1111

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3111
E-moderating
4
5
6 Professor Gilly Salmon has achieved continuity and illumination of the seminal
7111 five-stage model, together with new research-based developments, in her
8 much-awaited third edition of E-moderating – the most quoted and successful
9 guide for e-learning practitioners.
20111 Never content to offer superficial revisions or simple ‘solutions’ against the
1 pace of technological advances, the expanding interest and requirements for
2 online learning, and the changes they have wrought, E-moderating, 3rd edition
3 offers a richness of applied topics that will directly impact learners and teachers
4 of all kinds. The book is carefully crafted and supported with evidence,
5 examples and resources for practical guidelines, making it potentially
6 transformational for all practitioners.
7 E-moderating, 3rd edition includes:
8
9 ● Updates of literature, key terms, case studies and projects
30111 ● Fresh examples of the use of the five-stage model around the world, at
1 different levels of education and across disciplines
2 ● Guidelines for moderating for podcasting and virtual worlds
3 ● Illustrations from the latest All Things in Moderation development
4 programmes ([Link])
5 ● New resources for practitioners
6
7 Gilly Salmon spent six years as head of the Beyond Distance Research
8 Alliance and the Media Zoos at the University of Leicester ([Link]/
9 mediazoo).
40111 She is now Professor of Learning Futures and Executive Director of the
1 Australian Digital Futures Institute at the University of Southern Queensland,
2111 Australia ([Link]/adfi).

i
1111
2

E-moderating
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The Key to
10
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7111
8
9
20111
Teaching and
Learning
1
2
3
4
5

Online
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
Third Edition
4
5
6
GILLY SALMON
7
8
9
40111
1
2111

iii
1111
2111
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 For Glenn
10
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7111
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2111

v
Third edition published 2011
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Simultaneously published in the UK
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2011 Gilly Salmon
The right of Gilly Salmon to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted by him/her in accordance with sections 77
and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification
and explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Kogan Page 2000
Second edition published by Routledge Falmer 2003
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Salmon, Gilly.
E-moderating: the key to online teaching and learning/
Gilly Salmon. – 3rd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Teaching – Computer network resources.
2. Computer-assisted instruction. 3. Distance
education. I. Title.
LB1044.87.S249 2011
371.33⬘4 – dc22 2010052320

ISBN13: 978–0-415–88173–9 (hbk)

ISBN13: 978–0-415–88174–6 (pbk)
ISBN13: 978–0-203–81668–4 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo and Gill Sans by

Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon

Printed and bound by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall

vi
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3111
4
Contents
5
6
7111 Preface ix
8 Acknowledgements for the third edition xiii
9
20111 Part 1: Concepts and cases 1
1
2 1. E-moderating – the journey 3
3
4 2. A model for collaborative online learning 26
5
6 3. More technologies – and the five-stage model 60
7
8 4. E-moderating qualities and roles 103
9
30111 5. Developing e-moderators 124
1
2 6. Further development of e-moderators 145
3
4 7. Learning experiences 160
5
6 8. Future e-moderating 179
7
8 Part 2: Resources for practitioners 191
9
40111 1. Scaffolding online learning 193
1
2111 2. Achieving online socialization 198

vii
viii Contents

3. Achieving knowledge sharing and construction 201

4. Developing e-moderators 203

5. Costs 205

6. Summarizing and weaving 206

7. Taming online time 210

8. Promoting cultural understandings 212

9. Creating ‘presence’ 215

10. Housekeeping 217

11. Promoting active participation 219

12. Aligned student assessment 222

13. Evaluating online conferencing 224

14. E-moderating for synchronous conferencing 227

15. E-moderating for virtual worlds 230

16. E-moderating for podcasting 234

17. Monitoring e-moderating 238

18. Encouraging self-managing groups 240

19. Supporting online novices 242

20. Understanding lurking 244

21. Valuing online diversity 246

22. What’s going on? 248

23. What will we call ourselves? 249

24. Communicating online 252

References 256
Index 271

viii
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3111
4
Preface
5
6
7111 E-moderators are the new generation of teachers and trainers who work with
8 learners online. Earlier editions of this book have ‘struck a spark’ and helped
9 make the online world a creative, happy, productive and relevant place for
20111 successful learning. In this expanded and revised third edition my aim is to
1 bring readers up to date with recent exciting changes in that world, and our
2 growing knowledge and excellent online practice.
3 Human use of computing is vast and growing. Networked technologies
4 such as the internet and the World Wide Web have been called ‘transforma-
5 tional’ because of their wide-ranging impact. Electronic networking creates
6 communications across terrestrial boundaries, across cultures and on a global
7 scale. Concepts of space and time are changing, and of how and with whom
8 people can collaborate, discover communities, explore resources and ideas and
9 learn.
30111 Computer Mediated Communication and its collaborative sister, Computer
1 Mediated Conferencing (CMC), actually arrived before the internet and the
2 World Wide Web became widely available. CMC encouraged teachers to
3 challenge perceived and received wisdom and practice about learning online
4 and to reflect on their experiences. Computer mediation has become so much
5 part of our everyday lives now, that in this book I just call it a place ‘Online’.
6 In this book, I call attention to the mediator, or e-moderator, in online
7 learning processes. Successful online learning depends on teachers and trainers
8 acquiring new competencies, on their becoming aware of its potential and on
9 their inspiring the learners, rather than on mastering the technology.
40111 Investigating the use of online has many facets and aspects. Web utopians
1 once predicted virtual schools, colleges and universities with very low-cost
2111 learning and truly effective ‘any time, any place’ student interaction. They said

ix
x Preface

that the need for expensive campus buildings or large corporate training
facilities will disappear along with the requirement for learners to physically
congregate. The ‘web-phobes’ were very worried that the benefits of learning
together might be lost and that it will be a bad day for knowledge, for feelings,
for the joys of gatherings and groups.
Meanwhile, many people got on with creating the future – as each year has
unfolded the potential for learning online has become greater along with the
complexity of identifying the most viable and desirable ways forward. Small
factions of teachers, researchers and trainers have led the way. Like all pioneers,
they have a tough time. For them, and for the thousands of online teachers
that will follow, I hope this book will be of interest and of use. It’s time to
start the wagon train again but this time with somewhat stronger pathways of
understandings to follow.
There are many definitions of an online course. At one end of the spectrum
of ‘online-ness’, these include classroom-based teaching supplemented by
lecture notes posted on a website or by electronic communication such as
e-mail. At the other end of the spectrum, materials may be made available
and interactions occur exclusively through networked technologies. This book
is concerned with more or less the full spectrum (and not-yet-created
combinations), but the key issue is that the teacher, instructor, tutor or facili-
tator – the e-moderator – is operating in the electronic environment along
with his or her students, the participants.
I have drawn on my own experience of online learning, as well as that of
many other people. I have selected case studies and experiences where the
storyteller is the academic, teacher or e-moderator involved, where
implementation occurred within the regular learning and teaching situation,
and where there was some evaluation or at least serious reflection on practice.
For some twenty years, I have been able to study and practise the art of e-
moderating, particularly within the Open University (OU). I began learning
online in 1988, when I was a student on the first OU course to use online
conferencing on a large scale. The software and systems we had at that time
were primitive, although they felt revolutionary to me! I was excited by the
experience and by the potential. In 1988, we used a system called ‘CoSy’ (short
for Conferencing System) that worked on commands from the keyboard.
Offline readers, point and click mouse commands, graphics and ever-increasing
sophistication of functions followed as software systems developed. Each new
function seemed like a great step forward at the time. When I joined the OU
Business School (OUBS) as a lecturer in 1989, I was able to experiment with
online conferencing for teaching management courses at a distance. Later I
was responsible for training hundreds of e-moderators for the school.
You will appreciate the irony of writing a book about something I strongly
believe needs to be experienced in the electronic environment itself. So when

x
 Preface xi

1111 I first put the book together, I thought of you, the readers, as potential
2 collaborators in an online experience. I still think of you as:
3
4 ● academics, teachers, course managers, teaching assistants, tutors, instructors,
5 moderators and trainers of any discipline at post-secondary level in any
6 country or training department, who are planning to move from
7 conventional teaching to teaching online or who are working in open and
8 distance learning;
9 ● staff developers and academic developers of all kinds;
10 ● developers of corporate learning, training departments of large companies,
1 brokers of and agents for online training.
2
3111 I believe there may be some ‘lurkers’ or ‘browsers’, too. They are likely
4 to be:
5
6 ● software designers who are working on education and training projects;
7111 ● developers considering the use of learning technologies in educational
8 programmes;
9 ● teachers working in primary and secondary schools;
20111 ● staff in community programmes or local government departments dealing
1 with health and social welfare who are planning to deploy online for
2 building communities or for democratic purposes;
3 ● managers and academics responsible for assessment of trainees’ and teachers’
4 performance.
5
6 In this third edition, I have added two new chapters, but the book is still in
7 two parts. In Part 1, Chapter 1 explains what I see as e-moderating and
8 explores it. Chapters 2 and 3 offer a research-based model for understanding
9 training and development for online conferencing and interaction and apply
30111 it in discussion boards and other new technologies for collaborative learning.
1 Chapter 4 explores the roles and competencies of e-moderators, with examples.
2 Chapters 5 and 6 explore key issues in training e-moderators at, respectively,
3 the OU and All Things In Moderation Ltd. Chapter 7 looks at the learners’
4 experiences. No book of this kind can resist a peek at the future, which you’ll
5 find in Chapter 8.
6 Part 2 changes tack and offers an updated set of practical resources largely
7 based on my own practice as an e-moderator. I also reflect research and
8 acknowledge the research and development teams I have worked within over
9 the past six years. I hope you will find them useful for meeting this exciting
40111 challenge.
1 This book will provide you with support in thinking through your online
2111 teaching, for your topic, your subject, your organization, your programme,

xi
xii Preface

your teaching practice and your learners. This is the way to take part and
shape the future of teaching and learning online – through the actions of the
e-moderators.
Drivers in education are many and complex. Borders and boundaries
between physical locations, disciplines and levels are reducing and sometimes
disappearing. The use of information and communication technologies (ICT)
to support easy access to learning or flexibility of all kinds is often a central
tenet of educational missions. Some countries, such as Australia, forged ahead
using leaders and champions to show direction. In others, such as the UK,
government initiatives have promoted new institutional forms or technological
systems approaches. Until recently, the allure of the technology has received
the lion’s share of attention. Although the ideas of increasing access, partici-
pation, skills and competencies for new forms of societies of the twenty-first
century are at the heart of many intentions, the investment in the role of human
intervention and support to harness the technology into the service of teaching
and learning has been meagre by comparison.
One notable development in the last few years is the increasing exploration
around the nature of teaching and learning itself, which has been fed, stimulated
and challenged by the increasing use of computing in most educational arenas.
Many educationalists are excited that networked technologies provide a new
kind of window on the world of information, but feel uncomfortable that they
also may serve to reduce the social and collaborative aspects of learning. The
debate about how to engage students online continues, and about what kinds
of technologies, provided by whom, create the right kind of environments for
what! My book E-tivities attempts to address some of these.
Since I wrote the first edition of E-moderating, there is less reason to convince
the world that we need support for online teachers, trainers and facilitators (from
a happy and successful band of e-moderators) to make e-learning work well.
Thinking has moved on from believing that technology may do away with
teachers and towards how they can be trained and supported to work online.
Researchers have stopped making spurious comparisons between online and
face-to-face, and explored instead when and what we need to do to make online
really worthwhile. We still need to find ways of scaling up the e-moderating
task force without consuming huge amounts of diminishing resources.
By the time you read these pages I will be working at the University of
Southern Queensland as Professor of Learning Futures. I am certain that
despite all these changes, e-moderating will remain the key to successful
learning and teaching online.

