Cooperative E-Learning in the Multilingual and ... - Crocels Resources

Cooperative E-Learning in the Multilingual and Multicultural School:

The Role of “Classroom 2.0” for Increasing Participation in Education Jonathan Bishop Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems, European Parliament, Belgium

ABSTRACT The Classroom 2.0 initiative is one of the most fundamental reforms to the way education is performed across the European Union. Starting its life at the Digital Classroom of Tomorrow (DCOT) Project in Wales, the initiative has shown that concepts like electronic individual education programmes (eIEPs) and the electronic twinning of schools (eTwinning) can play an important role in enhancing learning outcomes for school age learners. This chapter presents a review of the impact of the original Classroom 2.0 Project – DCOT – and explores some of the technical issues essential to the project’s success across Europe.

INTRODUCTION One thing historians always talking about with the European Union is its set-backs in terms of peace from Roman times to the end of the Second World War. The Treaty of Rome, which led to the European Union, is one of the most successful DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-2122-0.ch013

peace treaties in history it is said. One of the major clashes beyond battles over terrorory has always been language, and much of this is alive today. In Belgium there are tensions between the Dutch speaking Flemish and the French speaking Walloons. In Wales there are battles between those who want to further the Welsh language and those who

Cooperative E-Learning in the Multilingual and Multicultural School

think English should be the only language. This study shows how the user of modern computing technology can be used to cross borders so that people from different cultures can communicate with one another – called eTwinning. It further shows how by using instant translation systems it can be possible for people of one language to communicate with others of a different language in a different school, different community or even a different country. This whole concept together is what is known as Classroom 2.0. It differs from neologisms like E-Learning 2.0 and ‘Technology Enhanced Learning’ in that it is a whole concept related solely to technology, as with the former, or only pedagogy as with the latter, but requires a whole-scale shift in the way education is conceptualised and delivered. The first Classroom 2.0 project in Europe was The Digital Classroom of Tomorrow Project, which as can be seen from Figure 1, is based on the idea of bringing lots of machines together, such as in the Cloud or over a Virtual Private Network (VPN) so that people can access education ubiquitously – that is from anywhere. Figure 1. The digital classroom of tomorrow

BACKGROUND Proficiency in more than one language has become essential for learners within the European Union (EU) in order for them to benefit from the occupational and personal opportunities offered by the border-free Single Market (Grasmane & Grasmane, 2011). The European Commission has encouraged governments within the EU to support language proficiency within schools in order to allow learners to adapt to working and living environments characterised by different cultures. The increase in use of ICT in schools in bilingual countries, has been considered a threat to the bilingual aspects of learners schooling because of the dominance of the English language in these systems. However, the potential of using bilingual Multi-User Virtual Environments (i.e. MUVEs) in schools could be particularly advantageous to those cultural groups in the geographical areas with limited language support. Those MUVEs tailored for education, called MUVLEs, or MultiUser Virtual Learning Environments, could benefit society by making it possible for some school


activities to be transferred to the home environment and take account of the different cultures that exist in the European Union (Baker, 1985). In this context, culture refers to a network of artefacts, such as memories and experiences that people form through taking part in events within their environment. So for instance it is possible for football supporters across the Union to share experiences of their football teams competing with each other, which forms part of their culture as individuals. It is therefore important that any school supporting the ‘Classroom 2.0’ initiative be able to cater for people of any culture and any language through specialist support integrating MUVEs with human resources like teachers.

CLASSROOM 2.0 AND DCOT AS AN ENABLER FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION The Digital Classroom of Tomorrow Project was and still is about increasing access to education through digital technologies. Through using concepts like ‘eTwinning’, which links schools and their students together with technology, concepts like European integration, social mobility can be realized. Our societies need to change to become equally inclusive of different cultural groups so as to become diverse through adopting digital technologies. Classroom 2.0 was first tested at two schools in Wales, Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Rhydyfelen, which was a Welsh medium high school and Brynceleynnog Comprehensive, which was an English medium high school. The equivalent project to DCOT in England, was the Curriculum and Pedagogy in Technology Assisted Learning (CAPITAL) Project. It was undertaken by the University of Nottingham (Learning Sciences Research Institute and Teaching and Leadership Research Centre) and Sero Consulting Ltd working in association with former quango Becta, which is now dissolved. In Spain, Escuela 2.0 took the form of an integration of Information Technologies and

Communication Technologies (ICTs) in schools. It included the use of a laptop customized by each student. The goal is to implement the twenty-first century digital classrooms, classrooms equipped with technology infrastructure and connectivity. And in Italy, the Classi 2.0 Project has been driving innovative learning environments in the country, through individualisation and personalisation of learning, formal non-formal, digital learning content, teaching methodologies. At the commencement of the Classroom 2.0 project, particularly with regards to the time DCOT started in 2002, few schools offered enough opportunities for students to receive their education using ICT and many had limited ICT resources. An ICT strategy based entirely on improving the PC to Learner ratio will not compensate for an inadequate Educator to Learner ratio in a classroom environment. The Wales School Inspectorate Estyn suggested that schools needed review the traditional design of classrooms and others areas of the school to maximise the use of ICT for learning, develop an ICT strategy for incorporating elearning into more conventional programmes and develop clear policies and strategies for teaching students to think, learn, work collaboratively and solve problems. The Classroom 2.0 Project know throughout this chapter as DCOT investigated the effectiveness of using an MUVLE in a school environment in which workstations and remote computers are synchronised with a host computer controlled by the educator.

