OF ILIAS IN STUDENT PROJECTS TO FOSTER
SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

Niels Brüggen
Department of Media Education and Further Education
University of Leipzig
Emil-Fuchs-Str. 1, 04105 Leipzig, Germany

E-mail: brueggen@uni-leipzig

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS INTRODUCTION

ILIAS, open source learning management system,
self-regulated learning
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses how the Open Source Learning
Management System ILIAS can be used to foster
self-regulated learning experiences in student
projects. On the basis of the deeper understanding of
self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced
learning environments and the evaluation results of
ILIAS provided by the telepeers project the article
seeks to give insight into ILIAS in practice. It is
suggested in this article that educational models be
described and further developed on the basis of the
telepeers project, in order to initiate a veritable
improvement of teaching/learning processes at
universities. The importance of these educational
models for improvement will be exemplified by two
case studies from teaching at the Department of
Media Education and Further Education at the
University of Leipzig. Key aspects of the article are
the great importance that is ascribed to the social
integration of self-regulated learning processes and
criteria for designing learning environments allowing
a detailed analysis and description of educational
models.
Experts agree that strengthening self-regulated
learning at universities would improve the quality of
university education. However, teaching situations at
universities are still often such that students are
forced into a largely passive role. The lecture
provides a good example for this. In university
education the active role of learners, which proven
learning theories have shown is a necessary part of
the learning process, is insufficiently taken into
consideration. Adherents of this perspective observed
the introduction of multimedia and the internet with
anticipation, hoping that the use of such technologies
would make possible a stronger individual integration
of students into the learning process. However,
current statistics suggest that the hope for this
fulfilment must be viewed with scepticism: The
majority of instructors at German universities seem to
think that the use of such technologies is limited to
providing lecture scripts online. (Kleimann et al.,
2005)
In light of this situation, the telepeers project provides
an essential contribution to fostering a deeper
understanding of self-regulated learning in
technology-enhanced learning environments and to
creating evaluation standards for various
technological applications. It is suggested in this
article that educational models be described and
further developed on this basis, in order to initiate a
veritable improvement of teaching/learning processes
at universities. The importance of these educational

119
models for improvement will be exemplified by two
case studies. In both projects, applied in teaching at
the Department of Media Education and Further
Education at the University of Leipzig, the learning
platform ILIAS is used and great importance is
ascribed to self-regulated learning and social
integration into the learning process. Regarding this,
an important basic idea is that self-regulated learning
is not a model with which only individual learning
processes can be observed but that these learning
processes can be observed embedded in a social
context with peers. This emphasizes the social aspects
of the component model of self-regulated learning, on
which the telepeers project is based (TELEPEERS
consortium. 2005). Thus, this article intends to
explore the following question: How can self-
regulated learning in student learning projects be
fostered by the use of the technology-enhanced
learning environment ILIAS?
THE TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING-
ENVIRONMENT ILIAS
The learning platform ILIAS - An Integrated
System for Learning, Information Seeking and
Cooperative Working (Integriertes Lern-,
Informations- und Arbeitskooperationssystem) was
developed at the University of Cologne and is
available as a multilingual open source application.
Factors that contribute to the strength of the
TELE
• The TELE allows for feedback by peers and
tutors
• Communication with peers and students is well
facilitated
• There are a number of feedback mechanisms that
help students to monitor their learning
• The TELE supports collaborative learning and
working
• The TELE is open source and therefore free of
charge
Factors that represent weaknesses of the TELE
• Navigation takes some time to get accustomed to
• Motivational and emotional factors are not
explicitly taken into consideration
Table 1: The telepeers Evaluation of ILIAS
(quoted from:
http://www.lmi.ub.es/taconet/casestudies/13.pdf )
120
ILIAS was one of the learning environments analysed
in the project “TELEPEERS – Self-regulated
Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning
Environments at University Level: A Peer Review”.
Methods and results of the applied procedure have
been described in the project documentation, and
therefore only the basic results will be discussed in
the present article (see Table 1).
It is evident that factors contributing to the strength of
ILIAS can be found in the communication between
the participants involved in the teaching/learning
process (students, tutors, instructors). An evaluation,
therefore, suggests that this TELE is especially
suitable for projects in which collaborative learning is
to be fostered.
As a weakness of ILIAS, the unusual navigation is
mentioned, addressing usability problems.
Furthermore, it is stated that motivational and
emotional aspects are not explicitly taken into
consideration. This finding is significant with respect
to the component model, on which the evaluation of
the telepeers project is based. The four components of
self-regulated learning are considered to be “(1)
cognitive, (2) emotional, (3) motivational and (4)
social aspect[s]” (TELEPEERS consortium, 2005). If
two of these components are not supported, this
assessment at least questions the usefulness of this
TELE for fostering processes of self-regulated
learning.
The factors identified as weaknesses of ILIAS in the
evaluation need to be analysed especially closely in
practice. Such an analysis will be conducted in the
following paragraphs, using examples from teaching
at the Department of Media Education and Further
Education at the University of Leipzig.
ILIAS IN PRACTICE
Since 2000, ILIAS has been used at the Department
of Media Education and Further Education at the
University of Leipzig in order to explore new ways of
cooperative learning in networks and thus to improve
teaching. Based upon the experience accumulated in
the years since, we would like to suggest how the
weaknesses of ILIAS could be addressed in practice.
Revising the design of the ILIAS user interface
The practical use of the navigation confirmed that it
constitutes a weak spot of ILIAS.
In the years 2000-2004, ILIAS was provided at our
department as a central learning platform for all
Saxon universities within the Saxony-wide project
„Bildungsportal Sachsen“ (learning portal of
Saxony). In these years, the platform was evaluated
Figure 1: ILIAS personal desktop (standard design, left),
and further developed. Findings of this evaluation
included the fact that users experienced the operating
desktop as confusing. This corresponds to the
findings in the telepeers project, even though a more
current version of ILIAS was evaluated. A brief
overview of the redesigned interface is provided by
means of the two screenshots below (figure 1).
A central element of redesigning the desktop
consisted of transforming the navigational structure
of ILIAS into an index card register. This was
welcomed by the users and allows for an enhanced
use of the platform.
Motivation and emotion in ILIAS
The fact that motivational and emotional aspects are
not explicitly supported by the ILIAS learning
environment was considered to be a weakness by
participants of the telepeers project with respect to the
component model of self-regulated learning. Since
these aspects constitute an integral part of the
learning process, it is important that they be included
in (non-technological) learning environments. In
order to be able to assess these aspects in the practical
work of the Department of Media Education and
Further Education at the University of Leipzig, the
educational context or, respectively, the educational
model of two projects, in which ILIAS was used, will
be outlined below.
The Leipzig online course in media literacy
Brief description:
In the „Leipzig online course“, new methods for
(redesigned ILIAS, right)
cooperative learning in networks have been
developed, tested‚ and further developed since 1999.
The concept of the course is such that it links the
topic „media literacy“ for students of communication
and media studies as well as education studies to a
training course for e-learning tutors in an online offer
of educational opportunities, provided in a period of
three phases which are concurrently based.
Students of several German universities deal with
theoretical and practical aspects of media literacy, a
key concept in media education. The participants of
the online course undergo online learning using
ILIAS (phase 1). Interested students can then switch
from being participants to being providers by
evaluating and further developing the course as
authors (phase 2) and subsequently accompanying the
project as tutors (phase 3). Doing this, they reflect on
their experience as participants and offer it as a guide
for the new course. The tutors are accompanied and
guided by two employees from the Department of
Media Education and Further Education at the
University of Leipzig.
Central ideas of the course concept are the continuing
evaluation and further development of the course, a
blended learning scenario, working in groups,
121
accompanying learners through student tutors and
leading learners to self-regulated learning and a
literate use of the new media.
ILIAS as part of the Leipzig online course
The learning platform ILIAS is used in all three
phases of the project. In phase 1 of the course, HTML
pages programmed in ILIAS, audio files, and video
streams are provided as a learning module. These
materials are didactically prepared including
individual and group exercises and can be used in
chronological sequences. Regarding the
communication in groups, the e-mail system in ILIAS
and discussion forums can be used.
In phase 2, materials can be found on the ILIAS
platform, providing information on the educational
preparation of online courses, which can be
downloaded if needed. When developing courses,
students work with the author tool provided in ILIAS.
When accompanying the course as tutors, the students
enable the prepared materials sequentially throughout
the course. In order to communicate with participants,
they use the e-mail system in ILIAS and discussion
forums.
SRL within the Leipzig online course
The Leipzig online course comprises project phases
with varying degrees of guidance, based upon the
basic idea that students need to be led to self-
regulated learning. Thus, they first acquire skills
during the first phase in order to be able to work in a
self-regulated fashion.
SRL process model in the Leipzig online course
Guided Learning
Phase 1: Participant activity
(Learning SRL)
Evaluation and
Phase 2: Author
Planning
Execution of SR
Phase 3: Tutor Learning activity
Table 1: SRL in the Leipzig online course
Guided learning activities for the participants in the
online learning course thus serve as a preparation for
entering the process of self-regulated learning. In the
subsequent phase, learners take on the role of authors
and reflect together upon their online learning
122
experience (evaluation) in order to implement their
experience in planning the new course. They will
then be confronted with the outcomes of their
planning as tutors in the execution (2) of the course
they planned.
With respect to the SRL component model, the
principle of group work is considered to be very
important. In all phases of the project, students work
intensively with other students. In the course phase,
they work as participants with other participants.
They are asked to discuss topics online and to
develop a project concept together. Thus in observing
collaborative learning, processes of self-regulation
can also be identified in groups. Participants are
supported by student tutors, who comment on their
work and provide help for the continuation of the
work. When working as authors or tutors, the
students also collaborate predominantly in groups and
must apply skills, gained before as participants, to
reach agreements in the group.
The social integration of the learning process, and the
described effects, exert a significant influence on the
motivation and the emotional involvement of the
students in the learning process of the Leipzig online
course. This is confirmed by results obtained in the
continual evaluation of the Leipzig online course,
showing that
• It is a significant motivational factor for
students to be guided by other students,
• It motivates the authors to carry out the
project themselves and to be given scope for
implementation by the university, and
• The responsibility to guide peer students
through the course motivates the tutors for
managing the enormous tuition workload.
This learning concept has been implemented
successfully since 1999. Since then, students have
continually passed through the three phases of the
Leipzig online course and were, with each new
course, able to improve the project.
The “Werkstatt Lernmedien” (Workshop
Educational Media)
Brief description
As a consequence of the adoption of Bachelor and
Master programmes at the University of Leipzig, not
enough time will be designated in future curricula to
carry out the Leipzig online course with the three
phases described above. Therefore, a new course
concept had to be developed for future study
programmes with the goal to convey media
education-related content in a project course,
including the proven elements of self-regulated and
social learning. However, only one term will be
devoted to this project according to the new
curriculum.
Based upon the experience from the Leipzig online
course, the second phase of the course has been found
to be especially worthy of maintaining. This is the
phase in which students were able to plan and
implement their own online course, based upon their
individual online learning experience.
As opposed to the Leipzig online course, students
participating in the Workshop Educational Media
were to conceptualise and implement only a six-week
education, significantly reducing the workload
compared to the 15-week Leipzig online course.
ILIAS as part of the Workshop Educational Media:
In the Workshop Educational Media, ILIAS is used
similarly to the second phase of the Leipzig online
course. Students can use similar materials providing
information on the didactical conceptualisation of
online courses, which can be downloaded if needed.
The development of the courses also involves work
with the author tool provided in ILIAS.
SRL as part of the Workshop Educational Media The
planning and developing of an online course should,
similar to the Leipzig online course, be implemented
as a learning process with a high degree of self-
regulation. It has been found in the test phase in the
winter term of 2004/2005 and the summer term of
2005, however, that guidance for the work groups
needed to be carried out much more intensively by
the accompanying instructors than in the Leipzig
online course. Learners were not able to plan and
implement the group work in a self-regulated fashion.
At the end of both courses the groups had not
finished implementing the online course. As opposed
to the Leipzig online course, the set goals were not
reached in this course. Therefore, the course will be
redesigned before being integrated into the teaching
at the Department of Media Education and Further
Education at the University of Leipzig
Criteria for describing educational models
Learning successes turned out to be very different in
each case even though ILIAS was used in nearly the
same way in the described case studies. We can thus
assume that it is not only the use of the technology-
enhanced learning environment that determines the
success of a course concept. However, even the
educational models of both projects appear to be
similar on the surface. In order to establish the
differences, it is necessary to analyse the projects
according to educational preparation criteria, which
allow us to achieve an understanding of the
educational models. For this, criteria developed out of
a constructivist perspective on learning seem suitable,
in order to be able to grasp the active contribution of
learners in self-regulated learning processes.
Mandl and colleagues (Gerstenmaier and Mandl,
1995; Mandl et al., 1997), presenting this perspective,
summarize three basic requirements for the design of
learning environments:
Authenticity and situatedness: “The learning
environment is to enable learners to deal with realistic
problems and authentic situations and is thus to
provide the framework and application context for the
knowledge to be obtained”. (Mandl et al., 1997).
Regarding self-regulated learning processes, this
criterion appears to be especially important since
realistic problems and action-orientedness are directly
linked to the process model of self-regulated learning
(planning, implementation, evaluation).
Multiple contexts and perspectives: “The learning
environment is to offer multiple contexts to the
learner in order to guarantee that knowledge does not
remain focused on one context but can be flexibly
transferred to other problematic situations.
Furthermore, learners are given the opportunity to
view problems from multiple perspectives. Thus, they
learn to see and process contents depending upon
varying aspects and from different angles. This is to
foster a flexible application of knowledge“. (Mandl et
al., 1997). Especially self-regulated learning
processes require the skill of learners to constantly re-
assess new situations and to adapt the individual
learning process accordingly.
Social context: “Learning environments need to
ascribe importance to the social context. Cooperative
learning and problem-solving in learning groups need
to be promoted as much as shared learning and
working by learners and experts within the
123
framework of embedded problem situations“. (Mandl
et al., 1997). Great importance is also ascribed to
social aspects of the learning process in the telepeers
component model.
According to the criteria briefly introduced above, the
differences between both projects can be established
as follows:
Authenticity and situatedness
Leipzig online course: Learners participating in the
Leipzig online course prepare the next online course
in the author phase, which they will implement
themselves. Thus, they are confronted with a realistic
problem. This leads to high emotional involvement
since learners know that they will execute the online
course themselves and that they must take on
responsibility for the course.
Workshop Educational Media: Learners will not
accompany the online education course themselves,
which leads to a lack of the identification described
above.
Multiple contexts and multiple perspectives
Leipzig online course: Learners have grown to know
the Leipzig online course as participants and were
asked in the author phase to look at their individual
learning experience from a different perspective. It is
absolutely necessary for the conceptualisation of an
online course to be able to adopt the perspective of
learners.
Workshop Educational Media: Learners have not yet
participated in an online education course themselves,
which prevents them from switching perspectives
when conceptualising an online education course
themselves.
Social context
Leipzig online course: Learners have typically grown
to know one another for one term. They have
experienced process dynamics of group work together
with the other participants and accordingly acquired
skills and strategies for group work. In addition,
switching roles to be a tutor provides social prestige
and involves taking on responsibility for a group of
participants when guiding the online course.
Workshop Educational Media: In the Workshop
Educational Media learners do not know each other
124
and have yet to develop the skills necessary for
online-supported group work.
It can be concluded that the utilisation of the
technology-enhanced learning environment ILIAS in
both projects was nearly the same and that the
different successes of the projects can thus be linked
to the difference of the educational models. To
describe such educational models, criteria for
designing learning environments can be used. At the
same time, it is certainly necessary to further develop
these criteria, especially with regard to the
requirements of self-regulated learning.
CONCLUSION
The practical work with the technology-enhanced
learning environment ILIAS confirmed the evaluation
results obtained in the telepeers project on the basis
of the developed tools. The weaknesses of the TELE
ILIAS could be confirmed in the practical
implementation. This means that the educational
model in which a technology-enhanced learning
environment is used can be described as the decisive
criterion for success or failure of learning processes
in technology-enhanced learning environments. A
more detailed analysis and description of educational
models was carried out following the criteria of
‘authenticity and situatedness’, ‘multiple contexts and
multiple perspectives’, and ‘social context’.
A broadening of perspective appears to be necessary.
Even if it is true that the potential of a learning
platform to foster self-regulated learning processes
can be uncovered, in order to use this potential
successfully, adequate educational models are
needed.
REFERENCES
Gerstenmaier, J.; Mandl, H. (1995). Wissenserwerb unter
konstruktivistischer Perspektive. Zeitschrift für
Pädagogik, 6, 867-887.
Kleimann, B.; Willige, J. & Weber, S. (2005). E-Learning
aus Sicht der Studierenden. Ergebnisse einer
repräsentativen Online-Erhebung. In Auf zu neuen
Ufern! E-Learning heute und morgen. Münster:
Waxmann, 167-176.
Mandl, H.; Gruber, H. & Renkl, A. (1997). Situiertes
Lernen in multimedialen Lernumgebungen. In L. J.;
Issing, and P. Klimsa (Eds.). Information und Lernen
mit Multimedia. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags
Union, 166-178.
TELEPEERS consortium. (2005). Self-regulated Learning
in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments Draft,
Version 1.0 (May 31, 2005)
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
NIELS BRÜGGEN was born in Stuttgart, Germany.
He studied at the University of Leipzig (Germany)
and Dublin City University (Ireland) and graduated
with an M.A. in communication and media studies,
computational studies and educational studies. Since
2004, he has been working as a researcher at the
Centre for Media and Communication of the
University of Leipzig and is teaching at the
Department of Media Education and Further
Education. He has contributed various research and
development projects in the areas of media in
learning processes and the evaluation of educational
media. Currently, he is involved in developing a
university network aimed at incorporating online
learning into university-level further education.
125
 COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE,
VIRTUAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND SELF-REGULATED
LEARNING
Giuliana Dettori, Tania Giannetti, Donatella Persico
Institute for Educational Technology
Italian National Research Council
Via de Marini 6
16149, Genova
Italy