Gilly Salmon
Leicester
October 2010

xii
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3111
4
Acknowledgements
5
6
for the third
7111
8
9
edition
20111
1
2 The research for this, the third edition of E-moderating, has spanned six very
3 happy and productive years for me as Professor of E-learning and Learning
4 Technologies and Head of the Beyond Distance Research Alliance at the
5 University of Leicester in the UK. It’s been one of the most exciting times in
6 my career, a time when I’ve had the privilege and joy to work in a forward-
7 looking, knowledge-constructing team, within an innovative and student-
8 centred university. No, I really mean it! I’m moving now to be Professor of
9 Learning Futures at the University of Southern Queensland, so this book is
30111 my Leicester swansong.
1 Beyond Distance ([Link]/beyonddistance) is an alliance of teachers
2 and researchers willing to create a productive future for learning online, rather
3 than simply watch it unfold. Hundreds and hundreds of people, in the
4 university and elsewhere, have touched this future. Whether named here or
5 not, they have had an impact on this book, and I thank them for their inspira-
6 tion, encouragement, comments, sources, help, experiences and challenges.
7 The alliance team has worked with almost every academic department at
8 Leicester, with fantastic people who tell us how it really, really IS!
9 The idea of a research and development unit in a higher education institution
40111 is still unusual and my thanks go to the senior management team at Leicester
1 for the faith they’ve put into Beyond Distance – Vice Chancellor Professor
2111 Sir Bob Burgess, PVCs John Fothergill and Christine Fyfe, and Registrar

xiii
xiv Acknowledgements for the third edition

Dave Hall. And to Professor Annette Cashmore for her unending encourage-
ment. I thank them for their strong acknowledgement and for opening so many
doors.
Outside the university, my thanks go to the Association of Learning
Technology ([Link] a wonderful community, constantly
impacting on learning. And to all the people who asked me to talk at their
conferences, seminars and meetings and who came to see us at Leicester. I’m
sure we learnt more from them than they did from us. My special thanks go
to those who contributed case studies and examples to this book – and to their
online participants – truly a cast of thousands. Hundreds more participants in
the All Things in Moderation Ltd. ([Link]) courses have advanced
our understanding of how to prepare people to e-moderate – there’s more
about them in Chapter 6, with the latest 2010 example. Thanks to David
Shepherd and Ken Giles as always for their keenness and contributions.
I hope you’ll spot all these contributions throughout this edition but I can’t
resist thanking by name the people I worked most closely with; it’s really the
very least I can do in return for the hundreds of questions I asked and the
challenges I posed, for their huge toleration, support and commitment, and
for explaining their research and development findings to me. Long live the
daily 10 am ‘Creative Meetings’ at Beyond Distance! So thanks, and here’s to
the future of learning, to: Ola Aiyegbayo, Alejandro Armellini, Kelly Barklamb,
Terese Bird, Rob Cane, Sheetal Chudasama, Emma Davies, Roger Dence,
Palitha Edirisingha, Sylvia Jones, Simon Kear, Suzanne Lavelle, Louise
Lubkowski, Matt Mobbs, Richard Mobbs, Jaideep Mukherjee, Ming Nie,
Samuel Nikoi, Rakesh Patel, Madelaine Peene, Sandra Romenska-Aggarwal,
Tania Rowlett, Paul Rudman, Lee Taylor, Matthew Wheeler, Helen
Whitehead and Gabi Witthaus. Our visiting professor since 2005 has been
David Hawkridge: I thank him for his advice and editing, which have been
invaluable yet again for this edition, as for the previous two.
Thank you to Phil Candy, Michael Sankey and Shirley Reushle for enabling
me to get fast into the swing of things at the University of Southern
Queensland, and for their suggestions and contributions to this book.
And of course my thanks to Rod, Glenn, Emily and Paula, and many other
friends and family for always saying ‘Yes . . . and we will help you!’

xiv
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Part 1:
1
2 CONCEPTS AND CASES
3111
4
5
6
7111
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2111

1
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Throughout this book, I use real online messages from courses that I
1 design or run as illustrations. I indicate a screen message by shading, like
2 this paragraph. Messages have had to be pruned to reduce the amount
3111 of space they take up in the book, but I have not attempted to correct
4 their grammar or informal language. By the way, looking at selected
5 messages in print after the interactive event makes them seem more
6 organized than they really were. Live e-moderating is likely to be messier!
7111
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2111

2
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Chapter 1
1
2
3111
4
E-moderating –
5
6
the journey
7111
8
9
20111 This book is set in the context of the rapid development of technologies of
1 all kinds, addressing communication, business, life processes and entertain-
2 ment. A few have been developed specifically for learning and or knowledge
3 dissemination purposes (these are usually called ‘learning technologies’) but
4 many others have been ‘harnessed’ by educators and adapted and exploited
5 for learning use – often called ‘technology enhanced learning’. This book’s
6 key focus and emphasis are on the advantages to learning made possible by
7 technology and the best ways of achieving this aim, but I look at these changes
8 through the eyes of online teachers, for whom I have used the term ‘electronic
9 moderators’ – ‘e-moderators’.
30111 This chapter introduces e-moderating to you and starts to explore the
1 contexts and environments in which it thrives.
2 The term ‘online’ came from the days of the telegraph, when messages could
3 be tapped directly onto the line rather than prepared ‘offline’ on perforated
4 tape, for sending when the machine was later connected to the telephone line.
5 Today, ‘online networking’ covers a range of technologies. In education and
6 training, technologies that concentrate on computer-mediated communication
7 are commonest. They fall into three broad categories as originally defined by
8 Santoro (1995):
9
40111 1. Informatics, particularly involving electronic access via telecommunications
1 to catalogues, library resources, interactive remote databases and archives,
2111 including those on the World Wide Web.

3
 4 Concepts and cases

1111 2. Computer-assisted instruction, also known as computer-assisted learning

2 and computer-based training, which may or may not require tele-
3 communications.
4 3. Computer-mediated conferencing is based on computers and tele-
5 communications.
6
7 From 2002, there was a new view of the generations of online learning
8 environments (Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 2002). These are:
9
10 1. First generation: computer conferencing, asynchronous and text based.
1 2. Second generation: web based, still asynchronous but now including more
2 linked (hyper) texts and multimedia resources.
3111 3. Third generation: includes more synchronous communication.
4 4. Fourth generation: virtual reality and mobility. And more as yet un-
5 imagined.
6
7111 E-moderators undertake most of their work at present with first and second
8 generation technologies. However, I now include a much wider range of
9 learning technologies and those that have been produced for business, social
20111 networking, entertainment and harnessed in the service of knowledge sharing
1 and construction. The Horizon reports, which started in 2002 and continue
2 annually, are a great way of viewing the rapid changes and deployment of
3 technologies in the service of learning, teaching and creative expression
4 (Horizon, 2010). Many defy highly structured categorizing, at least at this early
5 stage in their development.
6 Another way of considering ideal ‘types’ is the level of interactivity between
7 the learner, the learning resources and the learning group. The research and
8 stories in this book could be considered as Ellis and Goodyear’s (2010) Type 2
9 – that is, using largely web-based resources and software but with significant
30111 human intervention. In practice, the cry that is heard so frequently ‘it’s not
1 really about the technology’ has been proven through research, through
2 practice, through the learners’ and teachers’ voices – whilst learning design
3 creates the pedagogy, the human intervention by an empathetic teacher enables
4 the learning. I make no apologies for stating and restating this absolute truism
5 for me. I am indebted to the fresh and valuable experience of my fantastic
6 colleagues at the University of Leicester, where we have had the opportunity
7 to research many ways of creating humanness in technology through the
8 Media Zoo ([Link]/mediazoo). I am also learning from my new
9 colleagues at the University of Southern Queensland, from their wisdom and
40111 experience (see for example Reushle and Mitchell, 2009; Candy, 2010).
1 A moderator is a person who presides over a meeting. An e-moderator
2111 presides over an electronic online meeting or conference, though not in quite

4
 E-moderating – the journey 5

1111 the same ways as a moderator does. Computer-mediated conferencing, often

2 shortened to (CMC) actually requires e-moderators to have a rather wider
3 range of expertise, as I shall explain and demonstrate.
4 There are many different definitions and applications of e- or online learning.
5 One main difference is between those who see online as based on instruction
6 and transmission, and those who see the learner’s experience as central to
7 knowledge construction. In this book I focus mainly on the second definition.
8 This is the world where the role and skills of the e-moderator are critically
9 important.
10 I hope you will come to see the word ‘e-moderating’ as an active verb –
1 like learning and teaching. The essential role of the e-moderator is promoting
2 human interaction and communication through the modelling, conveying and
3111 building of knowledge and skills.
4 An e-moderator undertakes this feat through using the mediation of online
5 environments designed for interaction and collaboration. To learn to undertake
6 an e-moderating role, whether coming to it fresh or as a change to previous
7111 teaching, coaching or facilitating practice, takes a mixture of new insights and
8 some technical skill, but mostly understanding the management of online
9 learning and group working.
20111 In our highly complex world, of course I acknowledge that the place of
1 human intervention is highly complex. The tutor, teacher, trainer – whatever
2 you wish to call, him, her or them (I call them e-moderators when they work
3 online) – operate in the boundary between the educational establishment
4 (represented by the curriculum and the provided learning technologies) and
5 the learning experience – they adopt a wide variety of roles.
6
7
Jane’s diary
8
9
Here are a few pages from Jane’s diary. She’s an e-moderator, and it will give
30111
you the flavour of what this job can be like. Jane is a university teacher, like
1
me, and she’s an enthusiast too.
2
3
Day 1, Thursday, 10 pm
4
5 Just back from swimming. I check my course list: 16 students this time, from
6 four continents. I hope they’ve all received the first mailing in the post,
7 including their log-on instructions and my first requests. I try not to plead too
8 hard for them to get started really early on the conferencing!
9 How many will have logged in by Day 1? I click on the Cross-cultural
40111 Management Conference icon. Then into the ‘Arrivals’ thread. And there it
1 is on my screen! The ‘new message’ flag. The conferencing begins! It’s great
2111 getting to know new students. Abraham is confident:

5
 6 Concepts and cases

1111
2 Hi there.
3
4 ABRAHAM HAS LIFT OFF! OR IS IT LANDING?
5 I’VE ARRIVED IN THIS INTERESTING NEW PLACE AND I’M
6 READY TO BEGIN.
7 Who can tell me what’s what around here?
8
9
10 This one’s perhaps timid:
1
2
3111 I hope I’m posting this message in the right place. Can someone tell me?
4 Marianne from Manchester
5
6
7111 Out of my 16, eight have got there so far and have announced their arrival, as
8 I asked them to. Another two have e-mailed me. Paula in Moscow says she’s
9 having connection problems. Ben can’t find the Cross-cultural Management
20111 Conference discussion board on his screen. I e-mailed both back with ways of
1 contacting technical support and diaried myself to follow up in a few days.
2 So, I e-mail the arrivals to thank and encourage them for their first
3 conference messages. I mention to Abraham that capital letters are equivalent
4 to shouting online. I check the message history for the arrivals conference –
5 two more have been reading the messages but haven’t contributed yet. I’m
6 sure they will soon. I make that 12 on the runway.
7 I check the conference for their second task: to use the ‘resume’ facility to
8 tell the group a little about themselves. Time online: 45 minutes.
9
30111 Day 3, Saturday, 10.45 am
1
Super! Two more in arrivals, one from Beijing, one from London. Fourteen
2
on the runway now. Some interchanges occurring in ‘arrivals’ between those
3
already there. I need to archive to avoid too many unread messages (especially
4
as six were from Abraham). For the final arrival I post a message asking people
5
to move across to the café conference and I put a couple of chatty messages
6
in there myself. Time online: 15 minutes.
7
8
Day 5, Monday, 10 pm
9
40111 Out for sushi then log on. Fifteen chatty messages in café conference and one
1 more new arrival – Sylvia from Vienna. Set first conference for carrying out
2111 course activities. As a ‘warm-up’ activity, I post this message:

6
 E-moderating – the journey 7

1111
2 Task 1 Over the next few days, visit a local store that sells soft drinks.
3 Try and find the cheapest of the kind on offer of:
4
5 Coca-Cola,
6 Local cola brand.
7
8 Check out how each type of cola is priced, the place where you found
9 it and the type of promotion it was being given. Please give price per
10 can or bottle.
1 Then convert your currency into sterling through a currency converter
2 website. Post your results in this conference by next Sunday 7 pm GMT.
3111 Abraham and Marianne have agreed to collate and post comparative
4 results.
5 As an example, I went to my local supermarket in Loughton in North
6 East London in the United Kingdom. Here are my results:
7111
8 Price for Coca-Cola: £0.38, ie 38p (but sold only in packs of 6 for
9 £2.25)
20111
1 Price for local cola: Safeways ‘Select’ Cola £0.28 (but sold only in
2 packs of 6 cans for £1.69)
3 Promotion for Coca-Cola: displayed at eye level on soft drinks shelf
4 (Pepsi Cola was below eye level)
5
6 Promotion for local cola: displayed at eye level along with options,
7 e.g. caffeine-free. The packaging and colour very similar to Coca-
8 Cola.
9
30111
1
Time online: 10 minutes.
2
3
Day 10, Saturday, 6.45 am
4
5 Going out for the day so I log on early.
6 The facilitators for the cola activity, Abraham and Marianne, report by
7 e-mail that they have 13 results in. They are chasing the other two.
8 Check message histories throughout the conference. I’m still one participant
9 completely missing online. Check participants’ list, this is a Philip Brown from
40111 Dublin. Time online: 10 minutes.
1 Phone technical helpline. They’ve had no requests for help from P. Brown.
2111 Fax him to ask what problems?

