blended-learning strategies in higher education

BLENDED-LEARNING STRATEGIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION Paula Peres1, Borges Gouveia2, Pedro Pimenta3 1

PAOL – Unidade de Inovação em Educação Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração do Porto / Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Porto (PORTUGAL) 2 Universidade Fernando Pessoa – Porto (PORTUGAL) 3 Escola de Engenharia, Universidade do Minho Campus de Azurém, Guimarães (PORTUGAL) [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract At a time when Personal Learning Environments are considered essential for a student centered learning approach, does it mean the end to the more “traditional LMS”? Where do social networks fit in? Can these be seen as parallel learning environments that complement the institutional LMS? Higher education institutions have to analyze possible ways of overcoming the difficulties they are facing. This paper presents a reflection on the importance of using web 2.0 technologies, personal learning environments (PLE) and learning management systems (LMS) in a higher education context. It describes today’s exploration by Portuguese universities and predicts future directions. Moreover, it presents a classification of the main concepts and free tools available on the Internet. Using the MIPO model (Integration model by objectives), this paper also presents a new framework, designed to support decision making in the selection of a tool category to be used in a specific learning activity. The classification and framework are explained using concrete examples in specific contexts. All results obtained are discussed in depth. The work described has emerged as the result of a search for a solution to a perceived necessity in daily teaching and at the request of the post-graduation students of communication technologies blearning course, at ISCAP. This course is attended, mainly, by teachers who have difficulties mapping the extensive number of web tools available to improve learning. These students tested and validated the classification presented in this paper. Keywords: Blended-Learning, e-learning, Higher Education, Web 2.0.

1 1.1

UNDERSTANDING CONCEPTS Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

Since the development of web technology, the provision of the Internet has been changing from web 1.0, to the much talked about web 3.0. Web 1.0 was the first generation of commercial Internet and the most notable asset was the amount of information available. Despite the existence of hyperlinks, their content was not very interactive and it was solely a new way of reading documents in which users took the passive role of knowledge consumer. Web 2.0 is moving the internet to a platform where the priority is to provide a web environment in order to create sharing spaces that profit from the number of users and use collective intelligence [1]. In essence they attempt to enhance the role of users beyond merely receiving information to interacting, creating content, creating communities and collaborating in a network system. In blogs, wikis, forums, podcasts and many internet services many users’ contributions are incorporated, ranging from points of view to sharing their perspectives of the world, the power of giving opinions is not only a journalistic or editorial issue. O’Reilly [1] describes web 2.0 as a new generation of applications featuring web tools such as flickr, delic.io.us, MySpace, YouTube, wikipedia and blogger. Web 2.0 application changed the way we use the internet. It enables the easy publication of concepts and ideas by all users. The number of web 2.0 tools available has increased dramatically.

Proceedings of EDULEARN11 Conference. 4-6 July 2011, Barcelona, Spain.

001857

ISBN:978-84-615-0441-1

1.2

e-learning 2.0

Although all these tools share the same ease of use, they have not been explored sufficiently in terms of education [2]. Stephen Downes introduced the term “e-learning 2.0” and related it to the use of wikis, weblogs and podcasts in an educational context. Since then, many researchers have been undertaking projects in this area. This kind of environment is led by self-user production. Social media, social networks and social communities represent a new method of collaboration and communication. In a short period of time, the World Wide Web turned from a static information medium into a great communication platform. Ajjan and Hartshorne [3] argue that web 2.0 tools are the trend of internet technologies and have many features that may support the teaching/learning process. They underline the importance of exploring the ease of use and students’ familiarity with Internet tools. Increasingly, we have documents reporting different uses of web 2.0 tools in education. In recent years, many reports describing the use of web 2.0 in educational contexts have emerged. One of the most recent reports was written by Ebner et al. [4] who describe the use of Twitter in higher education. Twitter was the first microblog platform that became established in 2007 as a new way of blogging and it is also the most well-known. It allows web communication using brief messages up to 140 characters. Ebner et al. [4] leading a study of the importance of using twitter for educational purposes concluded that the use of a microblog in a course aids informal learning and process-oriented learning as a new way to communicate. It is not only a way of sending information, nor just a status message tool, but also an opportunity to be part of something by reading, commenting, discussing or simply underlining an idea. Another study describes the use of Facebook in an educational context. Assuming that most of the students have a facebook account and that their acquaintance with it could be explored in order to obtain better learning results, English and Ducan-Howell [5] presented a case study about its use in the context of a degree course. Over 4 weeks students worked using a private facebook group. Previously, students had worked in a face-to-face classroom before joining the web group. The authors observed that students felt comfortable when sharing messages of a different nature such as solution messages, jokes, problems and excitement amongst others. The main difference between using facebook and another web platform was the students’ proximity.