E-mail: {dettori|giannetti|persico}@itd.cnr.it

© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS The results of the study do not seem to support the

Self-Regulated Learning, Communities of Practice,
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Virtual
Learning Communities, Interaction Analysis, Case
Study, Role Play, Jigsaw
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we analyze self-regulated learning
(SRL) in computer supported collaborative
environments, which are the natural workspaces of
virtual learning communities and of many
communities of practice. The discussion is based on
the case study of an online course in educational
technology for trainee teachers. The potential of the
learning environment used for this course was first
evaluated with a peer review procedure set up within
the European project TELEPEERS. To integrate this
approach, some quantitative and qualitative
(anecdotical) data was analysed concerning aspects of
the interactions among participants. In particular, this
paper focuses on four indicators that could inform the
analysis of the social component of SRL: the ratio
between student and tutor messages, giving a measure
of student autonomy; the average length of threads
initiated by tutors, indicating participants’ reactivity
to tutors; the average length of threads initiated by
students, namely reactivity to peers; and the
percentage of threads initiated by students, that is
student proactivity.
claim that these SRL aspects were significantly
developed throughout the 10 weeks of the course, but
rather suggested that role-play encouraged the
adoption of SRL techniques more than the other
strategies used in the course.
INTRODUCTION
In this paper, the relationship between Self-Regulated
Learning (SRL) and Communities of Practice (CoPs)
is analysed, based on the authors’ experience in the
field of teacher training. The paper also refers to the
concept of the Virtual Learning Community (VLC),
which is related to the CoP notion in that it shares the
basic socio-constructivist idea of collaboration aimed
at knowledge building and sharing.
According to Wenger (2002) and Bettoni (2005), a
Community of Practice is “a group or a network of
people functioning as an informal organisational
structure […] whose members participate voluntarily,
sharing the interest and passion in a knowledge
domain and […] applying the results in their daily
job”. The notion of CoP can be related to the concept
of SRL, defined by Zimmerman (2000) as the ability
of an individual to actively control his or her own
learning process from three points of view: the meta-
cognitive, the motivational, and the behavioural. If a
group of people gives itself an informal,
organisational structure, then its members are
exerting some form of meta-cognitive control over

126
the social and physical components of their learning
environment. If they participate voluntarily, with
interest and passion for the knowledge domain, then
they are certainly driven by a strong motivation. If
they apply their results to their daily job, then they are
active participants in their own learning process.
These considerations seem to prove that there is a
strong relationship between the concepts of CoP and
SRL; the relationship, however, does not necessarily
imply that CoPs are the ideal environment to develop
SRL skills, but rather that they are a setting where
SRL skills are needed since CoP members, by
definition, must be able to use them. It may well be
that such skills develop even further as they are
applied, but they certainly have to be there from the
very beginning, at least to some extent.
Researchers who are interested in Technology
Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs) that
support the development of those SRL skills required
by CoPs should therefore look for a connecting
element, that is, a virtual environment where SRL can
germinate before it is expected to grow. This paper
formulates and aims to demonstrate the hypothesis
that VLCs are such an environment. Their
participants can be supported and guided as far as
necessary and be encouraged to take control of their
learning in a gradual way through the well known
techniques of scaffolding and fading (Collins et al,
1989).
The relationship between SRL and online learning,,
however, is quite a complex one. As a matter of fact,
even if the so-called teaching presence (Garrison et
al., 2000) can be reduced in favour of more self-
regulation, the social element sets boundaries to
learners’ control. This gives rise to a dilemma. On the
one hand, online learning requires a high degree of
autonomy and self-regulation, while on the other
hand, the socio-constructivist approach that underlies
most online education initiatives entails a strong
learner dependency on tutors’ and each other’s
moderating and coordinating actions.
More specifically, effective participation in a VLC
requires learning to learn in a social context, which
means, to mention just a few examples:
ƒ taking initiatives but respecting other people’s
work;
ƒ being proactive but also able to take advantage of
peers’ feedback and experience;
ƒ freely and autonomously administrating the time
devoted to learning while taking into account
community needs and constraints;
ƒ expressing personal emotions as well as being in
tune with the general atmosphere;
ƒ seeking support to control anxiety and stress but
also offering help in analogous circumstances.
In other words, SRL in a VLC requires the ability to
strike a balance between autonomy and cooperation,
and at the same time helps the students to develop it,
throughout a whole learning experience. In order to
improve Self-Regulated Learning in VLCs,
researchers should tackle a number of questions:
ƒ are there any specific SRL abilities that online
learning has the potential to develop better than
others?
ƒ are there any cooperative learning strategies that
support the development of SRL skills better than
others?
ƒ how can we take advantage of the features of
asynchronous textual communication, which is
most commonly used in online education, in order
to draw conclusions about the development or
non-development of SRL abilities of some kind?
ƒ are there indicators of self-regulation that can be
monitored in order to provide evidence of its
development?
This paper discusses the above points based on
quantitative data from a case study in teacher
education. In particular, the paper focuses on the
social aspects of SRL, which according to previous
studies (Dettori et al., 2005a; Dettori et al., 2005b)
are the main strengths of this kind of environment.
Some quantitative indicators that can inform the
analysis of students’ interactions are proposed and
discussed, with a view to monitoring and
understanding the evolution of SRL abilities in
trainee teachers.
CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
This study was carried out within the framework of
the TELEPEERS project, where two evaluation tools,
TELE-SRL and TELESTUDENT-SRL, were
developed to analyse the support provided to SRL by
different kinds of TELEs. The model adopted within
the TELEPEERS project, drawing from Zimmerman
(2000), identifies different dimensions of SRL at the
cognitive, social, emotional and motivational levels.
127
The Institute for Educational Technology (ITD), part Activity title: Breaking the ice
of the Italian National Research Council, investigated Timeline: Week 1
the potential for SRL of Computer Supported Objectives: Familiarisation with the learning
Collaborative Environments based on a socio- environment and with other participants
constructivist learning approach. To this end, the ITD Method and content: Each participant is requested to
identify common interests with another participant, so as
selected a course in Educational Technology for
to build a circular chain.
trainee teachers as its experimental field and two Strategy: Game
different editions of the course were investigated. The Group composition: one heterogeneous group of 15
first edition, run in 2004, was carried out at the Activity title: Introduction to educational technology
beginning of the TELEPEERS project, while the Timeline: Weeks 2 and 3
second edition, run in 2005, was carried out when the Objectives: Getting acquainted with the basic
project was already more than half way through. terminology
Since the analysis of the 2005 edition is still in Method and content: each participant is required to read
progress, this paper focuses on the 2004 edition. In some introductory documents and discuss things that are
particular, it provides a description of the course, the unclear or seem particularly interesting with group mates
Strategy: open ended discussion
method adopted to collect data about SRL
Group composition: three heterogeneous groups of 5
development (including both the use of one of the
Activity title: Learning theories
questionnaires produced by the TELEPEERS Timeline: Weeks 4 and 5
consortium and a quantitative and qualitative analysis Objectives: Establishing a theoretical framework of
of the interactions among participants), and a educational technology by analysing its history and
synthesis of the results. Particular attention is paid to underlying learning theories
the approach adopted in the quantitative analysis of Method and content: Participants were split into three
interaction, because it could be a promising method groups, each of which studied in depth one of the
for gathering data, though it needs to be refined and theories: behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism.
fine tuned before it can be used more extensively. Next, new groups were formed with one “expert” for
Finally, the results of the study are discussed in each theory. The new group was asked to fill in a table to
compare the three approaches
relation to the hypothesis that VLCs are, or at least
Strategy: Jigsaw
can be if well managed, a suitable incubator for SRL Group composition: Three heterogeneous groups of 5
abilities. Such abilities can later be exploited in Activity title: Educational software
teachers’ professional development programs where, Timeline: Weeks 6 and 7
according to many (Schlager and Fusco 2004), CoPs Objectives: Getting an idea of the different types of
play a very important role. existing educational software
Method and content: analysis of educational software
Course description of various kinds (from classic drill and practice to
reference works and constructivist learning
The 2004 edition of the course in Educational environments)
Technology (from now on referred to as TD-SSIS Strategy: Peer review
Group composition: Small homogeneous groups,
2004) was run by the ITD for the Specialisation
according to background, from 2 to 7 people
School in Secondary Teaching in the second semester Activity title: Webquests
of the academic year 2003/2004. The course lasted 10 Timeline: Weeks 8 and 9
weeks and was entirely based on online activities Objectives: To become aware of the range of online
supported by a computer mediated communication resources available for teachers and to analyse the
system (CMC), except for three face to face meetings webquests in detail.
at the beginning, half-way through and at the end of Method and content: Practice with online educational
the course. The participants were 15 trainee teachers activities, with particular focus on webquests (Pohan and
who had volunteered for this training approach. Mathison, 1998)
Strategy: Role play
Group composition: Three groups of 5
The learning activities, based on several collaborative
Activity title: Case studies
strategies, are described in Table 1. Each activity took
Timeline: From weeks 6 to 9
place in a discussion area devoted to it and was Objectives: In-depth study of one topic chosen from:
moderated by a tutor. teachers’ communities of practice; an analysis of the
educational potential of written interaction in CMC