7
 8 Concepts and cases

1111 Day 13, Tuesday, 7.15 am

2
Log on before leaving for work.
3
Marianne has posted a spreadsheet giving 15 results (14 from students plus
4
mine) for the ‘cola’ exercise. I set up a sub-conference with starter questions:
5
6
7
What do the results tell you about the way soft drinks are marketed in
8
your home location, compared to the others? What do they tell you about:
9
10
1. The economy of your location?
1
2. The habits of cola drinking throughout the world? Are there any
2
indications of cultural differences?
3111
3. Your views on the nature of global brands?
4
5
6
Time online: 5 minutes.
7111
8
Day 18, Sunday, 7.30 pm
9
20111 Log on quickly while the family are clearing up the garden after a barbecue.
1 E-mail from the course administrator that P. Brown from Dublin has
2 dropped out of the course due to connection problems. Very annoying,
3 wonder if it’s recoverable? I will compose a snail-mail letter to him.
4 The cola exchange sub-conference has really taken off. There are 36
5 messages in it. I do a quick analysis:
6
7 Four people had posted one message each;
8 Three people had posted five messages;
9 Four people had posted two messages;
30111 Three people had posted three messages;
1 One reading everything but not contributing.
2
3 I summarize the relevant contributions into one ‘key points’ message and archive
4 the originals so participants can access them if they like. Two people – Anton
5 and Jeremy – had started a conversation in the cola conference about alcohol and
6 their local driving laws. I archive these messages with the rest but e-mail A. and
7 J. to suggest they continue this conversation by e-mail. Time online: 35 minutes.
8
Day 20, Tuesday, 12.30 pm
9
40111 Log on from the office in my lunch break to set up the first assignment.
1 I divide the ‘class’ into two groups for this exercise – one group of eight
2111 and one of seven. I mix up activists and reflectors in the groups, based on my

8
 E-moderating – the journey 9

1111 experience of them so far. Post URL with notes on forming virtual teams and
2 online collaboration. Appoint facilitators for each team, and e-mail them basic
3 e-moderating points to help them.
4 Make as clear as I can the requirements for assessment and deadlines for
5 submission. Time online: 35 minutes.
6
7 Day 30, Friday, 4 pm
8
Log on from office and look in on Assignment 1 discussions.
9
Team A have built themselves a clear objectives and a triple conference
10
structure for their team. They’ve spent the first few days in dividing up tasks
1
and responsibilities. In Conference 1 ‘Data’, the student facilitator has asked
2
each participant to post a set of data about themselves. In Conference 2
3111
‘Concepts’, Peter’s summarized the data in Conference 1, and put his views
4
on how this relates to Hofstede and there is the start of a discussion. Conference
5
3 ‘Meanings?’ is currently empty except for its introduction message, saying
6
this is the place for developing the written assignment!
7111
Team B has started with just one conference, where they introduced
8
themselves, explained their backgrounds, education, families, interests and the
9
places they had lived in the world. People seem to be enjoying explaining
20111
about themselves and only two messages have gone over the suggested ‘one
1
screenful’ in length. There are several interesting threads, where participants
2
are finding their similarities and differences. No leader has emerged yet but
3
two participants appear to be taking responsibility for progressing the
4
discussions, while another is complaining about the two who are reading but
5
not posting messages – saying this is not ‘fair’. I’ll wait for a few more days to
6
see if they start putting some structure into this before intervening.
7
I post a message in our ‘information’ conference to say I’ll be away for three
8
days and offline. Time online: 20 minutes.
9
30111
1 E-moderating, a new way of orchestrating
2 learning
3
4 E-moderating along the lines of Jane’s conference has become an accepted
5 way of teaching, particularly in higher and professional education.
6 The early adopters of teaching with computers were considered mavericks.
7 They found it necessary substantially to change their teaching practice, to
8 welcome computers with open arms; they took online courses for themselves,
9 incessantly asked questions of experts, acquired the earliest computers for
40111 teaching or for home use. Some worked out how to use computers to enhance
1 their usual ways of facilitating, others saw computers as a way of transforming
2111 their agenda for student-centred learning. Since then there has been a

9
 10 Concepts and cases

1111 worldwide increase in the adoption of networked computers for teaching and
2 learning, and whereas the staff involved used to be considered innovators or
3 early adopters, now learners and teachers of all kinds expect to be online.
4 Many colleges, universities and training organizations have moved online,
5 with the associated issues of student satisfaction and quality. In higher education
6 the move to online in a wide variety of forms continues unabated. There is
7 less uncertainty about the value of e-learning. But, time and time again, studies
8 have shown that the role of the online teacher or tutor – in whatever
9 disciplinary context, level or type of technology in use – has a major influence
10 on learners’ flexibility and achievements (Ruey, 2010; Dawson, 2010;
1 Loureiro-Koechlin and Allan, 2010).
2 What we now know for sure is that concepts of time, motivation and teacher
3111 development are the key factors in e-learning success. We need to improve
4 our online teaching in terms of both quality and quantity, whether in a
5 blended, online-only or technology-enhanced mode. We cannot succeed in
6 scaling up without enabling the role and training of the e-moderator. E-
7111 moderators need new attitudes, knowledge and skills, and ways of operating
8 successfully and happily in the online environment.
9 The availability, speed and usability of networked computers in homes for
20111 education and at work have rapidly increased, while costs to online participants
1 have fallen, making online learning and interaction accessible to large numbers
2 of participants. Online learning raises extremely challenging issues for
3 education, however, including complex partnerships, funding and intellectual
4 property. Most of all, online learning calls for the training and development
5 of new kinds of online teachers – the e-moderators of this book.
6 As the internet and the World Wide Web have expanded, opportunities to
7 use them for teaching and learning have expanded too and we now have a
8 very wide range of opportunities to engage with learning, creativity and
9 knowledge construction. Educationists all over the world are experimenting
30111 with various forms of distance, open, blended, mobile and flexible learning.
1 Networked computing offers the chance to build a learning community: this
2 can be in a university or college, in an industrial or commercial setting, or
3 based on common interests or objectives rather than geographical location. I
4 have met many academics and trainers who are very keen indeed to adopt
5 these new ways to enliven teaching and learning in their subjects. Their
6 institutions and organizations have invested heavily in technological systems,
7 thus creating conditions in which networked learning can be widely available.
8 Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, was one of the first universities
9 in the world to explore and exploit networked computing for learning, and
40111 to train academic staff and e-moderators. It continues to be committed to the
1 philosophy that effective e-moderation underpins in the delivery of quality
2111 education in the online environment. Sandra Luxton, senior lecturer and

10
 E-moderating – the journey 11

1111 director of the online Master of Marketing, reports on the role that e-
2 moderation has played in the development and delivery of online marketing
3 education at Monash.
4
5
6 E-moderating at Monash
7
8 The Marketing Department at Monash University has been involved in
9 distance education since the late 1980s and in multimedia education from
the mid-1990s, with the initial development of an online version of the
10 undergraduate foundation subject, ‘Marketing Theory and Practice’. From
1 this experience in electronic course delivery, a second development phase
2 was undertaken: that of an entire graduate program – the 12-subject
3111 eMaster of Marketing. In 2010 the topics continue to expand and now
4 include environmental (green) marketing. The eMasters is based on a hybrid
educational model comprising a text-based study guide, CD with multimedia
5
enhancements and networked learning through Blackboard.
6 We now have significantly more students enrolled in our online programs
7111 than we have studying on campus, which reflects the increasing demands
8 on postgraduate students’ time and their desire to have flexibility and
9 mobility in their study options.
20111 Expansion from one online undergraduate subject to an entire post -
graduate degree program was a major feat, and not without problems! The
1 scaling up included servicing a much larger cohort of students than earlier
2 and ensuring a consistent, high-quality experience for them as they com -
3 pleted each subject throughout the degree program. Furthermore, the target
4 market shifted from young, computer savvy, full-time undergraduate
5 students to groups of middle and senior managers, studying part-time,
returning to study after many years, travelling often, time poor and with
6
varying computer literacy. So an effective approach to maximizing time
7 spent in the online environment became paramount.
8 We needed to increase the numbers of staff involved quickly, so our first
9 leap was to take the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) to the on-campus
30111 faculty. The reaction from staff was varied. Some staff were excited and
1 have since become great advocates, but initially were somewhat the
‘cowboys’ with their own ideas about how they would manage this new
2 environment. At the other extreme, some staff became involved reluctantly.
3 In both instances, the need for careful management became evident. This
4 realization encouraged us to explore online teaching models, and
5 subsequently adopt Gilly’s five-stage model for e-moderation to support
6 staff in systematically building the confidence and competencies of the
students. By the way, several units have now very successfully incorporated
7
regular audio podcasts into their courses, with dialogue from their e-
8 moderator. This dialogue includes an additional welcome to help set up
9 expectations, provide advice on assessment tasks and additional information
40111 on the subject content. The students have responded very positively to the
1 podcasts as they feel it gives them a closer connection to the program.
2111

11
 12 Concepts and cases

1111
2 Monash e-moderator training took place with faculty staff who were
3 accustomed to face-to-face classrooms in a traditional university setting.
We introduced them to teaching and learning in the online medium. This
4
involved a major change to their workplace culture and their comfort zone.
5 We found a combination of online and offline training was most effective
6 for them.
7 Approximately 60 per cent of the training was offline for local staff. We
8 conducted this training in a computer lab so that they could participate in
9 online activities. The online discussion forum provided staff with an
opportunity to learn in a familiar environment. We found we could then
10 assist their transition to working in the online environment whilst minimizing
1 their anxiety. Our experience suggests that e-moderation training increases
2 confidence and comfort with online teaching and dispels preconceived ideas
3111 about the ‘unmanageable workload’, as well as fears and myths of the
4 unknown online world.
We also remotely trained lecturers working outside Australia as e-
5
moderators. Their training took place 100 per cent online. These staff
6 members were selected on the strength of their pre-existing familiarity
7111 with the online environment. The absence of face-to-face or offline training
8 proved unproblematic for them.
9 On completion of training, each staff member was given an e-moderation
20111 CD and a mentor appointed from the pool of more experienced
e-moderators. Now we have a trained and stable set of staff who are able
1 to moderate effectively and support the learning across the programs.
2
3
4
5 Teaching and learning online
6
7 Millions of words have been written about technology and its potential, but
8 much less about what the teachers and learners actually do online. Thousands
9 of online discussion groups have started up among people with shared interests.
30111 Some prosper; others wither. Many change and grow with very little structure
1 and no one person providing direction. The advent of a wide variety of
2 enticing Web 2.0 applications have dramatically increased social networking
3 (Hamid, Chang and Kurnia, 2009). Networked computers can provide vehicles
4 for learning materials and interaction but students still need the ‘champions’
5 who make the learning come alive – the e-moderators.
6 Education and training are always undertaken for a purpose. Unlike social
7 networking of all kinds, casual browsing or playing games on the web, a key
8 distinction of online education and training is that they are highly purposeful
9 and have planned goals, outcomes and directions. E-moderators, whether
40111 working remotely or in blended mode, have to think through the design of
1 structured learning experiences for their students. To exploit online for
2111 teaching, they must understand its potential.