1.3

PLE/LMS

The decentralization of learning that focuses on an ecology centered on the student has been called a PLE (personal learning environment). The notion of a PLE represents the implementation of web 2.0, the power and autonomy of users, the openness and sharing, continuous lifelong learning, the importance of informal learning and the potential of web space for socialization and knowledge sharing. The e-Learning systems that are confined to a LMS (learning management system) and to a closed learning objective connect to the traditional views of teaching-learning. Therefore, they may not meet the needs of today’s students, who require the integration of institutional environments with lifelong learning focused on personal interests. In this context it is important to find bridges between formal and informal learning in order to reach the cognitive learning objectives, allowing users to integrate their experiences in a variety of contexts, in a social construction of knowledge.

1.4

Socio-Political Context and Institutional driving forces

European Higher Education is settling from the changes brought by “Bologna Declaration” (“Bologna Declaration”, 1999), trough the so-called “Bologna Process”. Last meeting, held on Budapest-Vienna (“Budapest-Vienna Declaration”, 2010), stresses (again) a set of points that drive last decade overall changes – and thus, technological and pedagogical innovation (edition and italics by Authors): • Students’ (…) mobility with smooth and fair recognition of their qualifications, (…) [in order to] find the best suited educational pathways; • In a unique partnership between public authorities, higher education institutions, students and staff, together with employers, quality assurance agencies, international organizations and European institutions, (…). – please note the diversity of stakeholders; • The Bologna Process and the resulting European Higher Education Area (…) have raised considerable interest in other parts of the world (...). We (…) look forward to intensifying our policy dialogue and cooperation with partners across the world; • We, the Ministers, are committed to (…) the reforms already underway to enable students and staff to be mobile, to improve teaching and learning, (…) [and] communication on and understanding of the Bologna Process among all stakeholders and society as a whole.

001858

• We call upon all actors involved to facilitate an inspiring working and learning environment and to foster student-centred learning as a way of empowering the learner in all forms of education, providing the best solution for sustainable and flexible learning paths. • We, the Ministers (…), ask the Bologna Follow-up Group to propose measures to facilitate the proper and full implementation of the agreed Bologna principles and action lines across the European Higher Education Area (…) by developing additional working methods, such as peer learning, study visits and other information sharing activities. From the 13 points of Budapest-Vienna Declaration, six (cited above) focus on: i) mobility; ii) open and flexible learning; iii) overall information sharing and iv) world-wide, holistic perspectives of teaching and learning. The attention given to these aspects by European Ministers is clearly aligned with some tendencies and practices visible through the social web: • The use of iTunes U by a large number of Universities (“(…) more than 400 (…) distribute content publicly (…)”, according to Apple - this includes Stanford, Yale, MIT, Oxford, UC Berkeley, The Open University, Carnegie Mellon, etc…) • The use of facebook by Universities (top universities, as ranked on “Top 500 Webometrics Ranking of World Universities July 2010” ) have a formal and active presence on facebook; • Scribd is also used by a significant number of Universities to disseminate documentation (mainly North-American), like University of Denver, The MIT Press, Indiana University Press, Harvard University Press, University of Chicago, University of British Columbia, University of Georgia, Ohio University Press, New York University Press, Washington University Press, Duke University Press, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, Universitatea Danubius, Publikatieburo Faculty of Architecture Tu Delft, Università degli Studi di Urbino "Carlo Bo", etc… • Finally, Youtube is being used since 2005 by MIT OpenCourseWare initiative (started 2000) to disseminate MIT Courseware. At the writing of this text, Youtube reports 1309 uploads, reaching 20673381 upload views. Other Universities with some Youtube presence (including didactic materials, although in less extension than MIT) are, eg. - University of Michigan, The Open University, Princeton University, The Ohio State University, University of Toronto, Universita di Bologna, etc… Without the purpose of being exhaustive, preceeding examples illustrate how, in some way, contemporary to European Bologna Process, many Higher Education Institutions (HEI) had the drive to work on and develop his open and flexible, overall information sharing, world-wide, holistic perspectives of teaching and learning, and how they used the so calles social web to disseminate contents and interact with other HEI, students and stake-holders in general.