128
 environments; a case study on a European project
concerning the definition of a syllabus for teacher
training in ICT
Method and content: Virtual visit to the webheads
(URL) and Tapped-in CoPs; study of a model (Garrison
et al 2000) of cognitive, social and teaching presence;
case study of the results of the U-teacher project (Midoro
and Admiral, 2003)
Strategy: Guided tour for the first activity, free
discussion for the second, case study for the third
Group composition: three groups, sized from 4 to 6
Activity title: Winding-up
Timeline: Week 10
Objectives: Winding-up meta-cognitive reflections,
self evaluation, course evaluation
Method and content: Meta-reflection on the learning
process
Strategy: Individual comments
Group composition: One heterogeneous group of 15
Activity title: Meta-cognitive reflection
Timeline: From week 1 to 10
Objectives: Developing meta-cognitive reflections on
course content and method
Method and content: Meta-reflection on the learning
process
Strategy: Open discussion
Group composition: One heterogeneous group of 15
Table 1: Structure of the 2004 edition of the course in
Educational Technology
METHOD OF THE STUDY
Data were collected in three ways. The first consisted
in using the TELE-SRL questionnaire, developed by
the TELEPEERS partners, to support experts in
evaluating the potential of technology enhanced
learning environments in the development of SRL
skills. The second was based on a quantitative
analysis of the interactions among course participants.
The third entailed qualitative analysis of the messages
exchanged by course participants, and is more
thoroughly illustrated in Dettori et al. (2005a). This
paper summarises the results obtained through the
first and the third methods, while focusing on the
quantitative analysis of the messages exchanged.
Before discussing the methods used to obtain
information about SRL development in our course, it
is important to note that, in our approach, the
environment analysed is not only the CMC system
used, but the whole social environment, including the
students and the tutors. In our opinion, it is
impossible to express a judgement about the TELE
without considering the notions of social, cognitive
and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000) that are
integral to a VLC. In other words, the amount and
quality of support received by the students was
heavily dependent on the tutoring style adopted and
on the social behaviour of their peers. However,
given that the evaluation of the TELE takes these
factors into account, the results of this case study are
only applicable to contexts where similar learning
strategies and tutoring approaches are adopted. As a
consequence, the study evaluates the “potentialities”
of the TELE without guaranteeing they will be
developed.
Evaluation based on the TELE-SRL
Questionnaire
The TELE-SRL questionnaire consists of three
sections, one for each of the different phases of the
learning process (planning, execution and monitoring,
evaluation). Each section contains items related to the
four aspects of SRL (cognitive, motivational,
emotional and social). Overall, it comprises 43
statements, and for each of these the evaluator is
required to rate, on a six-point scale, to what extent
the TELE supports the ability described in the
statement (e.g. “The TELE allows the student to
personalize the interface”). A summary table at the
end gives an overview of the global support given to
SRL.
This questionnaire was used in TELEPEERS for peer
evaluation of several kinds of TELEs, by collecting
the opinions of experts on their SRL potential. In
particular, the TD-SSIS 2004 course was analysed by
experts from two partner institutions, Lisbon
University and Barcelona University, as well as by
one of the course designers (self-evaluation).
Quantitative analysis of interactions
This method was used to investigate participants’
social behaviour with particular attention to aspects
that the authors perceive as important in group
learning activities. These aspects are herein identified
as autonomy, reactivity to tutor messages, reactivity
to peer messages, proactivity (taking the initiative).
The indicators used to measure these aspects for each
conference/activity were:
- the ratio of student/tutor messages (autonomy);
- the average number of messages contained in
threads initiated by tutors (reactivity to tutors);
129
- the average number of messages contained in
threads initiated by students (reactivity to peers).
- the percentage of threads initiated by students
(student proactivity).
The rationale for this choice comes from the need to
monitor the degree of student autonomy and their
reliance on tutors’ guidance. The first indicator
should give us a measure of student autonomy, the
second should tell us to what extent students reacted
to tutors’ stimuli, and the third the degree to which
they reacted to their peers - peer centred interactivity
being considered more positively than teacher centred
interactivity as far as SRL is concerned. Finally, the
last indicator should support the evaluation of
proactivity, that is the degree to which students were
able to take the initiative in the discussion process.
These indicators were assessed for each individual
activity, in order to draw up diagrams showing their
evolution in time (by comparing activities carried out
in a temporal sequence) and also the differences
between various activities, to test the hypothesis that
some learning strategies may turn out to foster SRL
better than others.
Qualitative analysis of interactions
A preliminary investigation of message content is
provided in Dettori et al. (2005a), where anecdotal
exchanges were identified and categorised indicating
aspects of SRL development that deserve further
investigation. Among these, some specific attitudes of
the trainees were identified, such as the tendency to
wait for tutors’ stimuli or react preferably to tutors
rather than to peers. This preliminary study informed
the choice of the indicators used in the quantitative
method previously described.
Quantitative analysis of the interactions among
participants can in turn provide the basis for a closer
analysis of message content. This is, however,
beyond the scope of our paper.
OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY
In this section, the main outcomes of the study are
described, discussing the data provided by the
aforementioned analyses. Possible interpretations of
the data are also suggested, in an attempt to answer
some of the questions posed at the beginning of the
paper, i.e. if CSCL environments support the
development of SRL abilities and if there are learning
130
strategies that stimulate self-regulation better than
others.
Data collected through the TELE-SRL
questionnaire
The peer evaluation of the TD-SSIS 2004 course
supported the hypothesis that this kind of
environment is particularly suited to fostering the
social aspects of SRL, while the development of the
emotional and motivational components varies with
tutoring styles, community cohesiveness and quality
of the social presence. Finally, the cognitive aspects
seem to depend heavily on instructional design
decisions.
Fig.1, based on the conclusive summary table of the
TELE-SRL questionnaire, clearly illustrates these
results. More detailed data about this analysis can be
found in Dettori et al. (2004).
Fig.1: Synthesis of the analysis based on the TELE-
SRL questionnaire
Data collected through quantitative analysis of
interactions
The total number of messages exchanged by course
participants was 1306. The analysis reported here
only considers those messages exchanged by students
within the eight conferences strictly related to course
content. They account for 884 of the messages. The
conferences that were disregarded mostly contain off
topic messages, requests for technical help and other
messages that do not seem relevant to the discussion.
Fig.2 shows the breakdown of such postings for each
activity. The course activities are in chronological
order, except for “case studies”, that started with
“educational software analysis” and finished with
“webquests”, while “metacognitive reflection” went
on throughout the whole course.
Given that some activities lasted longer than others, suggested how to proceed by proposing reflection
the differences in participation should not be topics on how the course was going on.
considered a relevant measure of interest or
involvement, but simply an indication of the 6
importance of the activity throughout the course. 5
4
3
300
2
250
200 1
150 0

cognitive
reflection
breaking

ed-tech

Learning

Educational

studies

Winding-up
theories

Webquests
100

the ice

Case

meta-
intro

software
50
0

n
s

p
e
e

tro

ts

io
rie

ar

-u
ie
ic

es
in

ct
tw

ng
ud
eo
e

qu

fle
th

ch

of

st

di
th

re
eb
g

ls

n
-te

se
ng
kin

i
W
W

e
na
ed

Ca

itiv
Fig.3: Ratio of student/tutor messages
ni
ea

io
ar

gn
at
br

Le

uc

co (student autonomy)
Ed

a-
et
m

N. students' messages n. tutors' messages

4
3,5
Fig.2: Distribution of the messages throughout the 3
2,5
course 2
1,5
1
0,5
Figs. 3 to 5 compare the various activities by showing 0
the trends in time of the chosen indicators. In

p
ro

ts
es
s
ic e
particular, Fig. 3 seems to suggest that there was quite

-u

on
ri e

es
in t

ar

di

ing

ct i
th e

eo

qu
ftw

s tu
ch

fle
in d
th

eb
a positive trend in the indicator that we called

so
-te
g

se

re
W
k in

W
ed

al
n in

Ca

e
ea

io n

it iv
ar
“student autonomy”, if we disregard the first and the
br

at

gn
Le

uc

co
Ed
last two activities, which were actually quite

anomalous for different reasons. “Breaking the ice”
was a game and it was not content-related, while
“winding-up” was a meta-cognitive activity and, as
such, certainly more critical as regards SRL. The last
activity, “meta-cognitive reflection”, is not
comparable with the others in terms of evolution in
time because it was an ongoing activity. However, it
is interesting to note that it required the highest
degree of tutor support, far higher than the other
meta-cognitive concluding activity. All in all, the
activities where this indicator was highest were the
initial game (breaking the ice), the jigsaw on learning
theories, and the role play on webquests. This
supports the hypothesis that these learning strategies
favoured a more participatory attitude in our trainees.
When considering the ratio between student initiated
threads and tutor initiated threads, Fig.4 shows that it
is quite difficult to identify a monotonic trend in time,
while there are peaks as regards the webquest activity
(role play strategy) and the meta-cognitive reflection.
The values of this indicator for the last activity are
probably due to the way the discussion was initiated
by the tutors. In fact, the moderator explicitly
a-
et
m
Fig.4: Ratio between student initiated threads and
tutor initiated threads (student proactivity)
The trend in time of the last indicator is shown in
Fig.5 (again, the last activity is an exception because
it went on throughout the course). This indicator was
analysed because the tutors had often had the
impression that students were referring to them rather
than collaborating with peers. In other words, in spite
of their attempts to encourage peer-to-peer
communication, they perceived the persistence of a
tutor-centred attitude. This impression does not seem
to be substantiated by the data, however, as the
average length of tutor initiated threads is comparable
to that of student initiated threads.
The only relevant peak in Fig.5 relates to the mean
length of threads in the “winding up” concluding
activity. Here students seem to have reacted more to
peers than to tutors, contrary to tutors’ fears. It would
be advisable to use more accurate tools, such as,
Social Network Analysis (Wassermen and Faust,
1994), a technique that allows us to create graphs

131
representing the communication dynamics of a virtual data and will therefore need to be integrated; the
community. A closer look at the content of the quantitative analysis was carried out very roughly and
messages in this activity would certainly be useful, needs a more serious statistical elaboration, while a
when analysing SRL development in the course, closer investigation of qualitative aspects concerning
because most of them concern participants’ self- the interactions can be carried out through content
evaluation, where collaborative learning and social analsis, to draw conclusions on SRL development in a
skills are identified by the majority as the most CSCL environment.
important achievements of their learning process.
In addition, there are some general considerations that
should be made regarding the very concept of SRL in
16,00
collaborative learning environments. Firstly, tutors
14,00
12,00 should be aware that learner control can only be
10,00 achieved by a gradual process, through scaffolding
8,00 and fading techniques. Secondly, individual learners
6,00 in these environments will never reach total control of
4,00
2,00
the learning process because, by definition, they are
0,00 bound to negotiate it with peers and tutors. As a
consequence, the concept of SRL in a learning
Educational

studies

Webquests
breaking

ed-tech

Learning

Winding-up

cognitive
theories
the ice

Case
software

meta-
intro

community is better applied to the community itself,

rather than to the individuals. It is therefore no
coincidence that the indicators examined in this paper
mean length tutors' threads mean length students' threads provide information about community reactivity,
proactivity, and participation, rather than the
behaviour of individual learners .
Fig.5: Comparing the average number of messages in
student initiated threads and tutor initiated threads ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was carried out within the project

CONCLUSIONS TELEPEERS: “Self-regulated Learning in
Technology Enhanced Learning Environments at
This paper illustrates some preliminary results of a University Level: a Peer Review”, Grant agreement
study that is still in progress. The study aims to 2003-4710-/001-001 EDU-ELEARN,
investigate the potential for SRL skills development http://www.lmi.ub.es/telepeers/
provided by VLCs and other training initiatives based
on a socio-construtivist learning approach. The REFERENCES
analysis carried out within the TELEPEERS project
with the TELE-SRL tool indicated, unsurprisingly, Bettoni M. (2005). Communities of Practice as a method
that social aspects seem to be the main strength of this for knowledge-oriented cooperation. In this volume.
kind of environment. Hence a quantitative analysis of Collins, A.; Brown, J.S. and Newman, S.E.. (1989).
the messages exchanged by course participants Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of
revealed that the tutors had to adopt a very proactive reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick
tutoring style, that student autonomy improved (Ed.). Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in
slightly throughout the course, and that it was honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
apparently encouraged by the role-play strategy. Erlbaum, 453-494.
Chang M.M. (2005). Applying self-regulated learning
Student proactivity did not increase in time, but was
strategies in a web-based instruction: an investigation of
again higher in the role-play than in other activities. motivation perception. Computer Assisted Language
A comparison between reactivity to tutors and to Learning, 18 (3), 217-230.
peers did not show major differences, except for the Dabbagh N. and Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-
concluding self-evaluation. regulation in student-centered web-based learning
environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 3
There are some limits to the study: the indicators used (1), 40-47.
do not provide an exhaustive picture of the relevant Dettori G.; Giannetti, T. and Persico, D. (2004). An
analysis of the SRL potential of TD-SSIS 2004, a