12
 E-moderating – the journey 13

1111 Systems and platforms

2
3 If you have already used online teaching and learning software, you may want
4 to skip this section, in which I want to say just enough to introduce the software
5 to those who are unfamiliar with it.
6 Nearly all educational institutions now deploy web-based Virtual Learning
7 Environments (VLEs). VLEs include asynchronous ways of interacting in
8 groups. We used to call these Computer-Mediated Conferencing (CMC), now
9 they are usually called discussion groups, forums or occasionally online
10 conferences. Participants may post messages for other participants to read
1 anytime; participants do not need to be logged in simultaneously.
2 ‘Synchronous’ – at the same time – sessions use similar technology, and are
3111 also often used as part of web-based virtual classrooms.
4 To take part, participants need access to a computer or mobile device, a
5 network connection and fixed or mobile broadband. They will usually need
6 a password to access the VLE.
7111 Three types of technology are involved in computer-mediated conferencing:
8
9 1. A server (special computer) and software system: the server can be anywhere,
20111 though often it is maintained and housed by the institution or organization
1 that sets up the service. It is a special computer, with its own software,
2 that can store and organize well the messages, of which there may be tens,
3 even hundreds, of thousands in a year. Fast, powerful hardware and reliable,
4 sophisticated software enable many thousands of participants to access the
5 platform through a single server.
6 2. A ‘terminal’ for each user: these can be fixed ‘tethered’ computers, or mobile
7 laptops or devices with wireless access. Students can access conferences
8 from a work or campus computer, a computer at a study centre or student
9 residence. Access to the discussion forums are usually provided through
30111 standard web browsers and interfaces. Access to online networking through
1 web browsers needs no special installation and free browsers are now
2 factory-installed on computers. On mobile devices such as iPhones, an
3 application programme is typically downloaded to the device to make them
4 easier to use on a smaller screen.
5 3. A communications system to connect the computers to the server: connections can
6 be connected by always-on broadband connections that can carry much
7 more traffic at much higher speeds than were previously feasible. Networks
8 are linked, so that a message may cross several networks before it arrives
9 in the relevant conference in the server. Connection through wireless
40111 networks, with broadband, is now possible in most places, and on-the-
1 move discussion boards only require low band width and can also be
2111 accessed through modems and dial-up telephone access.

13
 14 Concepts and cases

1111 There are two main types of VLEs owned and operated securely by
2 educational institutions, which enable and support collaboration for learning.
3 VLEs are also called MLE or LMS in some countries. Some educational
4 providers choose a commercially available system because they want the
5 benefits of support and development, year in, year out, Blackboard is the
6 commonest in use in the UK but there are many others. Each has its own
7 underlying software, with a slightly different ‘look and feel’ for the participants,
8 and a variety of facilities and functions for learning. Most offer technical
9 support facilities but not much specially for e-moderators. Others choose open
10 source platforms of which the most popular is Moodle, which offers a
1 community of developers and contributors. The code to run the platform is
2 freely available. The university or other provider needs more people in-house
3111 to support the development and running of an open-source platform, so
4 costs are shifted to different places and purposes, compared to commercially
5 provided VLEs.
6 In addition, there are many Web 2.0 applications, usually called ‘social
7111 networking’ sites, which can be deployed. They are not provided specifically
8 for teaching purposes but they can be deployed with suitable design and
9 e-moderating. Examples include Facebook, Twitter and Second Life – there
20111 are hundreds of others and they come and go. These cannot currently be owned
1 and hosted by the educational institution. Chapter 3 describes the application
2 of the five-stage model and e-moderating principles to some of the newer
3 technological applications
4 Students frequently set up web-based applications, which are freely available
5 to them to share and work together outside the institutionally provided
6 platforms.
7 A postgraduate management student reports:
8
9
30111 We had our own say too, over and above what the institution provided.
1 My study group of seven students on our course set up a carefully
2 designed set of folders and files on an iDisk [a free web-based file store,
3 accessible and editable from anywhere and by anyone], which we edited
4 remotely and individually, adding our latest versions of our work to this
5 shared drive for the benefit of all. This was very useful for revising for
6 our exam. We could have achieved the same via GoogleDocs or another
7 system, but the iDisk was simple and neat. AA
8
9
40111 The examples throughout this book, originally published in 2000 and again
1 in 2004, are drawn from e-moderating experiences using many different
2111 systems. Some of these platforms have merged, disappeared or become highly

14
 E-moderating – the journey 15

1111 marketed commercial systems. Others, especially those based on open source
2 systems such as Moodle, continue to develop. In my view, if the e-moderators
3 are keen and competent, the precise nature of the platform and its
4 functionalities are less important.
5
6
Online networking for education and
7
8
training
9
10 Working together, perhaps informally, in groups, for learning purposes is a
1 tradition in many parts of the world. For example, a group of Scandinavian
2 educators write about the concept of ‘folkbildning’ (Axelsson, Bodin, Norberg
3111 and Person, 2001). They say the term is not really transferable to English
4 (although their book about it has been translated). Nordic folkbildning traditions
5 of over 100 years are based on meetings intended as learning and opportunity-
6 generating groups, stimulating curiosity and critical thinking. The democratic
7111 nature of the meetings promotes tolerance towards differing opinions and
8 respect for developed arguments. Courses are also structured in this way, and
9 participants are involved in the shaping of their learning processes with others.
20111 When we move such concepts online, and restrictions of travel and location
1 are no longer significant, then we open much new potential.
2 Online participant interaction is used in three main modes of learning. First,
3 in distance learning – where e-moderators and participants never meet. Second
4 to supplement campus-based learning – where students can easily meet face-
5 to-face but also frequently benefit from the use of a VLE and e-tivities can be
6 provided. Third is a different form of ‘blend’, where activities can take place
7 in seminars, in classrooms or online, and often mixtures of all.
8 Compared with face-to-face group teaching, online is readily available, and
9 does not require participants to travel to a certain place. Many participants
30111 find that the time lags involved between logging on and taking part encourage
1 them to consider and think about the messages they are receiving before
2 replying, rather more than they would in a class situation. Participants can ask
3 questions without waiting in turn. Because of these characteristics, rather
4 different relationships – usually based on shared interests or support – can
5 develop compared to those between learners or teachers who meet face-to-
6 face. Although many people find the lack of visual clues strange, messages are
7 ‘neutral’ since you cannot see whether the sender is young or old, nor do you
8 need to consider their appearance or race. This characteristic tends to favour
9 minorities of every kind and encourages everyone to ‘be themselves’. Online
40111 it’s now easy to include pictures and videos of all kinds. However, it’s often
1 a good idea not to rush in too much with the visual images until after the
2111 learning community is established. Meanwhile with text-based conferencing

15
 16 Concepts and cases

1111 it is possible to ‘rewind’ a conversation, to pick out threads and make very
2 direct links. Therefore online discussions have a more permanent feel and are
3 subject to reworking in a way more transient verbal conversation cannot be.
4 This means that the medium is good for giving praise and constructive critiques.
5 Working online should be viewed as a new context or environment for
6 learning, not just as a tool. It enables individuals and groups of people to carry
7 on conversations and discussion over the computer networks. Networking
8 works like a series of notice boards, each with a title and purpose. For example,
9 an individual may set up a conference and post a message on it to begin a
10 conference. This message could be, ‘This area is for our discussion on your
1 next assignment’. Each participant then logs on through his or her personal
2 computer, reads the message and can post one of his or her own. When the
3111 originator of the first message logs on to the conference a few days later, 20
4 others may have made their contribution to the discussion and perhaps
5 responded to each other’s questions. Participants continue to log on, read the
6 contributions of others and the discussion proceeds. Online networking’s
7111 ability to engage its users is remarkable.
8 The asynchronous nature of bulletin boards and forums relates to many of
9 their special characteristics. The benefits include the convenience of choice
20111 over when to participate. Participants can have 24-hour access to the system
1 and can log on when they wish, for as long or short a time as they want or
2 need to. Many participants can be logged on at the same time although each
3 message appears in a list. Online networking is less intrusive than face-to-face
4 conversations or telephone tutorials because participants can choose when to
5 read messages and when to contribute.
6 Online networking involves a hybrid of familiar forms of communication.
7 It has some of the elements of writing and its associated thinking, and some
8 of the permanence of publishing, but it also resembles fleeting verbal discussion.
9 The typical participant’s discursive style lies somewhere between the formality
30111 of the written word and the informality of the spoken. From the earliest days,
1 experienced e-moderators explained to their students, ‘Consider this medium
2 as like talking with your fingers – a sort of half-way house between spoken
3 conversation and written discourse’ (Hawkridge, Morgan and Jelfs, 1997).
4 Now, for many people, being online is a normal part of their everyday
5 interactions.
6 Being able to reflect on messages and on the topic under discussion, in
7 between log on times, has always seemed important to researchers into
8 computer-mediated conferencing, and to some at least of the e-moderators
9 I have known. It does seem that quite a few participants reflect on issues
40111 raised online and then mould their own ideas through composing replies.
1 It’s interesting to revisit some of the first feelings about asynchronous
2111 networking – long, long before anyone had ever heard of Facebook and the

16
 E-moderating – the journey 17

1111 like. For example, a very experienced Open University teacher described his
2 first participation in an online conference:
3
4 I was struck by how I’m still in touch with the conference even when
5 away from my computer and busy with other activities. Somewhere in
6 my unconscious I continue to debate and new lines of argument keep
7 occurring to mind unbidden. And it is always so tempting to take just one
8 more peep at the screen to see if another participant has come up with
9 something new or built upon the last message one posted oneself.
10 (Rowntree, 1995: 209)
1
2 Online networking can offer the opportunity for a whole series of ideas to be
3111 pulled together, too, and we now know that the role of the e-moderator is
4 critical in enabling contribution to become learning opportunities. Many
5 forum discussions promote openness and participants typically expect some
freedom to express their views and to share their experiences and thoughts.
6
The online environment mediates the communication but also shapes it.
7111
Participants do not need permission to contribute and individuals can receive
8
attention from those willing and able to offer it. Face-to-face identities become
9
less important and the usual discriminators such as race, age and gender are
20111
less apparent. Successful participation online does not depend on previous
1
computer literacy and it often appeals to inexperienced computer users,
2
including those unlikely to use open social networking sites.
3
The lack of traditional hierarchies in online networking and its ability to
4
support synthesis of knowledge lead to somewhat different styles of
5
communication and knowledge sharing, compared to synchronous meetings.
6
Programmes of study aiming at a spirit of wide access and openness, crossing
7
industry, professional and international boundaries and applying research to
8
practice are therefore well served.
9
Here a lecturer describes her experience of designing and delivering in an
30111 online programme aimed at ‘transformational pedagogy’:
1
2 The text-based nature of dialogue enabled learner-learner, learner-
3 facilitator and learner-content interaction to be visible and accessible to
4 all students. The layers of interaction stimulated peer conversations,
5 collaboration and a collegial atmosphere that allowed me . . . to operate
6 socially and affectively in a virtual learning space. The online environment
7 also provided opportunities for . . . access, sharing, digesting and critiquing
8 information quickly and easily.
9 (Reushle and Mitchell, 2009: 16)
40111
1 The online environment is such that mistakes are recorded for all participants
2111 in the group to see. Tardiness, rudeness or inconsistency in response to others