2

THE USE OF E-LEARNING 2.0 AT ISCAP

In Portugal, Moodle’s usage has been increasing rapidly, perhaps due to its interesting characteristics, as it is an LMS (Learning Management System) that offers a set of activities adaptable to multiple subjects. It is possible to insert texts and the necessary documentation for the subjects, to suggest assignments, promote discussion forums and to create term glossaries in a cooperative form. The assessment and self-evaluation of knowledge is done through the pages of lessons and questionnaires. In 2003, to help implementation of moodle at ISCAP (The School of Accounting and Administration of Oporto –Portugal – http://www.iscap.ipp.pt) a unit named PAOL was created (Unit for innovation in education: http://www.iscap.ipp.pt/paol). The main goals of PAOL are to provide the implementation of computer assisted education at ISCAP in a blended learning model and to assist teachers and students in their adjustment to educational technologies, by developing training opportunities and resources, offering technical facilities and the sharing of good practice. The integration of Moodle went through several stages over the years of its existence, particularly due to the target audience of the project: teachers and students. Those teachers that were more willing to embrace innovation in their teaching-learning practice allowed for the first establishment of Moodle as the primary means of educational support in the school. Later, student pressure and demand led to an increase in the number of courses with online support, particularly amongst the more resistant teachers. By the academic year 2006/2007 blended-learning strategies, supported by Moodle, were firmly established at ISCAP, generating new teaching and learning habits among teachers and students. Such was also possible due to the policy adopted by the institution, which supported PAOL in all its actions. If we analyze the use of Moodle in the last three years, it is possible to verify that the