132
 Technology Enhanced Learning Environment based on
the communication platform FirstClass. ITD CNR
Report n.4/2004, Genoa, Italy.
Dettori G.; Giannetti, T. and Persico, D.. (2005a).
Analysing SRL in an online collaborative environment:
a case study in teacher education. In G: Chiazzese, M.
Allegra, A. Chifari and S. Ottaviano (eds.). Methods
and Technologies for Learning. WIT Press, Boston,
Southampton, 67-74.
Dettori G.; Giannetti, T. and Persico, D.. (2005b). CMC
environments supporting self-regulated learning.
Proceedgins of the. International. Conference m-ICTE
2005, Caceres (E), 7-10 June 2005, 379-383.
Garrison R.; Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2000). Critical
inquiry in a text-based environment: computer
conferencing in higher education. The Internet and
Higher education, 2 (2-3), 87-105.
Lee J. and Campbell Gibson, C. (2003). Developing self-
direction in an online course through computer-
mediated interaction. American Journal of Distance
Learning, 17 (3), 173-187
Lynch R. and Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between
self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning
context. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning 5(2),
http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.2/lynch-dembo.html.
Midoro V. and Admiral, W. (eds.). (2003). Pioneer
Teachers: a key factor in European school nnovation.
Menabò, Ortona, Italy.
Salovaara H. and Järvelä, S. (2003). Students’ strategic
actions in computer-supported collaborative learning.
Learning Environments Research, 6, 267-285.
Schlager M. S. and Fusco J. (2004). Teacher professional
development, technology, and communities of practice:
are we putting the cart before the horse? The
Information Society, 19 (3), 203-220.
Van den Boom G.; Paas; F., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. and
van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor
feedback in web-based learning environment: effects on
students’ self-regulated learning competence.
Computers in Human Behaviour .20, 551-567.
Wasserman S. and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network
Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambrige:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambrige:
Cambridge University Press.
Whipp J.L. and Chiarelli, S. (2004) Self-regulation in a
web-based course: a case study. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 52 (4), 5-22.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social
cognitive perspective. In M.Boekaerts, P.Pintrich, &
M.Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation. New
York: Academic Press, 13-39.
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
GIULIANA DETTORI completed her studies in
Mathematics at the Università di Genova in 1978.
Since then, she has been working as a research
scientist for the Italian National Research Council.
She is currently with the Institute for Educational
Technology, in Genova, Italy. Her research interests
cover different topics in Educational Technology and
Applied Mathematics. She has authored numerous
scientific papers, at national and international level, in
Education, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Graphics
and Geographical Information Systems. She has been
in charge of several national and international
projects.
TANIA GIANNETTI completed her studies in
Philosophy in 1997 at the University of Genoa. She
joined the Institute for Educational Technology,
within the Italian National Research Council,
following her interest in ICTs and, in particular, in
Educational Technology. Her current focus of
research is on SRL in technology-enhanced learning
environments, on representations of knowledge for
multimedia environments, and on narrative learning
environments. She is involved in several European
Community projects.
DONATELLA PERSICO completed her studies in
Mathematics at the University of Genoa in 1981.
Since then, she has been working as a researcher at
the Institute for Educational Technology of the Italian
National Research Council. Her main interests
include the theory and applications of Educational
Technology, with particular reference to instructional
design, e-learning, teacher training and self-regulated
learning. She is author of educational material and
scientific publications of various kinds, including
books, educational software, multimedia material and
several research papers concerning aspects of
educational technology. She sits on the editorial
board of international and national journals on
Educational Technology and has been in charge of
several national and international projects.
133
 DRAGONS PATHWAYS
Secundino Correia
Innovation Department - CNOTINFOR
Chief Innovation Officer
Coimbra
Portugal

E-mail: secundino@cnotinfor.pt
www.cnotinfor.pt
©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

Elsa Regina Lencastre

Innovation Department - CNOTINFOR
Trainee from Psychology and Education Sciences Faculty
Coimbra University
Coimbra
Portugal

E-mail: regina@cnotinfor.pt
©Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS games programming for young learners up to 8/9

Case study, Dragons Pathways, self-regulated
learning, TELE.
ABSTRACT
Self-regulation has been discussed for over two
centuries as a way to encourage individuals to
become educated on their own. Nowadays there exist
several educational resources that make self-
regulated learning possible by their potentialities and
capacities. This paper intends to verify the capacity
that Dragons Pathways evolutionary software
possesses like a TELE (Technological Enhanced
Learning Environment), in meeting the requirements
of SRL (self-regulated learning). To do this we
conducted a participation observation, five
interviews (from an adaptation of
TELESTUDENTS-SRL) and a questionnaire
completed by one of the people responsible for the
software development. After a qualitative analysis of
the data, the Dragons Pathways software seems to
meet the requirements of self-regulated learning and
we should consider it as a SRL TELE in the field of
years old.
CONCEPT OF SELF-REGULATED
LEARNING
Historically, the term self-regulated learning became
popular in the 1980’s because it emphasised the
emerging autonomy and responsibility of people to
take charge of their own learning. As a general term,
it subsumed research on cognitive strategies,
metacognition, and motivation in one coherent
construct that emphasised the interplay among these
forces. It was regarded as a valuable term because it
stressed how the self was the agent in establishing
learning goals and tactics, and how each individual’s
perceptions of the self and task understanding
influenced the quality of learning that ensued. In
recent years a great deal of research has focused on a
constructivist perspective of self-regulated learning
(e.g., Paris and Byrnes, 1989), on social foundations
of self-regulated learning (e.g., Pressley, 1995;
Zimmerman, 1989a), on developmental changes in
self-regulated learning (e.g., Paris and Newman,
1990) and on instructional tactics for promoting self-
regulated learning (e.g., Butler and Winne, 1995).

134
The integrative nature of self-regulated learning
stimulated researchers to study broader and more
contextualised issues of teaching and learning while
also showing the value of self-regulated learning as
an educational objective at all grade levels (Paris and
Winograd, 2001).
Definition of the Concept
Self-regulated refers to the degree that individuals
are metacognitively, motivationally and
behaviourally active participants in their own
learning process (Zimmerman, 1989, 1994). People
personally initiate and direct their own efforts to
acquire knowledge and skill rather than relying on
teachers, parents or other agents of instruction.
According to recent studies on self-regulated
learning, learning is controlled not only by external
effects but also by self-regulated elements (Weinert,
1983 in Chung, 2000).
According to Snow (1996), Winne and Hadwin
(1997), Perry (1997) and Winne and Stockley
(1998), self-regulated learning is also a dualistic
construct with properties of an aptitude and an event.
Dimensions of Self-Regulated Learning
Self-regulated learning can help describe the ways
that people approach problems, apply strategies,
monitor their performance and interpret the outcomes
of their efforts. There are four central characteristics
of self-regulated learning: awareness of thinking, use
of strategies, sustained motivation, and self-
evaluation.
Part of becoming self-regulated involves awareness
of effective thinking and analysis of one’s own
learning and thinking habits (metacognition meaning
thinking about thinking). Flavell and Brown showed
that children from 5 to 16 years of age become
increasingly aware of their own personal knowledge
states, the characteristics of tasks that influence
learning and their own strategies for monitoring
learning. Paris and Winograd (1990) summarised
these aspects of metacognition as children’s
developing competencies for self-appraisal and self-
management and discussed how these aspects of
knowledge can help direct students’ efforts as they
learn. The educational goal is not simply to make
children think about their own thinking but, instead,
to use metacognitive skills to guide the plans they
make, the strategies they select, and the
interpretations of their performance so that
awareness leads to effective problem-solving (Paris
and Winograd, s/d). This approach is consistent with
Bandura (1986) who emphasised that self-regulation
involves three interrelated processes: self-
observation, self-evaluation and self-reaction.
Understanding these processes and using them
deliberately makes metacognitive processes part of
self-regulated learning.
A second part of self-regulated learning involves a
person’s growing repertoire of strategies – for
learning, studying, controlling emotions, pursuing
goals and so forth. However, the most important is
“being strategic” rather than “having” a strategy. It
is one thing to know what a strategy is, but quite a
different thing to be inclined to use and to modify it
as task conditions change, and be able to discuss and
to teach it. We can consider three important
metacognitive aspects of strategies, often referred to
as declarative knowledge (what the strategy is),
procedural knowledge (how the strategy operates)
and conditional knowledge (when and why a strategy
should be applied) (Paris, Lipson, and Wixson,
1983). Knowing these characteristics of strategies
can help people to discriminate productive from
counterproductive tactics and then to apply
appropriate strategies. When learners are strategic,
they consider options before choosing tactics to solve
problems and then they invest effort in using the
strategy. These choices embody self-regulated
learning because they are the result of cognitive
analyses of alternative routes to problem-solving.
The third aspect of self-regulated learning is
motivation, because learning requires effort and
choices. Self-regulated learning involves
motivational decisions about the goal of an activity,
the perceived difficulty and value of the task, the
self-perceptions of the learner’s ability to accomplish
the task and the potential benefit of success or
liability of failure. Awareness and reflection can lead
to a variety of actions depending on the motivation of
the person. Researchers and educators have
characterized self-regulated learning as a positive set
of attitudes, strategies, and motivations for enhancing
thoughtful engagement with tasks. Nevertheless,
students can also be self-directed to avoid learning or
to minimize challenges. When students act to avoid
failure instead of pursue success, attribute their
performance to external or uncontrollable forces, use
135
self-handicapping strategies or set inappropriate
goals, they are undermining their own learning.
These behaviours are self-regulated but may lead to
diminished effort, task avoidance and other actions
that decrease engagement and learning. Learned
helplessness, apathy, and defiance may also be
counterproductive motivational responses to learning
that can be overcome with better understanding of
self-regulated learning.
The fourth aspect is reflection or evaluation
concerning task execution, causes of success or
failure, emotional insights and assessment. We need
a comprehensive model that takes into account the
cognitive, motivational/emotional, behavioural and
contextual processes involved in self-regulated
learning.
THE SELF-REGULATED LEARNERS
In general, learners can be described as self-regulated
to the degree that they are metacognitively,
motivationally, behaviourally and contextually active
participants in their own learning process
(Zimmerman, 1989, 1994).
Characteristics
Self-regulation is inherent when learning is guided
by goals. Some forms of self-regulated learning are
theorized to help people learn more about what they
study, to develop and sustain positive motivation and
to practice and extend skills for learning (Winne,
1998). Prior works (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1994;
Zimmerman and Schunk 1989) reveal a variety of
complexly interacting factors that affect learners’
development and use of tactics that also comprise
academically effective forms of self-regulated
learning. The number and complexity of these factors
increases when students themselves try to bootstrap
more productive self-regulated learning forms
(Winne, 1998).
Students’ goal orientations play a major role in self-
regulation. Students who hold a mastery goal
orientation aimed at learning and skill acquisition
display more adaptive learning strategies, higher
intrinsic motivation and a stronger sense of perceived
efficacy for learning, compared with students whose
primary goals involve such other concerns as ego
involvement and work avoidance (Schunk, 1994).
Nevertheless, a few other characteristics differentiate
people who self-regulate their learning from those
136
who do not (Corno, 1989; Zimmerman, 1994; Winne
and Stockley, 1998):
1. The familiarity with and the knowledge of how
to use a series of cognitive strategies (like
repetition, elaboration and organization), which
may help them to attend, to transform, to
organize, to elaborate and to recover
information;
2. The knowledge of how to plan, control and
direct their mental processes toward the
achievement of personal goals;
3. The motivational beliefs and adaptive emotions,
such as a high sense of academic self-efficacy,
the adoption of learning goals, the development
of positive emotions towards tasks as well as the
capacity to control, modify and adjust them to
the requirements of the task and of the specific
learning situation;
4. The planning and controlling of time and of
effort to be used on tasks and the knowledge on
how to create and structure favourable learning
environments (finding a suitable place to study
or seeking help from teachers and classmates
when difficulties appear);
5. The efforts to participate in the control and
regulation of academic tasks, classroom climate
and structure, to the extent that the context
allows it (Montalvo, 2004).
In summary, people who self-regulate their learning
“see themselves as agents of their own behaviour:
they believe learning is a proactive process, they are
self-motivated and they use strategies that enable
them to achieve desired academic results”
(Montalvo, 2004).
Researchers (Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1988
in Zimmerman, 1994) have shown that teachers do
not have difficulty in identifying self-regulated
students by their attributes. They classify them as
self-starters (who display extraordinary persistence
on learning tasks), confidents and strategists. They
are resourceful in overcoming problems and usually
self-reactive to task performance outcomes.
Valuation
Self-regulated learning is also seen as a dualistic
construct with properties of an aptitude and an event
(Winne, 1998).
Viewed as an aptitude, self-regulated learning
describes a state of the student that predicts the
cognition and motivation that will be involved when
the student addresses future instructional activities. It
has been measured by students’ reflections on past
activities in responses to questionnaires (LASSI –
The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory; MSLQ
– The Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire; CSRL – The Components of Self-
Regulated Learning), structured interviews (SRLIS –
Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule),
teachers’ judgments or comments gathered with a
stimulated recall protocol. Like other aptitudes, self-
regulated learning varies within individuals over
time, within individuals across tasks and across
individuals.
Viewed as an event, self-regulated learning is a three
plus one phase model; it involves three necessary
phases and an optional fourth phase: perceiving the
task, setting goals, enacting tactics to approach goals
and, optionally, adapting tactics. Although this model
may imply that self-regulated learning unfolds in
sequence from phase one to two and so on, this is
probably not always the case. Once self-regulated
learning is underway, it is recursive and weakly
sequenced. Recursive means that the information
generated in a given phase of self-regulated learning
may feed into that same phase again. Weakly
sequenced means that although self-regulated
learning begins with phase one (perceiving the task),
once information is generated in any phase, the event
may jump phases or recourse to a previous one
(Winne, 1998).
INTERVENTIONS OF SELF-REGULATED
LEARNING
Self-regulated learning can be taught to both children
and adults (Paris and Winograd s/d). This does not
mean it is neither necessary to teach everyone nor
necessary to teach the same things to those who are
taught. Because self-regulated learning is flexible
and adaptive, different kinds of strategies and
motivation might be emphasized for different
learners. Self-regulation can be taught with explicit
instruction, directed reflection and metacognitive
discussions. Cognitive research has shown that
expertise can emerge in many ways and explicit
instruction is not always necessary. However, many
children do not gain metacognitive insights or use
self-regulated learning effectively without direct
instruction and it seems plausible that many teachers
can increase their own metacognitive understanding
through explicit instruction. But self-regulation can
also be promoted indirectly by modelling and by
activities that entail reflective analyses of learning. It
can be taught indirectly within classroom activities
and tools that evoke reflection and metacognitive
understanding (Paris and Winograd s/d). Other forms
of promoting self-regulation are by assessing,
charting and discussing evidence of personal growth.
Self-regulated learning can be promoted through
record keeping of goals met, grades received and
progress made in behaviour management and
learning.
Interventions designed to guide students toward
academically effective forms of self-regulated
learning must acknowledge that “relatively little is
currently known about the development or
acquisition of self-regulation and what can be done
to facilitate its development” (Weinstein, 1996 in
Winne, 1998). However, this last researcher and his
assistants are optimistic that today’s and the near
future’s computing technologies, appropriately
coupled with other educational innovations, can
increase the efficacy, efficiency and extent of
students’ self-regulated learning, agreeing with
Salomon and Perkins.
Other investigators (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1998)
suggest the need for a clearer operational meaning of
the concept of self-regulated learning so that the
investigations become more concrete. Besides, this
concept needs to be studied longitudinally in order to
understand it better. Not ignoring the value of the
traverse and temporary studies, it is necessary, in the
same authors’ opinion, to validate some subjects
through the advantages of the longitudinal studies.
Future research in self-regulated learning may also
better interconnect with recent research on learning
communities, collaborative learning and pro-active
learning contexts.
DRAGONS PATHWAYS
Dragons Pathways is a Technological Enhanced
Learning Environment (TELE) or a playground that
allows children to create, play and modify interactive
games. It is a piece of software which aims to
develop planning and programming skills in the
children (starting from the age of 9/10 years old,
137
although without an age limit) through the immediate
visual computation of rules encapsulated on objects
on the form of pathways.
Figure 1 - Beginning a new game from a model
The software intends to stimulate and to develop the
creativity and the imagination. It is suitable for use at
the school and extra-curricular and/or family context,
alone, with peers or with adult coaching.
Dragons Pathways is a natural evolution of Magic
Forest developed as an outcome of European
Playground Project (1998 to 2001). The main
challenge of Playground Project was to conceive and
develop a "computational playground", in which
children between 4 and 8 years old could create
games and play with them, creating and changing
rules, through several modes of expression: tactile,
oral and physical. The "playgrounds" developed
under the project consisted of spaces to play with
rules and not only by the rules. In this way, it was
possible to challenge the children's enthusiasm, their
creative potential and their exploring spirit in
creating games. It also involved nearly formal
cognitive skills, in order to progressively achieve the
formal thought, without the need to previously know
a symbol’s and convention’s code. Detailed
information about Playground Project can be found
at http://www.ioe.ac.uk/playground/.
The Magic Forest is an ICT based modelling
environment developed and designed for children
from 4 to 8 years old. It comes with a variety of
activities to explore, understand and change.
Learners explore an activity and discover what
happens. In many of the activities, learners need to
138
make decisions and the consequences of their
decisions can be seen and experienced immediately
on screen.
After using the prepared Magic Forest activities,
learners are encouraged to modify and change them
and ultimately create their own completely new
activities. To enable non-readers to do this, Magic
Forest uses a simple pictorial icon language. Using
this language, young learners can define and change
the rules of each object (character) in an activity, and
they do not necessarily need to be able to read.
Included with the program are a set of stimulating
backgrounds and a set of fully animated characters
that will allow young learners to create many
different kinds of activities.
In a very simple way it is possible to build icon
phrases that define actions and conditions, so that
animated objects can move themselves around the
screen, or be controlled by the learner(s). There can
be a separate set of rules for each animated object.
Those rules are defined by tablets, which are placed
in papyrus scrolls. There are tablets to define
conditions. These must be at the beginning of a
papyrus scroll. To complete the rule phrase, it is
necessary to choose tablets that define actions.
Using control tablets, we can control characters or
objects with the direction arrows, the mouse or a
joystick.
Dragons Pathways assumes the same underlying
principles, but is more advanced to better suit older
children. With Dragons children may be able to
create games and interactive stories using a large
amount of characters, objects, scenarios and sounds.
By the use of the iconic language developed on a co-
design process with the children during the
Playground Project and further extended now, all
rules of the games are visually set on pathways
belonging to each object. Children define objects’
behaviours in a concurrent and parallel way on the
form of “when condition, then action 1, action 2,
action n”. At any time, children can turn the game on
and interact with it, governed by the rules they have
settled and computed in parallel real time. The
software includes Text to Speech facilities, bringing
to life speech dialogues between characters by
writing the text scripts. Voice recorded facilities are
also embodied in the software.