17
 18 Concepts and cases

1111 tend to be forgiven less easily than in a more transient face-to-face setting.
2 Minor complaints can escalate when several individuals in a conference agree
3 with each other and create a visible ‘marching about with banners’ online.
4 A graduate student expresses her views on unintentionally upsetting a peer
5 online:
6
7
8 I was asked to write about a ‘critical incident’ for my learning. One
9 occurred when I least expected it. As I was reading through other people’s
10 critical incidents, I came across a report by one of my fellow students
1 that caused me so much emotional upheaval that it became a critical
2 incident in itself, and became the subject of my report. My classmate
3111 described a situation in which she had posted a message to the discussion
4 forum as a ‘helping hand’, and had been rebuffed in a response that
5 included an ‘onomatopoeic exclamation’, and that she had been severely
6 hurt by this incident. While reading this, I had no idea what she was
7111 referring to, but having had several interactions with her, I anxiously
8 checked the discussion threads to see if I might have been to blame.
9 To my great embarrassment, I came across a message I had posted in
20111 which I had spontaneously expressed my frustration at not being able
1 to grasp what two other people were saying, and had graphically
2 embellished my message with an ‘aaargh!’ and a plea for help. It did not
3 occur to me at the time that anyone would take this as a personal attack,
4 and came as a resounding shock to me when I realized how insensitive
5 I had been.
6 Even though my classmate noted in her report that in retrospect she
7 felt she might have overreacted, I felt extremely distressed at how easily
8 and unwittingly I had caused offence – ironically, in the midst of an
9 exercise on online communication norms and netiquette.
30111 I think this incident highlights quite a dramatic difference between
1 face-to-face and online learning, which is that physical presence in a
2 group setting enables a far easier, more relaxed communication style than
3 online communication, where contextual clues such as body language,
4 eye contact, laughter, etc. are absent. I doubt that this misunderstanding
5 would have occurred in a face-to-face setting, where both of us
6 could have sought instant clarification. I think it highlights the concept
7 of ‘social presence’, as defined by Gunawardena and Zittle (1995) in
8 McDonald and Postle (1999) – ‘the degree of salience of the person
9 in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal
40111 relationships . . . the degree to which a person is perceived as a real person
1 in mediated communication’.
2111

18
 E-moderating – the journey 19

1111
2 How could I recover my sense of dignity and self-confidence to
3 continue contributing to class discussions without being paralyzed by the
4 fear that anything I said could be misunderstood. I resisted the urge to
5 e-mail everyone in the class and beg forgiveness for anything I might
6 have said which could have caused them offence, but I did post an
7 apologetic reply on the discussion board to my classmate, who responded
8 very graciously and in good humour.
9 My longer term significant question concerns issues of emotional
10 intelligence (Goleman, 1995) in the world of online interaction. Is a
1 greater degree of emotional intelligence needed for online communica-
2 tion than for face-to-face communication, or is the difference one of
3111 quality/kind? Are there ways for learners to develop the emotional skills
4 and strategies needed to survive the jungle of ambiguity that is online
5 communication?
6 I now see the value of the ‘netiquette’ activity as being something far
7111 more significant than just an ice-breaker or an introduction to the concept
8 of online communication, which was how I originally viewed it. I think
9 the very fact that our class had focused so much on developing ground
20111 rules for effective communication meant that the person I had offended
1 and I were able to confront the issue and overcome any obstacles to our
2 learning and our relationship that might otherwise have ensued. I will
3 be sure to include some form of discussion/negotiation on netiquette in
4 the early stages of the online courses that I help to develop in future.
5
6 Gabi
7
8
9
30111 Working online has attracted the attention of leaders of graduate-level courses,
1 those involved in professional development of people such as managers and
2 teachers, and those attempting to build online learning communities. In
3 addition, many campus-based universities and colleges are seeing the benefits
4 of enhancing classroom-based work with technology, some of them very
5 successfully. The term ‘blended learning’ has come into common use –
6 recognizing that currently few learning experiences are entirely online or
7 completely offline (Jaques and Salmon, 2007). Blend can mean many things
8 but typically refers to a blend of media and/or activities for learning (Littlejohn
9 and Pegler, 2007).
40111 Dr Carol Russell tells us about running project work in large classes using
1 a blend of distance-only learning for some participants and blended with face-
2111 to-face classes for others.

19
 20 Concepts and cases

1111
2 Engineering design for large numbers
3
4 The University of New South Wales Faculty of Engineering runs a faculty-
5 wide first-year project-based design course with over 1,000 students.
Although all the main interactions are in class, the course relies heavily
6
on online tools to facilitate students’ selection of projects and formation
7 of project teams and to support peer feedback on individual and team
8 tasks.
9 The course has run on several online learning management systems – now
10 Moodle. The current version uses Moodle’s default functions of groups and
1 groupings used along with selective release criteria. Students first view
2 project briefs for around 12 projects and select which option they want to
join. The selective release criteria allows them to see further information
3111 for that project stream – such as timetables and teaching contacts – along
4 with project-specific resources and discussion forums. They also form small
5 teams of four or five to undertake the project work.
6 There is a need to form teams including a range of experiences – for
7111 example, mixing language backgrounds and experience with hand tools. To
8 do that, we ask the students to complete a short quiz/questionnaire on their
experience and use the results to create teams. We have customized the
9 online systems to minimize the administrative workload in creating groups
20111 and setting up large numbers of project and team discussion forums. Student
1 data, including group membership and quiz scores can be imported and
2 exported in spreadsheet format, allowing for semi-automated team
3 allocation.
4 The five-stage model provides a scaffold and structure:
5 Stage 1 – support for access and welcoming. The Environmental Health
6 students are introduced to the e-platform but in a face-to-face
7 workshop, followed by online familiarization activities and tasks. Mining
8 Engineering are entirely distance students and welcomed directly online.
9 Stage 2 – introductions online and (in the mining course) support for
30111 decisions about whether to do a work-based project or take part in
the online role play.
1
Stage 3 – each role is played by a group who have their own group
2 discussion area. They access all the background material, discuss and
3 flesh out the role and prepare a case to present at the planning
4 focus.
5 Stage 4 – switch into role-play environment, log on in role, with
6 facilitator also in role to promote experiential learning through the
interaction.
7
Stage 5 – once the interaction is concluded students come out of role and
8 are debriefed online in each course, to draw out the lessons from the
9 experience. Their individual reflections on the roles and scenario in
40111 terms of professional issues in mine environmental impact or on public
1 health impact analyses form the final assessments.
2111

20
 E-moderating – the journey 21

1111
2 The e-moderating effort is mixed with classroom support and is mostly
3 aimed at Stages 1–3 of the five-stage model.
Students log in to access information and organize who they will be
4
working with. E-moderators check that they are able to do this, and allocate
5 students to teams, using the online tools.
6 Students use the online spaces to contact their team members. Students
7 use the online discussion forums and other communication tools to share
8 documents, submit assignments and access information for their project
9 work.
While there is some shared knowledge construction going on in the
10 course – as students work on their team design projects – the online course
1 environment is primarily for recording the outcomes and is not the prime
2 medium of interaction. Nevertheless, some teams have chosen to set up
3111 their own online groups outside of the Moodle platform – using Facebook
4 groups as well as meeting face-to-face. So the students are perhaps showing
some aspects of Stages 4 and 5, in that they are taking control of their own
5
use of the online environment.
6 Another way in which the online tools support teamwork is through using
7111 plug-in software (WebPA) to give each other anonymous feedback on team
8 contribution. The teams do this exercise twice, once formatively and the
9 second time with scores being used to moderate allocation of team marks
20111 to individuals. Students’ individual reflections on the team processes are
included as part of the course assessment. The students also use an online-
1 calibrated peer-assessment service to mark other students’ individual work.
2 The aim of this exercise is to improve students’ understanding of the
3 assessment criteria for their project reports.
4
5
6
7
8
9 Costs and resourcing e-moderation
30111
1 Choosing to spend scarce funds, time and effort on something – even as
2 enticing as promoting students’ online learning – is challenging. It’s reasonable
3 to try to judge the benefits, and expect others to do so! Most of this book
4 is about the benefits and how to realize them in a low-cost, sustainable and
5 high-value way, but as yet I’ve not come across any widely agreed method
6 for working out online teaching costs (Meyer, 2006). Nor is there a standard
7 way to separate and measure the educational or other benefits of using
8 interactive online learning. What students and teachers actually do changes
9 when online is introduced, so meaningful comparisons with other forms of
40111 delivery are difficult. The costs and measured benefits of e-moderating alone
1 have not been studied, since e-moderating is always associated with online or
2111 blended learning.

21
 22 Concepts and cases

1111 There are some clues rather than absolutes. For example, a president of a
2 private college in the USA suggests that careful learning design reduces costs
3 and increases student satisfaction:
4
5 we started searching the literature for instructional designs that require
6 fewer resources and result in high levels of student learning. The ones we
7 found shared certain characteristics. They were driven by clear learning
8 goals and involved extensive assessment and feedback to students. They
9 stressed active learning and took maximum advantage of technology. In
10 each design, faculty spent less time lecturing and more time coaching,
1 proactively asking and answering questions with groups of students. And
2 faculty were assisted in their coaching role by teaching assistants or peer
3111 mentors. Finally, economies of scale helped to produce significant cost
4 savings.
5 (Bassis, 2010: 1)
6
7111 We can perhaps look at four areas that are significant in their use of resources
8 for e-moderation and online conferencing.
9 First, to learn online you need to make good provision for the technology
20111 platform – most educational establishments now have a VLE provided centrally:
1 it could be considered a ‘sunk’ cost. All VLEs have asynchronous bulletin boards
2 and some have synchronous chat. Most have wikis and blogs and ways of
3 providing podcasts. Almost all VLEs are underused, especially from the
4 perspective of interaction between staff and students. Most institutions are very
5 happy for the investment, which has been made to provide a secure accessible
6 platform for learning, to be used more extensively and productively for learning
7 purposes. In the event that an institutionally owned VLE is not available, there
8 are many good conferencing systems that can be hired for seminars, and even
9 more Web 2.0 applications are available for free (Salmon, 2005). My preference
30111 is to build capacity throughout the staff of the organization. In this way low-
1 cost high-value technologies for learning can be deployed rather than building
2 up expensive unsustainable centralized technology units (Salmon, 2005).
3 Second, there are two kinds of staff associated with the provision of
4 suitable technology platforms. Technicians are the first kind – these are usually
5 in place already. Learning technologists are the second – people who bridge
6 the gap between pedagogy, design and delivery. In big pedagogical change
7 programmes, learning technologists may need to be employed, but in most
8 cases academic and teaching staff can, with some help, acquire the necessary
9 skills themselves.
40111 Third, providing course materials online has always been seen as a major cost
1 – the design and delivery of multi-media quality materials can be a big chal-
2111 lenge and gobble up resources. Academics spend many hours designing and

22
 E-moderating – the journey 23

1111 developing the materials and require support from a range of technical staff
2 (Rumble, 2009; Rumble, 2010). However, if this is appropriately managed,
3 they can ‘design once – deliver many times’ (Salmon, Jones and Armellini, 2008),
4 so creating a beneficial Return on Investment (ROI) of materials development.
5 No matter how good the materials are, students crave feedback and support.
6 The costs of providing this part can be low if done well, and highly successful.
7 Currently the Open Educational Resources (OERs) movement is gathering
8 strength (Hawkridge, Armellini, Nikoi, Rowlett and Witthaus, 2010); so over
9 time some costs may reduce to those associated with finding and repurposing,
10 rather than with constant fresh development. Some commentators suggest that
1 OERs could make a major contribution to reducing costs in the future
2 (Kanwar, Kodhandaraman and Umar, 2010). Similarly, students are increasingly
3111 seeking resources and developing their learning more independently and more
4 constructively (Daniel, West and Monaghan, 2008).
5 OERs include freely downloadable, reusable e-tivities and sequences of
6 e-tivities designed to meet a specific objective, such as writing a literature review
7111 or dissertation proposal (Hawkridge et al., 2010). These help e-moderators
8 design for interaction. Savings are generated at the design stage by re-versioning
9 successful e-tivities, rather than creating them from scratch, and at the delivery
20111 stage by adapting and incorporating time-efficient e-moderating practices.
1 Fourth, the biggest over time costs and benefits come from what staff
2 actually do. Designing for participation is important. Structured, paced and
3 carefully constructed e-tivities reduce the amount of e-moderator time, and
4 impact directly on satisfactory learning outcomes, adding value to the
5 investment in learning technologies (Salmon, 2002a). E-tivities can be very
6 rapidly developed and students are quickly engaged.
7 If well-constructed programmes are used, skilled and trained e-moderators
8 can often handle large numbers of students online. Using lower-cost assistance,
9 such as from (trained) graduate students, to support participants often helps.
30111 From the perspective of costs, an optimum is around 30 or more participants
1 to one e-moderator (Rumble, 2001). Good pedagogical design suggests a
2 lower ratio of 15:1. Most well-designed e-tivities run successfully with a ratio
3 of up to 20:1, so perhaps it is best to have one (well-trained) e-moderator
4 running two separate groups for optimum cost-benefit.
5 Costing each activity related to online staff development is difficult, but not
6 impossible. Much depends on the assumptions behind the figures. For example,
7 I compared the estimated costs of training Open University Business School
8 e-moderators face-to-face with the actual costs of training them online. My
9 estimates were based on costs in 1996 of a face-to-face weekend for 180
40111 e-moderators, drawn from all over the United Kingdom and Western Europe,
1 including travel and subsistence, attendance fees and set up costs, but excluding
2111 staffing costs and overheads. These came to £35,000 in 1996. The actual direct