001859

integration of technology in teachers’ practices has led to a ‘comfort zone’, where Moodle is used to safely reproduce the traditional classroom teaching methodologies. If we were to design an adoption curve, we would verify that the adoption of Moodle has reached a peak and stagnated with the adoption of a certain number of current practices associated with content distribution. Sensing the need to take a step further and study the potential of other digital technologies available on the World Wide Web, PAOL proposed the use of many others web tools in order to surpass obstacles and meet both student and teacher expectations. It is our belief that learners should be active participants in their learning. Achieving this means providing opportunities for interaction. Such pedagogies aim to encourage students to become autonomous lifelong learners, capable of problem solving and critical thinking, and to move them from being passive recipients of information and knowledge to being active, enthusiastic learners and knowledge creators. In this sense, PAOL has been developing many activities in order to demonstrate these features and sharing examples of its use and good-practice through institutional events in order to captivate reluctant teachers by showing them concrete examples. However, we believe that LMSs are moving away from the digital world that is being used by students. Nevertheless, whenever we want to use this kind of environment in an educational context some institutional problems arise such as the management of decentralized information. Also, giving learners total control is questionable. The embedded code that some web 2.0 make available may be of use. Otherwise, important pieces of information and print screens should be stored. It is our opinion that, in this sense, LMSs may be used as an aggregator and guide for formalizing informal learning. Furthermore, as Moodle has the capacity to aggregate other tools, focus has also been placed on the integration of widgets within Moodle, as a link between formal, institutional learning and a more social, informal environment. The importance that continues to be given to the use of LMS at ISCAP is explained by the necessity to centralize, formalize and clarify the learning and evaluation process. Nevertheless, institutions cannot distance themselves from the lives and changing habits of students, who use web 2.0 technologies in their routines and may not wish to see school as an unfamiliar and unattractive place. The challenge for using Web 2.0 or PLE technologies in a formal classroom setting lies in balancing the freedom to create content and customize the learning environment while still structuring the learning environment to achieve planned objectives [6]. Recognizing the difficulty in managing decentralized information and the learning process is important in order to combine and integrate web 2.0 tools in the learning process without the demand for formal evaluation [7]. Hybrid learning environments occur in the institution of the future where the development of social environments is promoted. As a result of this, assistance is provided for students with an increasing number of technological skills such as creating digital identities and preparing for lifelong learning. Nowadays, the breaking of institutional barriers is a reality, evaluations are set beyond cognitive skills and many of them are not provided with any LMS support. The importance of developing soft skills, namely social and digital competences is a goal that may be achieved using PLE. In this context, the teacher assumes an important role in order to assist students creating their own PLE combining personal objectives, ethics, technical and social abilities. To promote the aforementioned interconnection between LMS and PLE, PAOL assists teachers in the process of acquiring knowledge and exploration of the main web 2.0 tools available that can be used in educational systems. Each digital tool has its own strengths and weaknesses. Appropriated integration of each tool presents students with rich, varied learning, and minimizes the weaknesses. Finding new and exciting teaching and learning strategies via Web 2.0 applications is a constant challenge.

3

A WEB 2.0 TOOLS CLASSIFICATION

With Web 2.0 great changes occurred, teacher and student publications are no longer limited to the classroom, but are now available throughout the internet. Since most Web 2.0 tools allow more than one author, today it is easy to produce collaborative work. In addition, writing is not limited to the text format, but may integrate images, sound and video. It is important to know the main tools available in order to further integrate them into teaching practices. Nevertheless, the increasing number of available tools may be intimidating. The classification presented below results from the importance of giving a solution to a necessity perceived in our daily work and was also required for the students of blearning post-graduation in communication technology, at ISCAP. This course is mainly attended by teachers who are familiar with the main webs tools available, but have difficulties choosing the most suitable tools for a specific educational context. The mapping of these tools required justification of the research conducted in procuring models that could aid in the selection for designing a learning activity. Most of the classifications found led to the classic vision of synchronous and asynchronous tools or to the classification based on the idea of collaboration and social network, such as the “conversation

001860

prism” [8] or “massive volkswagon” [9]. In the design instruction implementation, these categories are insufficient due to the suggestion of more than one tool or groups of tools and do not take into account the specific learning environment. Classifications that are based on the social features are also insufficient because they do not include authoring tools for content production, which is imperitive in any learning environment. Thus, the classification presented in this chapter is specific to an educational context and has the objective of arranging the available web list tools in a significant structure that enables the appropriate selection when designing an online learning activity. In the context of education, any classification of tools would be insufficient if it were not combined with an instructional model to aid in the definition of learning activities. The design of the previously mentioned structure of classification was based on the mipo model (mipo model - A framework to help the integration of web technologies at higher education) [10]. The mipo model is a model of instruction that helps the implementation of blended-learning processes that were tested and validated, in the context of Portuguese higher education, as a result of four cycles of an action-research project combined with a case study research. The selection of the mipo model in particular was due to this model being familiar, specific to a blended learning system and fitting for the indentified requirements. Any other model could be used if it assisted in the design of distance learning activities. According to the mipo model, the definition of a blended instruction strategy, with online and face-to-face activities, is the phase of pedagogical planning, which takes more time and requires more effort to prepare and monitor. According to this model, the definition of a learning activity includes the following elements:

Figure 1: Description of elements involved in a learning activity, according to the mipo model This definition includes the design of a set of individual tasks such as an online test or the creation of a podcast, participative tasks such as the shared construction of an e-portfolio and collaborative activities such an interactive online learning game. One learning activity may use more than one web tool and be based on many pedagogical models in order to achieve one or more objectives defined by the unit/course. The e-contents, the division of labor, the rules and phases are minor elements that are strictly related to concrete learning activity and are easily adapted to different contexts of learning. Strongly driven by the necessity that emerges from the practical context and the importance of giving an answer to the aforementioned post-graduation students a structure was created that classified the web tools into three main groups: author tools, publication tools and communication tools.

3.1

Author Tools

The terms author tools or production tools represent Web spaces that enable the implementation of production activities such as a report, a presentation, a podcast, a video, a glossary, a puzzle, a mindmap, a questionnaire, etc. These activities are especially useful for reaching the objectives classified at level one (“Knowledge), two (“Comprehension”), three (“Application”), four (“Analysis”) and five (“Synthesis) of the Bloom taxonomy [11]. These types of activities may be implemented to develop soft skills such as “SS1 – Learn to Learn”, “SS2 – Information processing and management”, “SS3 – Deduction and analytical skills”, “SS4 – Decision making skills”, “SS7 – Creative thinking and

001861

problem solving skills” and “SS9 – Self-management and self-development” according to the EU classification [12]. These activities may be individual or participative (where students work together in order to reach common results, nevertheless if one student does not participate the activity’s success will not be at risk) and allow the implementation of objective, practical or discursive evaluation questions, based on behaviorist, cognitive and/or constructivist models, according to the elements identified in the mipo model [10]. As examples of author tools we may highlight: “Animoto”, “bubbl.us”, ”Delicious”, “Digg”, “Google Docs”, “Hotpotatoes”, “limesurvey”, “Mindmeister”, “Pearltrees”, among others.

3.2

Publication Tools

Publication tools are Web spaces where students’ work may be submitted and ideas are made available online through such means as creating a blog, a digital portfolio, an online curriculum, etc. These activities are especially useful for reaching the objectives classified at level five (“Synthesis”) and six (“Evaluation”) of the Bloom taxonomy [11]. Perhaps implementing and facilitating the development of soft skills such as “SS1 – Learn to Learn”, “SS2 – Information processing and management”, “SS4 – Decision making skills”, SS5 – Communication skills, language skills” and “SS9 – Self-management and self-development”, according to the EU classification [12]. The nature of these activities are mainly participative and allow the implementation of practical and/or discursive evaluation questions based on cognitive, constructivist and/or social-constructivist pedagogical models, according to the indentified elements in the mipo model [10]. Examples of such are as follows: “Authorstream”, ”Blogspot”, ”BoxNet”, ”linkedin”, “scribd”, “slideshare”,”Youtube”, among others.

3.3

Communication Tools

Communication tools are Web spaces that allow the implementation of collaborative learning activities where student learning occurs through participation in synchronous and asynchronous communication. These tools are useful for stimulating debates, dialogues, role-plays, collaborative games, demonstration of knowledge, etc. These activities are particularly useful for reaching objectives classified at level five (“Synthesis”) and six (“Evaluation”) of the Bloom taxonomy [11]. These activities may be used in order to develop soft skills such as “SS1 – Learn to Learn”, “SS2 – Information processing and management”,”SS4 – Decision making skills”,”SS5 – Communication skills, language skills”, “SS6 – Teamwork, team based learning and teaching”, “SS8 – Management and leadership, strategic thinking“ and “SS9 – Self-management and self-development”, according to EU classification [12]. The nature of these activities is mainly collaborative and allows the implementation of discursive questions based on social-constructivist pedagogical models, according to the elements identified in the mipo model [10]. As examples we may specify: “Facebook”, “GoogleTalk”, ”Google Wave”, ”Plaxo”, “Skype”, “Second life”, ”Twitter”, “Voicethread”, among others. To sum up, graphically, the following classification structure was conceived:

Figure 2: Tools classification

001862

The identification of the main Web tools from each category is available online at: http://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show/42788574

4

DESCRIPTION OF THE VALIDATION PROCESS

The classification presented in this chapter was defined based on the mipo model, supported by a practical educational context and was used, validated and updated in the e-learning system unit of the blended learning post-graduation course in communication technology at ISCAP. The unit held according to the following context:

Most of the students were teachers (90%) from secondary and professional schools who chose this post-graduation course in order to improve and update their technical and pedagogical skills. For this e-learning system unit the following global objective was defined: To create an e-learning system in an educational and/or organizational context As a result of the learning process and subsequent conclusion of the e-learning system unit, the following elements were defined: When students reached the end of the unit they would build their own e-learning solution according to specific features oriented to efficiently explore web tools in order to reach the learning objectives. They would do it by using web tools to support training management, create curriculum planning and develop educational e-contents, adapted to specific contexts. The unit held according to the following schedule:

Figure 3: Schedule of the unit Every four days an asynchronous lesson on the moodle platform was provided, before each of which there was a synchronous session in order to clarify doubts. This unit included three face-to-face sessions (one at the beginning of the unit, another in the middle of the unit and other at the end of the unit). For the creation of e-learning courses, students based their work on the mipo model. When they needed to choose a web tool to define a learning activity they used the classification described in this chapter. The importance of knowing and selecting the appropriate tool for a specific educational context was enhanced for students in one of our synchronous session that was held on voivethread environment and is available at: http://voicethread.com/?#u843804.b1443444.i7623154. The voicethread tool allows the insertion of images, documents and video initially. Later, participants may add comments by voice, text or video in a real-time session. Here are some of the comments made: “Without doubt, this set of tools may be used to support the contents production in an e-learning system.” “I found this set of tools very interesting to build training sessions”

001863

“there are so many tools! The great difficulty is to choose the best one to use” After the construction of an e-learning course based on the structure of classification of web tools presented, students completed a brief questioner with the following questions: Q1. How do you classify the usefulness of the web classification tools presented? Q2. Indentify the positive and less positive aspects of the classification suggested. These questions were defined based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [13] which proposes that the acceptance of a new model depends on its usefulness and ease of use. Through the analysis of the responses received we attested that students found the presented structure very useful and easy to use. Here are some of the comments made: Q1. “Without this classification I would be lost”; “it helped me to know tools that I was completely unfamiliar with”, “At first creating everything is a lot of work and stressful because it demands a lot of concentration, the classification helped to speed this up it”; “very useful and ease to use”; “practical and useful”. Q2. “I cannot find less positive aspects since everything is new for me, it has been a continuous and complete learning process”; “I look back and I realize that I received lots of information and acquired so much knowledge”; “is easy to use”, “it is online and may be updated by us or other colleagues”, “saved me a lot of time”.

5

MAPPING ACTIVITIES

It is important to have a conceptual structure to support the selection of a web tool but, at the same time, it is also important to know practical implementations in order to facilitate future usage in different contexts. Current technologies may support an extensive number of learning strategies and pedagogical methods and they should be viewed as work tools and not as an end itself. Web tools may be used to support the implementation of individual, participative or collaborative activities. One activity may use more than one tool as well as the same tool may be used to implement many activities. They can be used to help reach cognitive objectives and develop soft skills. It is more important to choose the right strategy in order to achieve the goals defined than merely select the tools. As previously mentioned, the learning activity design made in the e-learning system unit was based on the mipo model. The factors that showed more influence on the learning activities’ design were the tools, the cognitive objectives and pedagogical techniques, the other descriptor elements (the specification of a title, the general description - type: participative, collaborative and individual and evaluation questions: objective, practical or discursive, the soft skills, the definition of the community and intervenient, the e-contents, the phases, the division of labor, the rules and the results) are possible to enhance while making few changes. In the e-learning system unit, held on the blended learning post-graduation at ISCAP and in the courses developed by students many learning activities were defined. The definition of each activity was mapped in order to reach the learning cognitive objectives defined for each course, to support different pedagogical techniques and to use a selection of web tools, according to the following table:

001864

Figure 4: Example of activities These activities may be reused or give inspiration for further use in different contexts.

6

FINAL REMARKS

This chapter presented a conceptual structure that classifies the current web 2.0 tools and helps in the selection of a web tool for the construction of an online course. The classification was used and validated in the context of the e-learning system unit in the b-learning post-graduation in communication technology course, at ISCAP. This chapter also presented a set of practical cases that are multi-disciplinary, applicable to different levels of education and may be implemented and adapted to different contexts. In addition, the potential of inspiration provided by the examples shared should be underlined. These samples were designed in order to help students to reach the learning objectives defined by the online unit/course and to increase their motivation. The classification presented lacks in testing within a larger context. Nevertheless, due to its highly useful nature and ease of use it is possible to foresee its applicability to many learning environments. In this context, we predict the revalidation of the classification presented by students of the new edition of the b-learning postgraduation course or other teacher training courses. We also anticipate the maintenance of the online list of web tools that emerge daily. Finally, we foresee the convergence of the focus given to the tools with the main variants identified in this work that includes the learning cognitive objectives and pedagogical techniques.

REFERENCES [1] T. O’Reilly, «What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next», O’Reilly, 2005. [Online]. Available: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html. [Accessed: 30-Nov-2010]. [2] S. Downes, «E-learning 2.0», eLearn Magazine - Education and Technology in Perspective, 2005. [3] H. Ajjan e R. Hartshorne, «Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory andempirical tests», Elsevier - Internet and Higher Education, vol. 11, pp. 71-80, 2008. [4] M. Ebner, C. Lienhardt, M. Rohs, e I. Meyer, «Microblogs in higher education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning?», Computers & Education - Elsevier, pp. 92-100, 2010. [5] R. English e J. Duncan-Howell, «Facebook © Goes to College: Using Social Networking Tools to Support Students Undertaking Teaching Practicum», MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, vol. 4, n. 4, 2008.

001865

[6] C. McLoughlin e M. Lee, «Future Learning Landscapes:Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software», Innovate - Journal of Distance Education, vol. 4, n. 5, 2008. [7] A. Dias, C. Costa, L. Gouveia, P. Peres, P. Simões, e S. Torrão, «LMS e PLE: fusão ou choque!», Nov-2010. [8] B. Solis e JESS3, «Introducing The Conversation Prism Version 3.0», Dez-2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.briansolis.com/2010/10/introducing-the-conversation-prism-version-3-0. [9] B. Seaver, «The Six Categories of Web 2.0», Ago-2006. [Online]. Available: http://microexplosion.blogspot.com/2006/08/six-categories-of-web-20.html. [10] P. Peres e P. Pimenta, «Thinking over b-learning strategy: The MIPO Model Approach», presented at the PAEE2009 conference - Project Approach in Engineering Education, Guimarães, Portugal, 2009. [11] B. Bloom, M. Engelhart, E. Frust, W. Hill, e D. Krathwohl, Taxonomia de los Objectivos de la Educacion: La classificacion de las metas educacionales. Editorial El Ateneo, 1975. [12] EU, «The context for change. The skills needed for work are changing». 2006. [13] F. Davis, «Perceived Usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology», MIS Quarterly. Journal published by the Management Information Systems Research Center, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, vol. 1989, pp. 318340, 1989.

001866