Figure 2 - How rules are expressed on Dragon
Pathways
METHODOLOGY
To test Dragons Pathways’ functionality as a TELE,
a qualitative research design based on a case study
methodology was devised.
Qualitative research is a model of scientific research
that has as the main goal, not the explanation and
description of the phenomena, but its understanding.
In agreement with Bogdan and Biklen (1994)
qualitative research intends to learn with the people
and to understand the phenomena starting from the
participants’ perspective, usually going through a
small number of cases.
A case study comes as a “method of study of a
particular case (…) that provides an opportunity to
study, in a way more or less deepened, a certain
aspect of a problem in little time” (Bell, 1993 in
Ramos, 2005).
According to Bogdan and Biklen a case study is an
empirical investigation that studies a contemporary
phenomenon and that consists in a detailed
observation of a context, individual or specific event.
Subjects and Procedures
This study involved one of the Dragons Pathways’
mentors, a collaborator and the five children that
tested the software. Three sessions were conducted
with the children testing the software. These sessions
were video recorded and a participant observer took
notes.
Guidelines to interview the tutors and the children
followed the instruments constructed in the
TELEPEERS project (http://www.lmi.ub.es/
telepeers), TELE-SRL and TELESTUDENTS-SRL.
This project formed the TACONET network -
Targeted Cooperative Network on Technology
Enhanced Learning Environments that support Self-
Regulated Learning (http://www.lmi.ub.es/taconet).
After gathering the necessary data to clarify and
understand the problem and proposed goals, we
proceeded to analyse and interpret the data,
constituted by the register of observations, the
analysis of the questionnaire and the interviews.
Instruments
The selection of the instruments was made using
qualitative interactive techniques, based on the
interaction between the researcher and the
participants. These are the most appropriate
techniques for a qualitative study of this extent since
they present a large flexibility and diversity of
information in the collection of data.
DATA ANALYSIS
Considering the analysis based on the data from the
evaluation tool (TELE-SRL), this software
challenges the children to work on the task once it is
organized in a way that they appreciate the
developed work. It offers them the opportunity to
establish public and private communication,
supplying to them the possibility to negotiate and to
discuss with their tutor the form of organizing the
work and the results, to work together with their
peers, discussing and comparing the final results.
Allowing the children to reflect on their problem
solving tasks it helps them to stay motivated.
On the other hand, it still supplies the children the
opportunity to choose among different modules and
among different learning paths, raising their interest.
It is adapted to reach consistency between the level
of the children’s competencies and the level of
difficulty of the task, supplying to them the
possibility to discover the extent to which they are
reaching their learning goals, through the comparison
of their actual position with the position that they
intend to reach. It supplies formative return,
facilitating the maintenance of a positive work
attitude and leading to an appropriate faith in their
effectiveness. Besides, it still supplies appropriate
139
return on their results and on the volume of
accomplished work.
This TELE does not make any content explicitly
available. It makes it possible to work with concepts
that allow the development of logical-mathematical
reasoning, estimating, forecasting and programming
competencies.
This TELE naturally supports children’s motivation
offering many stimuli like scenarios, characters,
sounds and objects with complex behaviours.
The children do not have to follow rigid directives,
having instead the possibility to create and to
develop his/her adventure spirit and creativity.
The TELE does not have any explicit control over
the evaluation of the children's work, but as
everything can be immediately computed, children
have immediate feedback through the
experimentation and evolution of their games,
making their own continuous auto-evaluation and
auto-correction of the results.
The tutor/professor should play the part of
mediator/stimulator, scaffolding the activities.
The TELE allows the exploration of existent games,
facilitating their modification and offering a set of
tools and objects to create completely new ones.
These factors are a challenge that motivate their users
and contribute to the strength of the TELE as an open
environment, promoting interaction and critical
thinking among peers and between these and the
tutor/teacher. Children easily execute new activities,
idealising and evolving from simple to complex and
sophisticated games programmed by them.
Factors that may represent a weakness of the TELE
are the initial blank interface that may constitute a
blockade for those who are used to playing with
“game-boys” or other video games. Small children
may demand more support and scaffolding from
adults in order to achieve tasks that are more
interesting. The lack of a great diversity of scenarios
and characters both for boys’ and girls’ preferences
may also be a weakness.
The tests with children suggested a lot of
improvements and some of them have been
introduced in the final version, such as speech
140
synthesis, voice recording, numbering pages or game
levels and menu configuration.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The present study had as its main goal to understand
whether the software Dragons Pathways
accomplishes the requirements to be considered,
according to TACONET, a SRL TELE.
In the first phase, it intended to deepen the theme of
the self-regulated learning through bibliographical
research, and collation of interviews, questionnaire
and participant observation data. Setting together the
information collected in the bibliographical revision
with the data obtained and analysed, it is possible to
verify a convergence of ideas.
In this TELE there exists the possibility to develop
activities with other’s support (peers or teachers),
through explicit instructions; but there also exists the
opportunity to accomplish self-directed activities in
order to attain self-goals. In this way it appears to
promote self-regulated learning, through activities
that require a reflexive analysis of what is being
achieved in order to produce a meaningful and
pleasant game. The role of the tutor/professor/
parent/peer is just the role of a mediator/stimulator of
the activities.
On the other hand, in self-regulated learning students
personally initiate and direct their own efforts to
acquire knowledge and skill. By not having to follow
rigid guidelines, this TELE makes it possible to
create and to develop the students’ adventurous
spirit, as well as his/her creativity. These dimensions
provoke in the student the need of wanting to go
beyond, increasing their knowledge and capacities.
The bibliography states that it is important to be
strategic rather than having a strategy. When offering
the possibility to choose among different modules
and among different paths, this TELE favours the
development of different strategies to reach the
intended goals. However, it is adapted to reach
consistency between the level of the students’
competencies and the level of difficulty of the goals,
and keeping them motivated; another fundamental
concept of self-regulated learning.
The opportunity to think about the activities/games
that they are programming and the challenge to
continuously improve the performance of the games
and introduce new levels is what maintains a high
level of motivation through the process of
programming, playing and exchanging the games.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association (2001). Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association.
Washington DC. Fifth edition.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and
Action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bell, J. (1993). Como Realizar um Projecto de
Investigação – um guia para a pesquisa em Ciências
Sociais e Educação. Colecção Trajectos. Lisboa:
Gradiva.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1994). Investigação Qualitativa
em Educação – uma introdução à teoria e aos
métodos. Colecção Ciências da Educação. Porto: Porto
Editora.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to
remember: a problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser
(ed). Advances in Instructional Psychology. Hilldsale,
NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, vol I, 77-165.
Butler, D. L. and Winnie, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-
regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
Chung, Mi-Kyung (2000). The development of self-
regulated learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 1
(1), 55-66.
Coastline Community College (2005). Introduction to the
Self-Regulated Learning Cycle, in
http://vcs.ccc.cccd.edu/crs/star/educ120/intro2SRL.htm
#Self.
Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: a volitional
analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds).
Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement:
theory, research and practice. Springer – Verlag: New
York, 111-141.
Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M.
Scandura and C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural process
theories of complex human behavior. The Netherlands:
Sijthoff & Noordoff.
Hsiao, W. D. L. (2005). CSCL theories: self-regulated
learning/metacognition, in
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.
html#metacog.
Montalvo, F. T. and Torres, M. C. G. (2004). Self-
regulated learning: current and future directions.
Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology, 2004, 2 (1), 1-34.
Paris, S. G. and Byrnes, J. P. (1989). The constructivist
approach to self-regulation and learning in the
classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk
(Eds). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: theory, research and practice. Springer –
Verlag: New York, 169-200.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y. and Wixson, K. (1983).
Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.
Paris, S. G. and Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental
aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 25 (1), 87-102.
Paris, S. G. and Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom
applications of research on self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 36, 89-101.
Paris, S. G. and Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition
can promote academic learning and instruction. In B.
F. Jones and L. Idol (Eds). Dimensions of Thinking and
Cognitive Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey, 15-51.
Paris, S. G. and Winograd, P. (2001). The Role of Self-
Regulated Learning in Contextual Teaching: principles
and practices for teacher preparation, in
http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2001-
04/0104parwin.htm#_ftnref1.
Perry, N. E. (1997). Young Children Self-Regulated
Learning and Context That Support It. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-
regulation: Complex, long-term, and thoroughly social.
Educational Psychologist, 30, 207–212.
Ramos, A. S. (2005). A Literatura para a Infância, na
Pedagogia Waldorf. Artigo Científico de Seminário em
Formação e Tecnologias Educacionais. Seminary of
degree of licenciature presented to Faculdade de
Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade
de Coimbra.
Rosnow, R. L. and Rosnow, M. (1998). Writing Papers in
Psychology: a student guide. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Schunk, D. H. and Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-
regulation in education: retrospect and prospect. In D.
H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds). Self-Regulation
of Learning and Performance: issues and educational
applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey. Chapter 13, 305-
314.
Schunk, D. H. and Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Conclusion &
future directions for academic interventions. In D. H.
Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds). Self-Regulated
Learning: from teaching to self-reflective practice. The
Guilford Press: New York. Chapter 11, 225-235.
Snow, R. E. (1996). Self-regulation as a meta-conation?
Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 216-267.
Weinert, F. E. (1983). Self-regulated learning as an
instructional prerequisite, method and objective.
Education, 28, 117-128.
Weinstein, C. E. (1996). Self-Regulation: a commentary on
directions for future research. Learning and Individual
Differences, 8, 269-274.
Winne, P. H. and Hadwin, A. F. (1997). Studying as self-
regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky and A.
141
 C. Graesser (eds). Metacognition in Educational
Theory and Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 279-306.
Winne, P. H. and Stockley, D. B. (1998). Computing
technologies as sites for developing self-regulated
learning. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds).
Self-Regulated Learning: from teaching to self-
reflective practice. The Guilford Press: New York.
Chapter 6, 106-136.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989a). A social view of self-regulated
academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81 (3), 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989b). Models of self-regulated
learning and academic achievement. In B. J.
Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds). Self-Regulated
Learning and Academic Achievement: theory, research
and practice. Springer – Verlag: New York, 1-25.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-
regulation: a conceptual framework for education. In
D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds). Self-
Regulation of Learning and Performance: issues and
educational applications. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey. Chapter
1, 3-21.
Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1986).
Development of a structured interview for assessing
student use of self-regulated learning strategies.
American Educational Research Journal, 23 (4), 614-
628.
Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1988).
Construct Validation of a Strategy Model Student Self-
Regulated Learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80 (3), 284-290.
Zimmerman, B. J. and Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-
Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement:
theory, research and practice. Springer – Verlag: New
York.
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
SECUNDINO CORREIA
Education
1997 - Master in Information Technologies and
Systems (Specialization area: Information
Technologies applied to Education), by the Sciences
and Technologies Faculty of the University of
Coimbra, with the thesis about "Integrated Learning
Environments"
1988 - Degree in Philosophy by the Letters Faculty
of the University of Coimbra
1973 - Degree for teaching in Primary Schools
Developments
Author of the book "ILE Microworlds"
(Micromundos AIA), with the prize from Nónio Séc.
XXI programme
142
Author of the book "Information and Communication
Technologies in Education"
(Tecnologias da Informação e da Comunicação na
Educação), with the prize from the Educational
Innovation Institute
Author, co-author and translator of several pieces of
educational software:”Magic Forest”, "Aventuras no
mundo das palavras, dos sons e das imagens",
"Desafios", "WinLogo", "MegaLogo", "ToonTalk",
"Imagina, Cria e Constrói", "Já Está", "Escrita com
Símbolos", "InterComm"
Several conferences, papers, presentations, seminars
and workshops in Congresses, Universities and other
institutions in Portugal and abroad, about "ICT in
Education"
Today
Co-ordinator of Cnoti Innovation and Research Lab
– Clube ET, co-financed by ADI
Professor of "Educational Resources and
Technologies", "Integrated Learning Environments
Design", "ICT in Special Needs Education", at ESE
de Paula Frassinetti - Porto
Co-ordinator of the postgraduate course in "ICT and
Learning Contexts" at ESE de Paula Frassinetti –
Porto
Member of the Scientific Committee of EuroLOGO
Member of NoE KaleidoScope
Credited trainer by the Scientific and Pedagogical
Council of Continuous Training in the areas A40
(Informatics), C15 (Educational Technologies –
Informatics) and C16 (Educational Technologies –
Audiovisuals)
Credited trainer by IEFP (Institute for Employment
and Training)
ELSA REGINA LENCASTRE
Last year of the degree of licentiate in Education
Sciences from Psychology and Education Sciences
Faculty
Coimbra University
 CLASSROOM CONNECTIVITY IN PROMOTING
ALGEBRA I AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT
AND SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
Stephen J. Pape
School of Teaching and Learning
The Ohio State University
333 Arps Hall, 1945 North High Street
Columbus, OH 43210
U.S.A.
E-mail:pape.12@osu.edu
Additional authors: Karen E. Irving and Douglas T. Owens, The Ohio State
University; Louis Abrahamson, Better Education Foundation.
© Telepeers/Taconet, 2005