23
 24 Concepts and cases

1111 costs of the online training for 147 e-moderators were £8,984. The two sets
2 of figures do hide quite a few assumptions, but the cost advantage of using
3 online was apparently considerable. Online staff development costs only about
4 a quarter of the cost of face-to-face training – so it’s worth considering! You
5 can also read about the huge cost and carbon savings for running an academic
6 conference entirely online on page 118. Chapters 5 and 6 describe how to
7 undertake online e-moderation training and development.
8
9 Summary: High value, low costs – sustainability for
10 e-moderation
1
● Design for interaction, participation and feedback (rather than ‘content
2
3111 delivery’).
● Avoid expensive materials – for example, spending a lot of money on
4
5 development and copyright; instead use Open Educational Resources.
● Use low-cost technologies or those already provided.
6
● Employ trained and developed e-moderators and train graduate students
7111
8 and others to help.
● Require students to do more themselves, with each other, focusing on
9
20111 what staff must rather than can do.
● Build capacity and capability in your academic and teaching staff rather
1
2 than outsourcing materials development or building up an expensive
3 internal technology support unit.
4
5 Online and flexibility
6
7 In the OU Business School, I chaired a large open entry course leading to a
8 Professional Certificate in Management. The programme developed as a
9 response to customers’ requests for flexibility in learning provision for the
30111 twenty-first century. We deployed the well-rehearsed OU-supported open
1 learning method, including high-quality materials together with on and offline
2 tutor support for individuals and groups. We used custom-built websites and
3 FirstClass online conferencing for interaction. The programme was highly
4 modular and customizable, with a wide range of choices for participants,
5 including four start and finish dates each year, special versions for some
6 employment sectors, study breaks and online options.
7 The management students defined ‘flexibility’ in 73 different ways! Their
8 top requirements could be met by online provision. They wanted fully
9 searchable, portable, course materials and extensive help with pacing of their
40111 study. They expected ‘anytime, anywhere’ assessment, and feedback on their
1 exams of the same quality as the feedback provided on assignments (personalized
2111 and individually crafted by their tutors).

24
 E-moderating – the journey 25

1111 The management students’ greatest wish was for increased access, not to
2 technology, but to human support. Their expectations were demanding: an
3 ‘always-on, broadband tutor’! The issue of access to tutors and to others was
4 a key aspect of making the course not only more flexible but also more
5 friendly, more motivating, achievable and satisfying. How could we do this
6 successfully?
7 One student wrote:
8
9
10 In my experience, my tutor was very good, knowledgeable of his
1 topic and willing to help, but he was tied to email and phone as
2 his technological repertoire, with a bit of FirstClass here and there. He
3111 could have had more impact with less effort, I think, if he had used the
4 OU’s VLE more effectively or indeed a Facebook group for his tutorial
5 group. BC
6
7111
8 Ultimately, the kind of flexible provision students expect needs loving adoption
9 by experienced e-moderators, and rather more than promise and the hand of
20111 fate from technology provision. The rest of this book will show you some
1 pathways towards flexibility and success. Chapter 2 introduces my early research
2 in this area.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2111