KEYWORDS of technology; mathematics and science achievement;

Algebra, classroom contexts, physical science, self-
regulated learning, technology.
ABSTRACT
This interdisciplinary effort, Classroom Connectivity,
is focused on teaching and learning of Algebra I and
Physical Science at the 7th-10th-grade level. This age
is a critical juncture in young people’s lives for
promoting academic achievement, fostering greater
self-regulated learning (SRL) behaviours, and
positive dispositions toward mathematics and science
learning. Characteristics of the connected classroom
project proposed to foster SRL include formative
assessment and classroom discourse especially in
relation to the explanations and justifications teachers
require for students’ responses; the quality of
questions teachers ask given immediate feedback
regarding students’ understanding; and teachers’
ability to identify junctures during lessons critical to
ongoing student achievement in mathematics and
science. This study draws teachers from across the
United States and Canada in a randomised cross-over
trial, mixed-method analytical approach. The main
focus of the study is to examine the impact of
connected classroom technology with interactive
pedagogy and professional development on SRL that
supports greater mathematics and science
achievement. Outcomes to be examined include
teacher practices and their relation to implementation
motivation for learning mathematics and science;
SRL behaviours; students’ dispositions toward
mathematics and science; classroom discourse
processes; and teachers’ beliefs about mathematics
and science as well as mathematics and science
teaching and learning. This talk focused on the
theoretical perspectives of the project and the
research design to examine connected classrooms and
student outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
Middle and high school teachers seldom attend to
how students make sense of classroom content, and
students often have difficulty identifying their
strategies (Pape, Bell and Yetkin, 2003). When
students are asked to articulate their problem solving
or study plans, they often report only a few
ineffective tactics (Pape and Wang, 2003). This paper
outlines a research study that examines the use of
connected classroom technology within Algebra I and
Physical Science classrooms. The goal of the study is
to support the development of conceptual knowledge,
increased achievement, effective use of self-regulated
learning (SRL) strategic behaviours, and positive
dispositions toward mathematics and science in
connected classrooms. The theoretical foundations for
the intervention include social cognitive theory (e.g.,
Zimmerman, 1994, 1998a, 1998b, 2000) and social
constructivist perspectives of teaching and learning
(e.g., Collins, Brown, and Newman, 1989; Diaz,