25
References
Altbach, P G , Reisberg, L and L E Rumbley (2009) Trends in Global Higher Education:
Tracking an Academic Revolution, UNESCO, Paris
Amirault, R J and Y L Visser (2009) The university in periods of technological change: a
historically grounded perspective, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21 (1), pp 62–79
Armellini, A and O Aiyegbayo (2010) Learning design and assessment with e-tivities, British
Journal of Educational Technology, 41 (6), pp 922–935
Armellini, A and S Jones (2008) Seizing each day to foster change in e-learning design,
Reflecting Education, 4 (1), pp 17–29
Armellini, A , Salmon, G and D Hawkridge (2009) The carpe diem journey: designing for
learning transformation, in T Hayes , D Morrison , H Mellar , P Bullen and M Oliver (eds),
Transforming Higher Education through Technology-enabled Learning, The Higher Education
Academy, York. Online:
[Link]
f (accessed July 2010 )
Aubert, B A and B L Kelsey (2003) Further understanding of trust performance in virtual teams,
Small Group Research, 34 (5), pp 575–618
Aubusson, P , Schuck, S and K Burden (2009) Mobile learning for teacher professional
learning: benefits, obstacles and issues, ALT-J, 17 (3), pp 233–247
Avila, R and N Léger (2005) The Future of Higher Education: A Scenario Evaluation of Its
Prospects and Challenges, iUniverse, Lincoln
Axelsson, L E , Bodin, K , Norberg, R and T Person (2001) Folkbildningnet: an anthology about
folkbildning and flexible learning, Swedish National Council of Adult Education, Stockholm
Azevedo, R (2002) Beyond intelligent tutoring systems: using computers as METAcognitive
tools to enhance learning?, Instructional Science, 30, pp 41–45
Badge, J and J Scott (2009) Dealing with plagiarism in the digital age. Online:
[Link] (accessed 24
September 2010 )
Baptista Nunes, J M and M A McPherson (2002) Pedagogical and implementation models for e-
learning continuing professional distance education (CPDE) emerging from action research,
International Journal of Management Education, 2(3, Summer), pp 16–27
Barajas, M and G J Gannaway (2007) Implementing e-learning in the traditional higher
education institutions, Higher Education in Europe, 32 (2), pp 111–119
Barker, P (2010) Implementation of Optical Fibre Communications Module in a Virtual Learning
Environment HEA Engineering Subject Centre. Online: [Link]/downloads/[Link]
(accessed 12 August 2010 )
Barklamb, K. (2010) Using Second Life Simulations to Enhance and Develop the Learning
Environment for Occupational Psychology Students, paper presented at The Division of
Occupational Psychology Annual Conference, Brighton, UK, January
Bassis, M (2010) Changing the equation, Inside Higher Education, 25 March. Online:
[Link]/views/2010/03/25/bassis (accessed October 2010 )
Bax, S (2010) Day 8 Keynote at Learning Futures Festival Online. Online:
[Link] (accessed September 2010 )
Bax, S and M Pegrum (2009) ‘I wasn't invited to the party’: Lurking in multicultural online
educational forums, in A Ragusa (ed), Interaction in Communication Technologies and Virtual
Learning Environments: Human Factors, IGA global, Hershey, chapter 10, pp 145–159
Beck, U (2009) (version in English, translated by C Cronin ) World at Risk, Polity Press,
Cambridge and Malden
Behan, A and F Boylan (2009) Harnessing developments in technology and merging them with
new approaches to teaching: a practical example of the effective use of wikis and social
bookmarking sites in 3rd level professional education. Online:
[Link] (accessed April 2011 )
Bennett, S and D Barp (2008) Peer observation–a case for doing it online, Teaching in Higher
Education, 13 (5), pp 559–570
Bennett, S and S Marsh (2002) Are we expecting online tutors to run before they can walk?,
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39 (1), pp 14–20
Bennett, S , Maton, K and L Kervin (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the
evidence, British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (5), pp 775–786
Bennett, S and J Santy (2009) A window on our teaching practice: enhancing individual online
teaching quality though online peer observation and support, Nurse Education in Practice, 9,
403–406
Benque, N (1999) Online Training for Tutors, proceedings of Online Educa Conference,
December, Berlin
Berge, Z L (2007) Motivate and manage: key activities of online instructors, in J M Spector (ed),
Finding Your Online Voice: Stories Told By Experienced Online Educators, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc, Mahwah, NJ, pp 73–82
Berge, Z L (2008) Changing instructor's roles in virtual worlds, The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 9 (4), pp 407–411
Bevan, E (1999 and 2010) Personal e-mail communications
Biggs, J (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 2nd edn, Society for Research into
Higher Education (SRHE) and Open University Press, Buckingham
Billett, S (2009a) Realising the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher
education, Studies in Higher Education, 34 (7) 827–843
Billett, S (2009b) Conceptualizing learning experiences: Contributions and mediations of the
social, personal and brute, Mind, Culture and Activity, 16 (1) 32–47
Blumer, H (1969) Symbolic Interaction, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Boal, A (1988) Theatre of the Oppressed, Pluto, London
Bonk, C J (2009) The World is Open, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Bromby, M (2009) Virtual seminars: problem-based learning in healthcare law and ethics,
Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 3 (December). Online:
[Link]/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2009_3/bromby (accessed 24 September 2010 )
Brown, A and S E Reushle (2009) The Power of Connection: Sharing Epistemological
Approaches to Reach Beyond Knowledge and Skill Acquisition in an Australian Higher
Education Context, paper presented at the 2nd International PBL Symposium: What are we
learning about learning? Republic Polytechnic, Singapore, June 10–12
Brown, J Seely and P Duguid (2000) The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston
Bruner, J (1986) The language of education, in J Bruner (ed), Actual Minds, Possible Worlds,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Bryson, J M , Ackermann, F , Eden, C and C B Fin (2004) Visible Thinking–unlocking causal
mapping for practical business results, Wiley, London
Burn, J M and K D Loch (2003) The societal impact of the World Wide Web: key challenges for
the 21st century, in M Khosrow-Pour (ed), Advanced Topics in Information Resources
Management, IGI Publishing, Hershey, PA
Candy, P (2010) Reaffirming Core Academic Values in the Digital Era: Technology in the
Context of Boyer's Four Scholarships, presentation at Beyond Distance Research Alliance,
University of Leicester, July. Online: [Link] (accessed 24 September 2010 )
Cann, A , Badge, J , Johnson, J and A Moseley (2009) Twittering the student experience, ALT
Online Newletter, 17, 19th October
Carr, N (2010) The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, Read and
Remember, Atlantic Books, London
Carrington, S and S Gitta (2010) ‘Critical social theory and transformative learning: evidence in
pre-service teachers’ service-learning reflection logs, Higher Education Research and
Development, 29 (1), pp 45–57
Castelfranchi, C (2002) The social nature of information and the role of trust, International
Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 11 (3 and 4), pp 381–403
Cheung, W S and K F Hew (2010) Examining facilitators’ habits of mind in an asynchronous
online discussion environment: A two cases study, Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 26 (1), pp 123–132
Chuang, S C , Hawng, F K and Tsai C C (2008) Students’ perceptions of constructivist internet
learning environments by a physics virtual laboratory: the gap between ideal and reality and
gender differences, CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11 (2), pp 150–156
Collins, A and R Halverson (2010) The second educational revolution: rethinking education in
the age of technology, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (1), pp 18–27
Collis, B and J Moonen (2005) An On-going Journey: Technology as a Learning Workbench,
monograph on occasion of their retirement from the University of Twente, Enschede, NL.
Online: [Link] (accessed August 2010 )
Conole, G (2005) E-learning Research Methodological Issues, presentation at e-Learning
Research Centre workshop, Manchester, 3 May. Online:
[Link] (accessed October
2010 )
Creswell, J W and V L Clark (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research,
Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA
Crystal, D (2006) Language and the Internet, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cuevas, H M , Fiore, S M , Bowers, C A and E Salas (2004) Fostering constructive cognitive
and metacognitive activity in computer-based complex task training environments, Computers
in Human Behavior, 20, pp 225–241
Cuevas, H M , Fiore, S M and R L Oser (2002) Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive
processes in low verbal ability learners: use of diagrams in computer-based training
environments, Instructional Science, 30, pp 433–464
Cummings, J A and C J Bonk (2002) Facilitating interactions among students and faculty via
web-based conferencing systems, Journal of Technology in Human Services, 20 (3/4),
pp 245–265
Curs¸eu, P L , Schalk, R and S Schruijer (2010) The use of cognitive mapping in eliciting and
evaluating group cognitions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 40 (5), pp 1258–1291
Daniel, J , Kanwar, A and S Uvalić-Trumbić (2008) The right to education: a model for making
higher education equally accessible to all on the basis of merit, Asian Journal of Distance
Education, 6 (2), pp 5–11
Daniel, J , West, P and A Monaghan (2008) Course Development in Distance Education:
Whose is the Content?, paper delivered to the Second CREAD Andes Congress/Second Virtual
Educa Summit, Loja, Ecuador, April. Online:
[Link]
Dawson, S (2010) Seeing the learning community: An exploration of the development of a
resource for monitoring online student networking, British Journal of Educational Technology,
41 (5), pp 736–752
Design-based Research Collective (2003) Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for
educational inquiry, Educational Researcher, 32 (1), pp 5–8
De Wever, B D , Van Keer, H , Schellens, T and M Valcke (2010) Roles as a structuring tool in
online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge
construction, Computers in Human behavior, 26 (4), pp 516–523
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L (2002) Designing virtual learning environments based on problem
orientated project pedagogy, in L Dirckinck-Holmfeld and B Fibiger (eds), Learning in Virtual
Environments, Samsfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg
Downing, K J , Lam, T , Kwong, T , Downing, W and S Chan (2007) Creating interaction in
online learning: a case study, ALT-J, 15 (3), pp 201–215
Duffy, T and J Kirkley (2004) Learner-centered Theory and Practice in Distance Education:
Cases from higher education, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Dulewicz, V and M Higgs (2002) Emotional intelligence and the development of managers and
leaders, in M Pearn (ed), Individual Differences and Development in Organizations, Wiley,
Chichester
Eden, C and J Ackermann (2004) Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the
public sector, European Journal of Operational Research, 152, pp 615–630
Edirisingha, P and J Fothergill (2009) Balancing e-lectures with podcasts: a case study of an
undergraduate engineering module, Engineering Education, 4 (2), pp 14–24
Edirisingha, P , Hawkridge, D and J Fothergill (2010) A renaissance of audio: podcasting
approaches for learning on campus and beyond, European Journal of Open, Distance and E-
Learning, 1. Online at [Link] (accessed March 2011 )
Ellis, R A and P Goodyear (2010) Students’ Experiences of E-learning in Higher Education,
Routledge, New York and Abingdon
Ellis, R A , Goodyear, P , O’Hara, A and M Prosser (2007) The university student experience of
face-to-face and online discussions: coherence, reflection and meaning, ALT-J, 15 (1),
pp 83–97
Eshet-Alkalai, Y (2004) Digital literacy: a conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital
era, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, (1), pp 93–106
Feenberg, A (1989) The written word, in R D Mason and A R Kaye (eds), Mindweave:
Communication, computers and distance education, Pergamon, Oxford
Fibiger, B (2002) Didactic design of virtual learning environments, in L Dirckinck-Holmfeld and B
Fibiger (eds), Learning in Virtual Environments, Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg
Fisher, K (2003) Demystifying critical reflection: Defining criteria for assessment, Higher
Education Research and Development, 22 (3), pp 314–325
Flood, R L (2010) The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research, Systemic Practice
and Action Research, 23, pp 269–284
Freire, P (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin, Harmondsworth
Freire, P and I Shor (1987) A Pedagogy for Liberation Dialogues on Transforming Education,
Macmillan, London
Friesen, N (2009) Rethinking E-learning Research: Foundations, methods, and practices, Peter
Lang, New York
Fulantelli, G (2010) Blended learning, systems thinking and communities and practice, in L
Dirckinck-Holmfeld , C Jones and B Lindstrom (eds), Analysing Networked Learning Practices
in Higher Education and Continuing Professional Development, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam,
Boston and Tapei
Goleman, D (1995) Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ, Bantam Books,
New York
Goodfellow, P , Lea, M , Gonzalez, F and R Mason (2001) Opportunity and e-quality:
intercultural and linguistic issues in global online learning, Distance Education, 22 (5), pp 65–84
Gullifer, J and G A Tyson (2010) Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A
focus group study, Studies in Higher Education, 35 (4), pp 463–481
Gunawardena, C N and R Zittle (1995) An examination of teaching and learning processes in
distance education and implications for designing instruction, in M F Beaudoin (ed), Distance
Education Symposium 3: Instruction, ACSDE Research Monograph, no 12, pp 51–63
Halliday, M A K and R Hasan (1989) Language, Context and Text: Aspects of language in a
social-semiotic perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hamid, S , Chang, S and S Kurnia (2009) Identifying the use of online social networking in
higher education, in Same places, different spaces. Proceedings of Ascilite Auckland 2009.
Online: [Link] (accessed
September 2010 )
Han, Y (2006) GROW: building a high-quality civil engineering learning object repository and
portal, ARIADNE, 49. Online: [Link] (accessed 18
August 2010 )
Harris, E and R Woolley (2009) Facilitating innovation through cognitive mapping of uncertainty,
International Studies of Management and Organization, 39 (1), pp 70–100
Harvey, L and P Knight (1996) Transforming Higher Education, SRHE and Open University
Press, Buckingham
Hawkridge, D (2003) The human in the machine: reflections on mentoring in the British Open
University, Mentoring and Tutoring, 11 (1), pp 15–24
Hawkridge, D , Armellini, A , Nikoi, S , Rowlett, T and G Witthaus (2010) Curriculum, intellectual
property rights and open educational resources in British universities–and beyond (Special
issue on Faculty Intellectual Property in the Digital Age), Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 22, pp 162–176
Hawkridge, D , Morgan, A and A Jelfs (1997) H801 Students’ and Tutors’ Use of the Electronic
Workbook and Electronic Mail 1997, OU Report to the Electronic Tutoring Group, Milton
Keynes, December
Helsper, E J and R Eynon (2010) Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational
Research Journal, 36 (3), pp 503–520
Hendry, G (1996) Constructivism and educational practice, Australian Journal of Education, 40
(1), pp 19–45
Henri, F (1992) Computer conferencing and content analysis, in A Kaye (ed), Collaborative
Learning Through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden papers, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg
Hew, K F and W S Cheung (2010) Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in
K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research, British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41, pp 33–55. Online: [Link] (accessed
March 2011 )
Hmelo-Silver, C E , Duncan, R G and C A Chinn (2006) Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),
Educational Psychologist, 42 (2), pp 99–107
Holsti, O R (1968) Content analysis, in G Lindzey and E Aronson (eds), The Handbook of
Social Psychology: Research methods, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Holton, D and D Clark (2006) Scaffolding and metacognition, International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37, pp 127–143
Hookway, N (2008) Entering the blogosphere: some strategies for using blogs in social
research, Qualitative Research, 8 (1), pp 91–113
Hopson, M H , Simms, R L and G A Knezek (2001–02) Using a technology-enriched
environment to improve higher-order thinking skills, Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 34 (2), pp 109–119
Horizon (2002–10) [Link] (accessed August 2010)
Hunt, C (2001) Shifting shadows: metaphors and maps for facilitating reflective practice,
Reflective Practice, 2 (3), pp 275–287
Hunt, L , Bromage, A and B Tomkinson (2006) (eds) The Realities of change in Higher
Education, Routledge, Oxford and New York
Jaques, D and G Salmon (2007) Learning in Groups, 4th edn, Routledge, London and New
York
Johnson, M B and A J Onwuegbuzie (2004) Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come, Educational Researcher, 33 (7), pp 14–26
Jonassen, D , Davidson, M , Collins, M , Campbell, B and B Haag (1995)Constructivism and
computer-mediated communication in distance education, American Journal of Distance
Education, 9 (2), pp 7–25
Jones, C (2010) Networked learning and postgraduate professionals, in L Dirckinck-Holmfeld ,