143
Neal, and Amaya-Williams, 1990; Wertsch and
Stone, 1985). The social cognitive theory provides
foundational definitions, describes phases of SRL,
and delineates the mechanisms to support the
development of SRL behaviours in the classroom.
Social constructivist perspectives, in particular
cognitive apprenticeship teaching models (Collins,
Brown, and Newman, 1989), help us understand ways
in which teachers can structure classrooms to support
SRL development. In addition, the rationale for the
intervention draws on broadening definitions of
mathematics (e.g., NCTM, 2000) and mathematical
competence (Kilpatrick, Swafford, and Findell,
2001), the nature of science and scientific inquiry
(e.g., National Research Council [NRC], 2000;
McComas, 1996, Lederman, 1992) and research
related to classroom contexts that support the
development of SRL (e.g., Butler, 2002, 2003; Butler
and Cartier, 2004; Butler, Elaschuk, and Poole, 2000;
Perry, 1998; Perry, Phillips, and Dowler, 2004; Perry
and VandeKamp, 2000; Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer,
and Nordby, 2002; Schoenfeld, 1989, 1992;
Verschaffel and DeCorte, 1997; Verscahaffel et al.,
1999).
Why is self-regulation crucial to contemporary
mathematics and science education? Traditional
instructional practices often lead students to believe
that learning mathematics and science should come
easily and without strategic effort. For example,
students often develop the conception that
mathematical problems ought to be solvable quickly
through the straightforward application of algorithms.
This supports the belief that problems they are not
able to solve within a few minutes are either not
solvable or at least not solvable by them (Lampert,
1990; Schoenfeld, 1987, 1988). These students often
give up trying to solve a problem within a very short
period of time. The importance of actively
transforming to-be-learned material is not made
explicit for students and is not easily extracted from
instruction given the careful alignment of
mathematical skills and solutions to assigned
“problems” students must solve.
The predominant views of mathematics and science
as “ways of thinking” or “ways of understanding the
world” that requires evidence, explanation, and
justification changes what it means to learn and
succeed within these domains. New conceptions of
proficiency in mathematics education that emphasise
conceptual understanding, strategic competence,
144
adaptive reasoning, productive dispositions, and
procedural fluency (Kilpatrick et al., 2001) require
that teachers attend to their students’ SRL behaviours.
In science, student proficiency includes exhibiting
curiosity, defining questions, proposing preliminary
explanations, planning and conducting investigations,
gathering and displaying evidence, developing
explanations based on that evidence, considering
alternative explanations and communicating findings
(NRC, 2000). We have argued elsewhere (Pape and
Smith, 2002; Pape et al., 2003) that the development
of SRL capacities in young learners is crucial to the
implementation of mathematics instruction as
described in the NCTM (2000) standards documents.
Similarly, science instructional practices based on
inquiry methodologies as described in the National
Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000) includes
far more than memorisation and recall of large bodies
of facts. Social constructivist or reform-minded
pedagogies will further develop students’ abilities to
regulate their own learning and develop proficiency
in mathematics and science. While these goals are
widely embraced by mathematics and science
educators, methods for supporting the skills essential
to be successful in these problem solving and inquiry
classrooms are not readily implemented in the
classroom. The goal of the present study is to
examine the impact of connected classroom
technology on the development of these skills that
have potential for positively impacting on student
learning.
Connected classroom technology refers to a
networked system of handheld calculators and a
computer combined with aggregation and control
software specifically designed for interactive
teaching. Student response systems are increasing in
ease of use as well as commercial availability with
more than ten separate US companies developing
systems. Remarkably usage, which is estimated to
exist in all 50 states in the United States, 10 countries,
and 4,000 schools, has grown to current levels from
virtually zero in less than three years and continues to
accelerate. The present study proposes to examine the
use of one system (TI-Navigator™) in middle school
or secondary school Algebra I and Physical Science
classrooms.
Mathematics and science educators today are being
challenged to think beyond simple, skills-based
conceptions of the domain and to support young
learners’ thinking and reasoning. To be successful,
therefore, mathematics and science educators need to
develop classroom environments and specific
instructional strategies that support not only learning
content but also the development of strategic learning
behaviours. Thus, this presentation focuses on “the
importance and centrality of self-regulation in the
context of the prevailing new conception of school
mathematics [and science], namely, as a major
objective of mathematics [and science] education, on
the one hand, and as a crucial characteristic of
effective mathematics [and science] learning on the
other” (De Corte, Verschaffel and Eynde, 2000, p.
721). In another sense, “self-regulation is both an
aptitude for and a potential outcome of schooling”
(Randi and Corno, 2000, p. 651).
“In general, self-regulation involves learners who
proactively direct their behavior or strategies to
achieve self-set goals” (Cleary and Zimmerman,
2004, p. 538). Self-regulated learners are cognitively
active in their own learning. According to social
cognitive theory, there are three phases of self-
regulation: forethought, performance, and self-
reflection (Zimmerman, 1994, 1998a, 1998b, 2000).
That is, prior to beginning a task (forethought),
learners analyse the task to determine the steps
needed to accomplish it; while performing a task,
they monitor their progress toward understanding;
finally during self-reflection, self-regulated learners
make judgments of their progress and alter their
behaviours according to judgments of progress. SRL
development is accomplished through several stages
including observation, emulation, self-control, and
self-regulation (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1997;
Zimmerman, 2000). Classroom teachers and peers
can serve as models for strategic behaviour. Next,
students begin to imitate the behaviours they witness,
which may lead to early attempts to self-control
strategic behaviours. During this stage students
receive feedback on their strategic efforts, and
ultimately gain the ability to adapt these skills to
varying conditions (self-regulation). Thus, the stages
of SRL development can be facilitated through
appropriate structural classroom scaffolding. We
believe classroom connectivity technology will
support SRL development.
SRL strategy use has been related to and predictive of
academic achievement and problem-solving success
(Pape, 2004; Pape and Wang, 2003; Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988, 1990). For example,
middle-school children’s efforts to make sense of
mathematical word problems are related to success
(Pape, 2003, 2004). These meaning-based approaches
to representing and solving mathematical word
problems involve analysing and transforming the
word problem to form an adequate mathematical
representation and providing explanations and
justifications for solution steps. Further, students’
perceptions of self-efficacy, their judgments of their
capability to do mathematics, are impacted by their
strategic efforts and are predictive of strategy use
(Pajares and Miller, 1994; Schunk, 1990, 1991;
Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons, 1992;
Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990). Students who
exert strategic effort to learn may find success in their
strategies. Small successes bolster students’ self-
efficacy (Schunk, 1991; Zimmerman et al., 1992),
and when students attribute their success to the use of
strategies, they are more likely to continue to use
these strategies (Borkowski, Weyhing and Carr,
1988; Borkowski, Weyhing and Turner, 1986).
Social constructivist perspectives also provide
important background knowledge for consideration
when conceiving of classroom contexts that support
SRL. From this perspective, interaction between
learners and more-knowing others is critical to SRL
development (Bronson, 2000; Diaz et al., 1990;
Wertsch and Stone, 1985). Adults initially mediate
and support a child’s efforts to carry out a task such
as using a strategy. This initial co-regulation of
strategic behaviour eventually diminishes as the
learner gradually takes on the responsibility for
accomplishing a task. The learner’s ability moves
from co-regulation to self-control and then self-
regulation (Diaz et al., 1990; McCaslin and Hickey,
2001).
Contexts that Support SRL. In the next section of this
paper we describe the efforts of a year-long study
conducted with a seventh-grade mathematics teacher
(Pape et al., 2003) and the results of a review of
extant literature that focused on contexts that support
SRL development (Pape, 2005). As part of a two-year
professional development program for middle-school
mathematics teachers, the Teacher-Researcher
project, a seventh-grade teacher and the first author
met approximately weekly to design classroom
instruction focused on strategies and supporting
students’ developing sense of agency and skill in
learning. Prior to taking a test, students indicated how
they would study on a worksheet provided for this
purpose; following the test, they reflected on their
145
strategies in relation to the test outcomes. Several
times during the year students articulated their
strategies in whole-class discussions, and classified
their behaviours using 11 literature-based categories
of strategies (Pape and Wang, 2003; Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988, 1990).
The seventh-grade teacher and university researcher
felt that individual student and group articulation of
strategies resulted in classroom discussion focused on
strategic behaviour and supported SRL development.
In addition, from analyses of extensive field notes we
learned that multiple representations, rich
mathematical tasks, classroom discourse focused on
strategic behaviour, environmental scaffolding of
strategic behaviour, and varying needs for
explicitness and support were essential to supporting
students’ developing SRL skills. “When thinking is
articulated regularly, patterns of thinking develop that
are iterative. Thinking cannot be articulated unless
students reflect on the problem and the strategies they
use to solve it; articulation, in turn increases
reflection, which leads to understanding” (Fenema,
Sowder, and Carpenter, 1999, p. 188).
A review of literature provides additional evidence
for similar aspects of classrooms that foster SRL.
Within reading and writing activities, Perry and
colleagues (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2004; Perry and
VandeKamp, 2000; Perry et al., 2002) highlight
features of high-SRL classroom contexts that include
choice of tasks and how tasks will be accomplished,
control of the nature of challenge of tasks,
opportunities for student evaluation of self and peers,
peer support, and teacher instrumental support (Perry,
1998; Perry et al., 2002). In particular, three high-
SRL classrooms provided opportunities for students
to engage in complex, meaningful activities over
multiple writing sessions; to engage in phases of the
writing process; to decide what to write, where and
with whom; to control challenge by determining how
much to write, at what pace, and with what level of
support; and to set evaluation criteria, editing and
revising their work, and selecting samples for their
portfolios. In addition, teachers and peers provided
varying support including sharing ideas, resources,
strategies, and collaborative editing (Perry, 1998).
Perry and colleagues indicated that sensitivity to the
level of support required by individual students was
critical to classrooms that supported SRL. In these
classrooms, researchers found both individual,
student-level support for particular tasks as well as
146
whole-class support that shifted as the pupil’s needs
changed.
These classroom context elements are echoed in
Randi and Corno’s (2000) work. Aspects of the
classroom environment that support SRL include
student choice on assignments, aligning classroom
opportunities with students’ skills, and community
building through collaborative problem solving tied
with group processing to explicitly support students’
group work. Teacher scaffolding through modelling
strategic behaviour and fading guidance constitutes
these authors’ second area of support. Eventually
students must be encouraged to carry out these
strategies independently. The last component of the
environment that encourages SRL development is the
classroom evaluation system. Similar to Perry and
colleagues’ work, significant diagnostic performance
evaluation including self and peer evaluation against
prior criteria is crucial to developing SRL. In
addition, as highlighted in Butler’s work (1995,
1998a, 1998b, 2002, 2003; Butler and Cartier, 2004;
Butler et al., 2000), “curriculum-embedded
assessments” include “instructional tasks that provide
opportunities for the teacher to observe and assess
what students can do; tailored to student individual
differences and designed to stretch to their full
potential through ongoing teacher assessment” (Randi
and Corno, 2000, p.663).
A common framework for many recent intervention
programs is based on the cognitive apprenticeship
model (Collins et al., 1989) including “mak[ing]
covert thinking (cognitive skills) explicit through
modelling and then help[ing] students to acquire them
through coaching and scaffolding” (Randy and
Corno, 2000, p.654). Thus, many interventions
explicitly incorporate heuristics and strategies that are
modelled for students. Subsequently, classroom
discourse is used to provide instructional support.
Both Schoenfeld (1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992) and
DeCorte and Verschaffel (Verschaffel and DeCorte,
1997; Verscahaffel et al., 1999) implemented a
“Polya-like” heuristic for problem solving and
required students to follow similar steps. First,
students were asked to represent the problem. This
essential step of understanding the problem prior to
beginning a solution is too often neglected (Pape,
2003, 2004). Next, students considered possible
strategies that might be applied to the problem while
devising a plan for solution. This design phase was
ongoing in Schoenfeld’s analysis. Through these two
crucial steps (i.e., analysing the task and devising a
plan) teachers instructed students to be thoughtful
about developing their understanding of the problem
and planning a way to solve it. Both heuristics then
included several steps related to carrying out the plan,
but Schoenfeld’s heuristic went slightly further by
asking the students to attempt to transform the
problem into a simpler problem. Others have
suggested, “modeling, verbal tuition, physical
guidance, corrective feedback, social structuring,
supervision and monitoring, peer teaching,
cooperative learning, and reciprocal teaching”
(Zimmerman, 1998b, p.10).
Another proposal for supporting students’ efforts to
accomplish academic tasks suggested by Butler
included these basic plan elements. Her emphasis on
the importance of analysing the task prior to
determining ways to accomplish it (Butler and
Cartier, 2004) is similar to representing a
mathematical problem. A crucial aspect of Butler’s
Strategic Content Learning and Cleary and
Zimmerman’s (2004) Self-Regulation Empowerment
Program (SREP) is that students first analysed or
engaged in strategies already within their repertoire
prior to being supported in developing new strategies
beyond their present capacity. An additional
component involves having students make
attributions for successes to the use of these
strategies. When students attribute successes to
strategic behaviour and failures to lack of strategic
behaviours, they maintain strategy use and in some
cases generalise these strategies to other contexts
(Borkowski et al., 1986, 1988). This additional
component is crucial to changing students’ beliefs
about themselves as learners. Students need ample
practice in real contexts (Butler, 2002, 2003; Butler
and Cartier, 2004; Butler et al., 2000; Schoenfeld,
1989, 1992; Verschaffel and DeCorte, 1997;
Verschaffel et al., 1999). Interventions should
provide the students an opportunity to apply the
strategies they have and attempt to expand their
repertoire of strategies gradually until they are using
them on their own (Butler, 2002, 2003; Butler and
Cartier, 2004; Butler et al., 2000). Through the
ongoing implementation of these strategies, students
will not only learn new ways to accomplish the
learning process but will also take on new
dispositions toward learning that include cognitively
active stances toward learning.
CLASSROOM CONNECTIVITY RESEARCH
PROJECT
How might the connected classroom technology
impact on development of SRL? In a traditional
classroom, student work is assigned, submitted,
manually graded, and handed back days after
completion. By the time students receive their
reviewed papers, they may have forgotten what they
were thinking when they did the work, and classroom
instruction may have moved on to a new topic. Not
only is it difficult to correct a conceptual problem at
this stage, but some difficulties evidenced in the work
may represent prior problems in understanding. This
delayed feedback is problematic especially for
science and mathematics where students make daily
incremental gains in knowledge. Teachers sometimes
try to gather formative assessment data about their
students by asking “Does everyone understand this
now?” Often they receive little response to this
question, which may lead them to assume that
everyone understands, or individual students may
believe everyone except them understands. Fear of
looking foolish provides a powerful incentive for
students to remain silent. In addition, critically
reviewing student work is incredibly time consuming
for teachers.
In contrast, in a connected classroom student work is
instantly aggregated and available on the teacher’s
computer once submitted. The classroom connectivity
technology under investigation in this study is the TI
NavigatorTM. This technology provides wireless
connectivity between the teachers’ computer through
a system of hubs to students’ graphing calculators.
Student responses to assigned or in-class questions,
student-collected data, or teacher-generated activities
may be collected from students’ calculators or sent to
their calculators. Thus, there are ways for teachers to
gain immediate insight into students’ understanding
of content knowledge and problem-solving strategies.
Displays of these data give powerful clues to what
students are doing, thinking, and understanding
(Roschelle et al., 2004b), which may lead to
adjustment in instruction. Assignments can be smaller
but more frequent – for example, requests to answer a
question, solve a problem, state a position, or play a
learning game (Wilensky and Stroup, 2000; 2002;
Stroup 2004). As aggregate class results can be
plotted (e.g., on a histogram) and shown to the class,
students receive immediate feedback (Dufresne,
Gerace, Leonard, Mestre and Wenk, 1996) in a non-
147
threatening way, and errors or strategies may become
objects of discourse for examination (Abrahamson,
Davidian and Lippai, 2002).
From a perspective of learner-, assessment-,
knowledge-, and community-centeredness as defined
by the NRC (1999), connected classrooms support
each of these centerednesses. Previous teacher reports
indicate that classroom connectivity technology
supported their efforts to (1) reveal students’ existing
conceptions and to extend and make connections with
previous knowledge; (2) exert “appropriate” pressure
for students to think through issues and to establish
and commit to positions; (3) use feedback to reverse
and improve the quality of their teaching and
students’ learning; (4) monitor class positions and
misconceptions; and (5) change the sense of
community in their classes (Owens, Demana,
Abrahamson, Meagher and Herman, 2004).
The theoretical foundation of classroom connectivity
draws on specific bodies of literature. When
questioning and formative assessment are frequent
and involve students actively in reflecting on their
knowledge and strategies for learning, and when
assessment data are used to inform and adjust
instruction, formative assessment has been reported to
result in significant student achievement gains (Black
and Wiliam, 1998; Fuchs and Fuchs, 1986, Roschelle
et al., 2004b). Discourse is central to the mediation of
shared meaning. Through public examination of
errors and processes that resulted in these errors,
teachers and students share their expertise as problem
solvers providing examples of reasoning within a
domain. “The very act of monitoring one’s own or
someone else’s explorations, implementations, or
verifications of problems coincides with one of the
defining aspects of mathematical reasoning—the
justification of ideas” (Artzt and Yaloz-Femia, 1999,
p.126). The connected classroom provides
anonymous and aggregated student responses for
public examination so that students may check their
understanding. High contrast displays of thinking are
a central feature of connected classrooms and a
powerful drive for productive discourse and student
learning. Roschelle, and colleagues (2004a, 2004b)
point to two likely contrasts: (1) among ideas that are
strongly related to the target concept such as
misconceptions based on prior knowledge (Smith,
diSessa and Roschelle, 1993); and (2) between an
individual student’s idea and the ideas of the group.
Engaging with cognitive conflict (e.g., making prior
148
knowledge problematic) is known to be an important
prerequisite to conceptual change (Posner, Strike,
Hewson and Gertzog, 1982; Webb and Palincsar,
1996). A connected classroom provides the
mechanism for making explicit both content and
strategies, which foster an environment for the
development of SRL. As mentioned earlier,
educational psychologists have explicated the
relationship between self-regulated behaviour and
academic achievement (e.g. Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons, 1988, 1990) and have postulated a
three-phase sequence: forethought, which involves
planning; performance, which involves monitoring
and controlling behaviours, cognitions, motivations,
and emotions; and self-reflection, which involves
judgments of progress and changes in behaviour
based on feedback. Connected classroom technology
and teacher orchestrated classroom discourse
provides a context in which these phases may become
explicit.
Classroom connectivity allows for repeated cycles of
the SRL phases. As teachers gather information
regarding their students’ knowledge and incorrect
responses are revealed, students’ thinking that led to
these responses may become an object for discussion
in the classroom. Students’ thinking during the
forethought and performance stages is revealed.
Further, this discussion provides an important
opportunity for self-reflection upon strategies and
thinking that led to these responses. Thus, these
classroom discussions provide the context in which
development of SRL is possible. Students gain a
window on the strategies of their teachers and peers,
which provides important possibilities for observation
of others’ strategies and thinking. As strategies
iteratively become objects of discourse in the
classroom, students begin to imitate these ways of
learning and solving problems, which is the
emulation phase of development, and they may
attempt to use these strategies under their own
volition, which is the self-control phase. Finally self-
regulation is gained as teachers slowly fade their
support for strategic behaviour (Zimmerman, 1994,
2000). Thus, connected classroom technology
potentially fosters SRL through immediate formative
assessment and the classroom discourse with
increasing quality of teachers’ questions that is
established as a result of revealing students’
conceptions, misconceptions, and as students are
asked to provide explanations and justifications for
their mathematical or scientific processes. In addition,
teachers in this context are challenged to identify
critical junctures in their lessons that are essential to
developing students’ conceptual knowledge before
they continue their lessons. Finally, more positive
dispositions toward mathematics and science are
possible given these instructional strategies.
THE RESEARCH STUDY
This four-year intervention research study aims to
investigate student outcomes including improved
student conceptual development and achievement in
mathematics and physical science, SRL skills, and
dispositions toward mathematics and science through
the pedagogically sound implementation of connected
classroom technology. Specifically, the project aims
to impact on teacher’s practices by supporting their
development of enhanced formative assessment and
classroom discourse in a networked classroom.
Students will benefit through the development of
deep conceptual understanding of Algebra I or
Physical Science, improved student achievement,
improved self-regulated learning, and more positive
dispositions towards mathematics or science.
The following research questions are ordered
according to the hypothesised sequence of observed
effects.
1. How does professional development focused on
the use of the TI-Navigator system and related
pedagogy affect teachers’ instruction within the
connected classroom?
a. How do teachers’ formative assessment and
discourse practices change in the TI-
Navigator networked Algebra I or Physical
Science classroom?
b. How does use of the TI-Navigator system
support proactive and reactive teacher
instructional strategy choices in Algebra I or
Physical Science classroom instruction?
Grant Year
1 2
Cohort 1 Algebra 1 Treatment
Year 1 (TY1)
Cohort 2 Algebra 1 Control
Cohort 3 Physical science
Cohort 4 Physical science
Table 1: Research design
2. How does instruction within a connected
classroom affect student achievement in Algebra
I or Physical Science?
3. How do instructional practices within connected
classrooms, especially formative assessment and
discourse practices, support the development of
SRL behaviours and productive dispositions
toward Algebra or Physical Science among
participants’ students?
4. What is the relationship between the pedagogy
and technology in TI-Navigator connected
classrooms? How does the technology
supplement or facilitate changing classroom
practice?
5. What is the relationship between teacher
knowledge, skills, and dispositions and effective
use of the TI-Navigator system implementation?
How do pedagogical content knowledge, content
knowledge, and beliefs about science influence
teachers' implementation of the Navigator
system?
Participants. During Year 1 (2005-2006), 120
Algebra I (7th-10th-grade level) teachers have been
randomly assigned to treatment (n=60) and control
(n=60) groups. During Year 2, Physical Science
teachers will be randomly assigned to treatment
(n=12) and control (n=12) groups (8th-9th grade
level). The research design for this study is a
randomised cross-over trial where the control group is
exposed to the intervention sequentially (see Table 1
for details). Each year of the study will include
around 2,400 to 3,600 student participants.
Intervention. The intervention includes a weeklong
professional development program focused on
pedagogy in the connected classroom and technology
skills, online dialogue and support, and follow-up
through participation at the Teachers Teaching with
Technology Annual Professional Development
Conference.
3 4
TY2 TY3
TY1 TY2 TY3
Treatment Y1 TY2 TY3
Control TY1 TY2
149
Research Design and Data Collection. Mixed
methodology using both quantitative and qualitative
methods will be employed. Teacher measures
include: Demographic Survey that requests teacher
and class level background information; Technology
Use and Professional Development survey; and
Teacher Practices Questionnaire. Additional teacher
or class level data collection techniques
include teacher telephone interviews and web-
based questionnaires as well as videotaped
classroom technology use and field notes from 15
two-day classroom observations and 5 five-day
extended case study site visits. Student measures
include researcher-developed Algebra I and
Physical Science achievement tests; Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich,
Smith, Garcia and McKeachie, 1991); Views of
Mathematics and Views of Science student survey;
and Student Perceptions of Classroom Practices
survey.
Data Analyses. Data analyses will include both
quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Broadly,
quantitative analyses will include Hierarchical
Linear Modelling to support our examination of
differences between treatment and control groups in
relation to achievement measures, SRL behaviours,
and dispositions toward mathematics and science as
an indication of the effectiveness of the
intervention. In addition, to investigate the growth
in teachers’ ability to use the classroom network
technology, longitudinal comparisons across years
of the grant will be conducted. Qualitative analyses
will provide descriptions of the professional
development program and technology use across the
sample of participating teachers. In addition, case
studies of technology use will provide in-depth
descriptions of individual teachers’ and students’
learning in these contexts. These analyses will
provide a description of the context in which the
quantitative analyses will be situated.
SUMMARY
The proposed project aims to improve student
conceptual development and achievement in
Algebra I or Physical Science, SRL, and
dispositions toward mathematics or science through
the pedagogically sound implementation of
connected classroom technology and improved
instructional practice. Specifically, the project aims
to impact on teachers’ practices by supporting their
150
development of enhanced formative assessment and
classroom discourse in a connected classroom.
Researchers expect that students will benefit
through the development of deep conceptual
understanding of Algebra I or Physical Science,
improved student achievement, improved self-
regulated learning, and more positive dispositions
towards science.
REFERENCES
Artzt, A. F. and Yaloz-Femia, S. (1999).
Mathematical reasoning during small-group
problem solving. In L. V. Stiff and F. R. Curcio
(Eds.), Developing Mathematical Reasoning K-
12: 1999 yearbook Reston. VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 115-126.
Abrahamson, L.A., Davidian, A. and Lippai, A.
(2000). Wireless calculator networks: Where
they came from, why they work, and where
they’re going. Paper Presented at the 13th
Annual International Conference on Technology
in Collegiate Mathematics, Atlanta, GA.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box:
Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment.
London: King's College London.
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S. and Carr, M.
(1988). Effects of attributional retraining on
strategy-based reading comprehension in
learning-disabled students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 46-53.
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S. and Turner, L. A.
(1986). Attributional retraining and the teaching
of strategies. Exceptional Children, 53, 130-137.
Bronson, M. B. (2000). Overview of theoretical
perspectives on self-regulation. In M. B.
Bronson (Ed.). Self-Regulation in Early
Childhood. New York: Guilford Press, 11-30.
Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning
by postsecondary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28,
170-190.
Butler, D. L. (1998a). A strategic content learning
approach to promoting self-regulated learning by
students with learning disabilities. In D. H.
Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.). Self-
Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-
Reflective Practice. New York: Guilford Press,
160-183.
Butler, D. L. (1998b). The strategic content learning
approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A
 report of three studies. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 682-697.
Butler, D. L. (2002). Individualised instruction in
self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41
(2), 81-92.
Butler, D. L. (2003). Structuring instruction to
promote self-regulated learning by adolescents
and adults with learning disabilities.
Exceptionality, 11, 39-60.
Butler, D. L. and Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting
effective task interpretation as an important
work habit: A key to successful teaching and
learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1729-
1758.
Butler, D. L., Elaschuk, C. L. and Poole, S. (2000).
Promoting strategic writing by postsecondary
students with learning disabilities: A report of
three case studies. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 23, 196-213.
Cleary, T. J. and Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-
regulation empowerment program: A school-
based program to enhance self-regulated and
self-motivated cycles of student learning.
Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537-550.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S. and Newman, S. E. (1989).
Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of
reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B.
Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, Learning, and
Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 453-494.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L. and Eynde, P. O. (2000).
Self-regulation: A characteristic and a goal of
mathematics education. In M. Boekaerts, P.
Pintrich and M. Ziedner (Eds.). Handbook of
Self-Regulation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press,
687-726.
Diaz, R. M., Neal, C. J. and Amaya-Williams, M.
(1990). The social origins of self-regulation. In
L. Moll (Ed.). Vygotsky and Education:
Instructional Implications and Applications of
Sociohistorical Psychology. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 127-154.
Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J.,
Mestre, J.P. and Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: a
classroom communication system for active
learning. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 7, 3–47.
Fennema, E., Sowder, J. and Carpenter, T. P.
(1999). Creating classrooms that promote
understanding. In E. Fennema and T. A.
Romberg (Eds.). Mathemtics Classrooms that
Promote Understanding. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 185-199.
Fuchs, L. S. and Fuchs D. (1986). Effects of
systematic formative evaluation: A meta-
analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. and Findell, B. (2001).
Adding it Up: Helping Children Learn
Mathematics. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the
question and the solution is not the answer:
Mathematical knowing and teaching. American
Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students' and teachers'
conceptions of the nature of science: A review of
the research. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 26 (9), 771-783.
McCaslin, M. and Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-
regulated learning and academic achievement: A
Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H.
Schunk (Eds.). Self-Regulated Learning and
Academic Achievement New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Ass., 227-252.
McComas, W. (1996). Ten myths of science: Re-
examining what we think we know about the
nature of science. School Science and
Mathematics, 96, 10-16.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council (1996). Mathematics
and science education around the world: What
can we learn from the survey of mathematics
and science opportunities (SMSO) and the third
international mathematics and science study
(TIMSS)? Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
National Research Council (1999). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience. Washington,
DC, National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the
national science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Owens , D. T., Demana , F., Abrahamson, A. L.,
Meagher, M. and Herman, M. (2004).
Developing Pedagogy for Wireless Handheld
Computer Networks and Researching Teacher
Professional Development. Washington, DC,
Published by ERIC ED479499: 137.
Pajares, F. and Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-
efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical
151
 problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.
Pape, S. J. (2003). Compare word problems:
Consistency hypothesis revisited. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 28, 396-421.
Pape, S. J. (2004). Middle school children’s
problem-solving behaviour: A cognitive analysis
from a reading comprehension perspective.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
35, 187-220.
Pape, S. J. (2005). Intervention that supports future
learning: Developing self-regulated learners. In
S. Wagner (Ed.), PRIME: Prompt Intervention
in Mathematics Education. Columbus, OH: Ohio
Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and
Reading and the Ohio Department of Education,
77-98.
Pape, S. J., Bell, C.V. and Yetkin, I. E. (2003).
Developing mathematical thinking and self-
regulated learning: A teaching experiment in a
seventh-grade mathematics classroom.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 179-
202.
Pape, S. J. and Smith, C. (2002). Self-regulating
mathematics skills. Theory into Practice, 41, 93-
101.
Pape, S. J. and Wang, C. (2003). Middle school
children’s strategic behaviour: Classification and
relation to academic achievement and
mathematical problem solving. Instructional
Science, 31, 419-449.
Perry, N.E. (1998). Young children's self-regulated
learning and contexts that support it. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 715-729.
Perry, N., Phillips, L. and Dowler, J. (2004).
Examining features of tasks and their potential
to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers
College Record, 106, 1854-1878.
Perry, N. E. and VandeKamp, K. J. (2000). Creating
classroom contexts that support young children’s
development of self-regulated learning.
International Journal of Educational Research,
33, 821-843.
Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K.J., Mercer, L.K. and
Nordby, C.J. (2002). Investigating teacher-
student interactions that foster self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5-15.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. and
Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a
scientific conception: Toward a theory of
conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-
227.
152
Randi, J. and Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovation
in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.
Pintrich and M. Ziedner (Eds.). Handbook of
Self-Regulation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press,
651-685.
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W.R. and Abrahamson, L.
(2004a). Classroom response and
communication systems: Research review and
theory. American Educational Research
Association 2004 Annual Meeting, San Diego,
CA.
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W.R. and Abrahamson, L.
(2004b). The networked classroom. Educational
Leadership, 61 (5), 50-54.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem
Solving. New York: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about
metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.).
Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 189-215.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching
leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-
taught” mathematics courses. Educational
Psychologist, 23, 145-166.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Teaching mathematical
thinking and problem solving. In L. B. Resnick
and L. E. Klopfer (Eds.). Toward the Thinking
Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 83-103.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think
mathematically: Problem solving, meta-
cognition, and sense making in mathematics. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.). Handbook of Research on
Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New
York: Macmillan, 334-370.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy
during self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 25, 71-86.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic
motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-
231.
Schunk, D. H. and Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social
origins of self-regulatory competence.
Educational Psychologist, 32, 195-208.
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A. and Roschelle, J. (1993).
Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist
analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163.
Webb, N. M. and Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group
processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner and R.
 Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of Educational
Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 841-873.
Verschaffel, L. and De Corte, E. (1997). Teaching
realistic mathematical modelling in the
elementary school: A teaching experiment with
fifth graders. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28, 577-601.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Lasure, S., Van
Vaerenbergh, G., Bogaerts, H. and Ratinckx, E.
(1999). Learning to solve mathematical
application problems: A design experiment with
fifth graders. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 1, 195-229.
Wertsch, J. V. and Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept
of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the
genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V.
Wertsch (Ed.). Culture, Communication and
Cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 162-179.
Wilensky, U. and Stroup, W. (2000). Networked
gridlock: Students enacting complex dynamic
phenomena with the HubNet architecture. Paper
presented at the Fourth Annual International
Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann
Arbor, MI.
Wilensky, U. and W. M. Stroup (2002).
Participatory simulations: Envisioning the
networked classroom as a way to support
systems learning for all. Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic
self-regulation: A conceptual framework for
education. In D. H. Schunk and B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.). Self-Regulation of Learning
and Performance: Issues and Educational
Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
3-21.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998a). Academic studying and
the development of personal skill: A self-
regulatory perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 33, 73-86.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998b). Developing self-
fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An
analysis of exemplary instructional models. In
D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-
Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-
Reflective Practice. New York: Guilford Press,
1-19.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation:
A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts,
P. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of
Self-Regulation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press,
13-39.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A. and Martinez-Pons,
M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and
personal goal setting. American Educational
Research Journal, 29, 663-676.
Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons M. (1986).
Development of a structured interview for
assessing student use of self-regulated learning
strategies. American Educational Research
Journal, 23, 614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1988).
Construct validation of a strategy model of
student self-regulated learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.
Zimmerman, B. J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1990).
Student differences in self-regulated learning:
Relating grade, sex, and gifedness to self-
efficacy and strategy use. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
STEPHEN PAPE is a faculty member within two
sections of the School of Teaching and Learning at
The Ohio State University: (1) Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education (MSAT), and
(2) Integrated Teaching and Learning (ITL). His
doctorate training was in Educational Psychology
with a specialization in the Research on Teaching
and Learning of Mathematics from CUNY,
Graduate School and University Center. He was
born in New York City where he also earned a
Bachelor of Science from Fordham University in
Mathematics and Psychology and a Master of
Science in Secondary Mathematics Education from
the City University of New York (CUNY), Queens
College. He has taught elementary and secondary
mathematics at a K-12 private school and middle
school mathematics and science at the intermediate
school level for the New York City Public Schools.
During his graduate studies, he taught psychology
courses at CUNY, LaGuardia Community College
and education courses at CUNY, Queens College.
His research incorporates three areas of study:
mathematics, education, and educational
psychology. It has examined middle school
children’s problem-solving behavior through the
lens of cognitive theories of reading comprehension.
This understanding of children’s problem-solving
153
behavior serves as a foundation for examining
teachers’ classroom behaviors that promote
academic achievement and self-regulated learning.
He has been PI and co-PI on several training and
research grants that sought to support middle school
teachers’ efforts to change their teaching practices.
He is presently a co-PI on a project funded by the
Institutes of Educational Sciences in the United
States to examine the impact of Classroom
154
Connectivity systems that hold promise for
increasing self-regulated learning capacities and
achievement. Thus, his developing line of research
brings together my ongoing efforts to understand
learning processes with work that investigates
reform middle school mathematics teaching
practices and classroom contexts that support the
development of self-regulated learning.
155
156