C Jones and B Lindström (eds), Higher Education and Continuing Professional Development,
Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Boston and Taipei
Kanwar, A , Kodhandaraman, B and A Umar (2010) Toward sustainable open education
resources: a perspective from the global South, American Journal of Distance Education, 24
(2), pp 65–80
Kelly, A E (2004) Design research in education: yes, but is it methodological?, Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13 (1), pp 5–8
Kelly, G A (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York
Knight, P T (2002) Being a Teacher in Higher Education, SRHE and Open University Press,
Buckingham
Kovacic, A , Bubas, C and Zlatovic, M (2008) E-tivities with a wiki: innovative teaching of
English as a foreign language. Online: [Link] (accessed October 2010 )
Leander, K M , Phillips, N C and K H Taylor (2010) The changing social spaces of learning:
mapping new mobilities, Review of Research in Education, 34 (1), pp 329–394
Learning Futures 10 workshops (2010) [Link] (accessed August
2010 )
Lippincott, K , Eco, U , Gombrich, E H et al. (2000) The Story of Time, Merrell Holberton,
London
Littlejohn, A and C Pegler (2007) Preparing for Blended E-learning, Routledge, London and
New York
Lopez-Fernandez, L and J Rodriguez-Illera (2008) Investigating university students’ adaptation
to a digital learner course portfolio, Computers and Education, 52 (3), pp 608–616
Loureiro-Koechlin, C and B Allan (2010) Time, space and structure in an e-learning e-mentoring
project, British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), pp 721–735
Lowenthal, P R and N Leech (2010) Mixed research and online learning: Strategies for
improvement, in T T Kidd (ed), Online Education and Adult Learning: New frontiers for teaching
practices, IGI Global, Hershey, PA
Macdonald, J (2003) Assessing online collaborative learning: process and product, Computers
and Education, 40 (4), pp 377–391
Macdonald, J (2004) Developing competent e-learners: the role of assessment, Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (2), pp 215–226
Macdonald, J , Weller, M and R Mason (2002) Meeting the assessment demands of networked
courses, International Journal on E-learning, Jan–Mar, pp 9–18
Mann, B L (2006) Selected Styles in Web-based Educational Research, IGI global, Hershey,
PA
Mann, S J (2001) Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and
engagement, Society for Research into Higher Education, 26 (1), pp 7–19
Martell, C. (2000) The age of information, the age of foolishness, College and Research
Libraries (Jan), pp 10–27
Mason, R (1993) Written interactions, in R Mason (ed), Computer Conferencing: The last word,
Beach Holme, Victoria, British Colombia, pp 3–19
Mason, R (1998) Globalising Education: Trends and Applications, Routledge, London
Mathiasen, H and P Rattleff (2002) The conditions of communication in computer-mediated,
net-disseminated educational settings, in L Dirckinck-Holmfeld and B Fibiger (eds), Learning in
Virtual Environments, Samsfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg
McDonald, J and G Postle (1999) Teaching Online: Challenge to a Reinterpretation of
Traditional Instructional Models, paper presented at AusWeb99. Online:
[Link] (accessed October 2010 )
McNaught, C (2003) Identifying the complexity of factors in the sharing and reuse of resources,
in A Littlejohn (ed), Reusing Online Resources, Kogan Page, London
Meadows, M S (2008) I, Avatar: the culture and consequences of having a second life, New
Riders, Berkeley, CA
Meyer, K A (2006) Cost-efficiencies of online learning, ASHE Higher Education Report, 32 (1),
pp 1–123
Michinov, N , Brunot, S , Le Bohec, O , Juhel, J and M Delaval (2010) Procrastination,
participation, and performance in online learning environments, Computers and Education, 56
(1), pp 243–252
Mitra, S (2010) The Future of Learning, keynote at ALT-C Conference ‘Into something rich and
strange’, Nottingham, September. Online: [Link] (accessed October
2010 )
Morgan, D L (1988) Focus Croups as Qualitative Research, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA
Mundemann, F (1999) Certified Training for Tele-coaches , proceedings of Online Educa, Berlin
Ng'ambi, D and I Brown (2009) Intended and unintended consequences of student use of an
online questioning environment, British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (2), pp 316–328
Ng'ambi, D and S Goodman (2009) Bridging distance between actual and potential
development: a case of using ICT mediated consultation tool, Education and Information
Technologies Journal, 14, pp 89–102
Nicol, D (2007) Laying a foundation for lifelong learning: Case studies of e-assessment in large
1st-year classes, British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, pp 668–678
Nie, M , Armellini, A , Harrington, S , Barklamb, K and R Randall (2010) The role of podcasting
in effective curriculum renewal, ALT-J, 18 (2), pp 105–118
Norman, D (2010) Living with Complexity , MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Nussbaum, M , Alvarez, C , McFarlane, A , Florencia G , Claro, S and D Radovic , (2009)
Technology as small group face-to-face, Collaborative Scaffolding Computers and Education,
52 (1), pp 147–153
OECD Committee for Economic Development Digital Connections Council (2009) Harnessing
Openness to improve research teaching and learning in Higher Education, p 2. Online:
[Link] (accessed
August 2010 )
Pettenati, M C and M E Cigognini (2009) Designing E-tivities to Increase Learning-to-learn
Abilities, eLearning papers, University of Florence. Online:
[Link] (accessed
October 2010 )
Pidd, M (2003) Tools for Thinking , 2nd edn, Wiley, Chichester
Potter, J and M Wetherell (1989) Discourse and Social Psychology, Sage, London
Preece, J (2000) Online Communities: Supporting sociability and designing usability, John
Wiley, Chichester
Redmond, P and J V Lock (2009) Authentic learning across international borders: a cross
institutional online project for pre-service teachers, in Cleborne Maddux (ed), Research
Highlights in Technology and Teacher eduCation 2009, Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education (SITE)/Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE), Chesapeake, VA, pp 265–273
Redmond, P and A Mander (2009) Constructing a Pre-service Teacher Online Learning
Community, paper in 20th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology
and Teacher Education (SITE 2009), 2–6 March 2009, Charleston, SC, USA
Reeves, T C , Herrington, J and R Oliver (2002) Authentic Activities and Online Learning,
proceeding of 25th HERDSA annual conference, pp 567–572
Reiser, J (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms for structuring and
problematising student work, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (2) pp 273–304
Reushle, S E (2008) Virtual territories: researching and living transformative learning in online
higher education contexts, in R Henderson and P Danaher (eds), Troubling Terrains: Tactics for
traversing and transforming contemporary educational research, Teneriffe, Queensland
Reushle, S and M Mitchell (2009) Sharing the journey of facilitator and learner: online pedagogy
in practice, Journal of Learning Design, 3 (1) pp 11–20
Rheingold, H (2002) Smart Mobs, Minerva, London
Roblyer, M D and J Edwards (2000) Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, Merrill,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
Rofe, J S (2011) The ‘IR Model’: a schema for pedagogic design and development in
international relations, European Political Science, 10 (1), pp 103–117
Ross, S M , Morrison, G R and D L Lowther (2010) Educational technology research past and
present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning, Contemporary Educational
Technology, 1 (1), pp 17–35. Online: [Link]
Rossi, D M (2010) Learning relationships in online contexts: a substantive theory constructed
from the integrated analyses of learner-learner interaction and knowledge construction in an
undergraduate communication course, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southern
Queensland
Rovai, A P (2002) Building a sense of community at a distance, The International Review of
Research of Open and Distance Learning, 3 (1), pp 1–16
Rowntree, D (1995) Teaching and learning online: a correspondence education for the 21st
century?, British Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (3), pp 205–215
Rudman, P , Lavelle, S , Salmon, G and A Cashmore (2010) SWIFT-ly enhancing laboratory
learning: genetics in the virtual world, in L Creanor , D Hawkridge , K Ng and F Rennie (eds),
Proceedings of 17th Association of Learning Technology (ALT-C) Conference ‘Into something
rich and strange–making sense of the sea-change’, 7–9, Nottingham, pp 118–126
Ruey, S (2010) A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning,
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41 (5), pp 706–720
Rumble, G (2001) The costs and costing of networked learning, Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 5 (2), pp 75–96
Rumble, G (2009) Talk on Costing Blended Learning to the Distance Learning Forum at the
University of Leicester, UK, 28 April
Rumble, G (2010) Flexing costs and reflecting on methods, in E Burge , C Gibson and T Gibson
(eds), Flexibility in Higher Education: Promises, Ambiguities, Challenges, Athabasca University
Press, Athabasca, Alberta, pp 264–301
Russell, C (2009) A systemic framework for managing e-learning adoption in campus
universities: individual strategies in context, ALT-J, 17 (1), pp 3–19
Salmon, G (2002a) E-tivities: The key to active online learning, Kogan Page, London
Salmon, G (2002b) Approaches to researching teaching and learning online, in C Steeples and
C Jones (eds), Networked Learning: Perspectives and issues, Springer-Verlag, London
Salmon, G (2002c) Mirror, mirror, on my screen: exploring online reflections, British Journal of
Educational Technology, 33 (4), pp 383–396
Salmon, G (2002d) Online networking and individual development, in M Pearn (ed), Individual
Differences and Development in Organizations, Wiley Handbooks in the Psychology of
Management in Organizations, Wiley, Chichester
Salmon, G (2005) Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical
innovation in higher education institutions, Association of Learning Technologies Journal (ALT-
J), 13 (3), pp 201–218
Salmon, G (2006) 80:20 for e-moderators, in I Mac Labhrainn , C McDonald Legg , D
Schneckenberg and J Wildt (eds), The Challenge of eCompetence in Academic Staff
Development, CELT, Galway
Salmon, G (2009) The future for Second Life and learning, British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40 (3), pp 526–538
Salmon, G and P Edirisingha (eds) (2008) Podcasting for Learning in Universities, Open
University Press/McGraw Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education, Maidenhead and
New York. Online: [Link]
Salmon, G , Edirisingha, P , Mobbs, M , Mobbs, R and D Dennett (2008) How to create
podcasts for education, Open University Press/McGraw Hill/Society for Research into Higher
Education, Maidenhead and New York. Also available as an iphone app
Salmon, G and D Hawkridge (2009) Editorial: out of this world, British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40 (3), pp 401–413
Salmon, G , Jones, S and A Armellini (2008) Building institutional capability in e-learning
design, ALT-J, 16 (2), pp 95–109
Salmon, G and N Lawless (2006) Management education for the twenty-first century, in C J
Bonk and C R Graham (eds), Handbook of Blended Learning: global perspectives, local
designs, Pfeiffer, San Francisco
Salmon, G , Nie, M and P Edirisingha (2010) Developing a five-stage model of learning in
Second Life, Educational Research (Special issue: Virtual worlds and education), 52 (2),
pp 169–182
Santoro, G P (1995) What is computer-mediated communication?, in Z L Berge and M P Collins
(eds), Computer-Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom, Hampton Press,
Cresskill NJ, pp 11–27
Schön, D (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action, Basic Books,
London
Schwan, S , Straub, D and F W Hesse (2002) Information management and learning in
computer conferences: coping with irrelevant and unconnected messages, Instructional
Science, 30, pp 269–289
Seel, N M (2001) Epistemology, situated cognition, and mental models: ‘Like a bridge over
troubled water’, Instructional Science, 29 (29), pp 403–427
Sharma, P and M J Hannafin (2007) Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning
environments, Interactive Learning Environments, 15 (1), pp 27–46
Sharples, M , Arnedillo-Sánchez, I and G Vavoula (2009) Mobile learning small devices, big
issues, in L Balacheff (ed), Technology-enhanced Learning, Part IV, Springer, Berlin, pp
233–249
Shen, K N and M Khalifa (2009) Facebook Usage Among Arabic College Students: Preliminary
Findings on Gender Differences, 9th International Conference on Electronic Business,
pp 1080–1087
Simons, G F (2002) Eurodiversity, Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier Science, Woborn, MA
Skinner, E (2009) Using community development theory to improve student engagement in
online discussion: a case study, ALT-J, 17 (2), pp 89–100
Slevin, J (2008) E-learning and the transformation of social interaction in higher education,
Learning, Media and Technology, 33 (2), pp 115–126
Smet, M , van Keer, H and M Valcke (2008) Blending asynchronous discussion groups and
peer tutoring in higher education: an exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour,
Computers and Education, 50 (1), pp 207–223
Snavely, L (2008) Global educational goals, technology, and information literacy in higher
education, New Directions for Teaching and Learning 114, pp 35–46
Sorensen, E K (2002) Distributed CSCL: a situated, collaborative tapestry, in L Dirckinck-
Holmfeld and B Fibiger (eds), Learning in Virtual Environments, Samfundslitteratur,
Frederiksberg
Stewart, D W , Shamdasani, P N and D W Rook (2007) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice,
2nd edn, Sage, London
Surowiecki, J (2005) The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few, Abacus,
London
Sutton-Brady, C , Scott, K M , Taylor, L , Carabetta, G and S Clark (2009) The value of using
short-format podcasts to enhance learning and teaching, ALT-J, 17 (3), pp 219–232
Swann, W B , Polzer, J T , Seyle, D C and S J Ko (2004) Finding value in diversity: Verification
of personal and social self-views in diverse groups, Academy of Management Review, 29 (1),
pp 9–27
Swindell, R (2002) U3A online: a virtual university of the third age for isolated older people,
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21 (5), 414–429
Tabak, I (2004) Synergy: a complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding, The
Journal of Learning Sciences, 13 (3) pp 305–335
Tan, L (1999) The ‘Faceless Facilitator’: An impossible learning approach?, proceedings of
Online Educa, Berlin
Taylor, E W (2001) Transformative learning theory: a neurobiological perspective of the role of
emotions and unconscious ways of knowing, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20 (3),
pp 218–236
Tochel, C , Haig, A , Hesketh, A , Cadzow, A , Beggs, K , Colthart, I and H Peacock (2009) The
effectiveness of portfolios for post-graduate assessment and education, Medical Teacher, 31
(4), pp 299–318
Traxler, J (2010) Students and mobile devices, ALT-J, 18 (2), pp 149–160
Tsui, A B M and W W Ki (2002) Teacher participation in computer conferencing: socio-
psychological dimensions, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 11 (1),
pp 23–44
Tsui, L (2002) Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy, Journal of Higher
Education, 73 (6), pp 740–763
Turney, C S M , Robinson, D , Lee, M and A Soutar (2009) Active Learning in Higher
Education, 10 (1), pp. 71–83
Twining, P (2009) Exploring the educational potential of virtual worlds–some reflections from
the SPP, British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (3), 496–514
Underhill, J and J McDonald (2010) Collaborative tutor development: enabling a transformative
paradigm in a South African University, Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18 (2),
pp 91–106
Van den Akker, J , Gravemeijer, K , McKenney, S and N Nieveen (eds) (2007) Educational
Design Research, Routledge, London
van Kouwen, K , Dieperink, C , Schot, P P and M J Wassen (2010) Computer-supported
cognitive mapping for participatory problem structuring, Environment and Planning 2009, 41,
pp 63–81
Wang, F and M J Hannafin (2005) Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning
environments, Educational Technology Research Development, 53 (4), pp 5–23
Warburton, S (2009) Second Life in higher education: assessing the potential for and the
barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching, British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40 (3), 414–426
Warren, C M J (2008) The Use of Online Asynchronous Discussion Forums in the Development
of Deep Learning Among Postgraduate Real Estate Students, CIB International Conference on
Building Education and Research, Kandalama, Sri Lanka, 11–15 February, pp 1698–1708
Weller, M (2002a) Delivering Learning on the Net: The why, what and how of online education,
Kogan Page, London
Weller, M J (2002b) Assessment issues on a web-based course, Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 27 (2), pp 109–116
Weller, M and L Robinson (2001) Scaling up an online course to deal with 12,000 students,
Education, Communication and Information, 1 (3), pp 307–322.
Wenger, E , McDermott, R and W M Snyder (eds) (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA
Wheeler, M and G Salmon (2008) Second Life: guide for learning group participants, University
of Leicester, Leicester
Wheeler, S (2007) The influence of communication technologies and approaches to study on
transactional distance in blended learning, ALT-J, 15 (2), pp 103–117
Woo, Y and T C Reeves (2007) Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: a social
constructivist interpretation, Internet and Higher Education, 10, pp 15–25