The British Experience Great Britain consists of three nations, made up of national governments in Scotland and Wales covering some issues of governance, and a government covering all policies in England and those which have not been ‘devolved’ to the other nations and Northern Ireland, the latter of which is part of the overall United Kingdom along with the three Great Britain nations. Although the British Isles, which includes not only the UK,


but the Irish Republic also, has a long history of diverse language use, it was not until 1967 with the introduction of the Welsh Language Act that the recognition of a language other than English became enshrined in UK law. Welsh is an official language of the nation of Wales, and has formed part of the curriculum in schools in Wales since the Education Act of 1988. Amendments to the Welsh Language Act in 1993 created The Welsh Language Board, which saw an emphasis on bilingualism with more schools and governmental bodies being required to provide materials though the medium of Welsh in addition to English. The formation of the National Assembly for Wales as a result of the Government of Wales Act in 1998 has seen Welsh become a compulsory subject in almost all schools for those aged between five and sixteen within Wales, with over 463,000 students being taught Welsh between 2001 and 2002. In addition to teaching the Welsh language, more secondary schools in Wales now offer qualifications and examinations through the medium of Welsh, including core academic and vocational qualifications (DCSWL, 2003). As of May 2011, with the coming into force of Part 4 and Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Welsh Assembly, through its executive, The Welsh Government, has sole competence over the Welsh Language. Gaelic is the language of the nation-region of Scotland and has been officially recognised in Scottish schools since the Education (Scotland) Act of 1980. The formation of the Scottish Executive as a result of the Scotland Act of 1998 has led to the language being used far more in primary and secondary schools with bilingual education regarded as a priority by the government. Bilingual education policy in the nine English regions is not as developed as in Wales or Scotland, as there has historically been an attitude by education policy makers to focus on English, regarding modern European languages as unnecessary in a predominantly English-speaking world (DfES, 2002). However, there has been a shift

in education policy in the English regions as a result of the formation of the National Languages Steering Group in 2001 and the publication of the Language Learning policy document in 2003 by the UK Government. The government has set out to change the attitudes towards second language learning and plans to increase the number of primary and secondary schools offering language courses and to encourage the use of ICT for language development.

The French Experience National language policy in France has traditionally been orientated towards providing monolingual education, with the French Constitution requiring the preservation of the language since 1992 (Caldas, 2006). International languages like English have been seen as a threat to the language by the authorities, rather than a means to increase access of French speakers to other cultures (Oakes, 2011). Recent changes in second language learning policy by the French Government has seen an increased emphasis towards introducing students to other European languages at an earlier age in all French regions. Modifications to the curriculum in 2000 has made second language learning compulsory in secondary schools, with the government extending the scheme to all primary schools.

The Spanish Experience The 1978 Spanish Constitution saw the acknowledgement of several regions or ‘nationalities’ in Spain and the Statute of Autonomy that was passed in 1979 brought government to the Spanish regions, with legislative powers and limited financial controls. Between 1982 and 1986, the regional governments of Spain approved the Acts of Linguistic Normalisation, which set about promoting the use of vernacular languages in public administration, education and media communications.


The region of Catalonia has seen significant changes in bilingual education policy in recent years, leading to the Catalan language becoming an accepted teaching medium at both primary and secondary level. The Catalan Language Act of 1997 requires all broadcast mediums to have at least half of their programmes broadcast in Catalan and the Linguistic Policy Law of 1998 has made it a requirement for all buildings that are accessible to the public, including educational establishments and retail outlets to display signs and other information in Catalan in addition to Spanish (Redondo-Bellon, 1999). The methodology is based on an adaptation of the ‘Star Lifecycle’ that was developed by Hix & Hartson (1993), which was developed to explain the concept that development projects do not necessarily follow a particular sequence or systematic process, but change as the result of continuous evaluation. The elements of the lifecycle are not ordered or connected is a sequence, meaning that interaction designers can theoretically start with almost any development activity and move onto any other one. Figure 2 is a modified version of Hix & Hartson’s lifecycle by Preece (2001). The process of analysing the user experience involves understanding every aspect of a virtual environment and ensuring that every experience a user has with the system is the result of conscious design on the part of the interaction designer. He indicates that through looking at a system in its component parts and from different perspectives it can be made to provide a user experience that is coherent, intuitive and pleasurable to use (Garrett, 2004). Understanding the users of MultiUser Virtual Environments (MUVEs) involves knowing how they learn and how this relates to other characteristics they have. The DCOT Project introduced the Learn, Create, Communicate approach to learning. This was based on the premise that as important as learning facts and other knowledge is putting them into practice and solidifying that knowledge through talking about it with others. The Learn component

Figure 2. Adaptation of Hix & Hartson’s star lifecycle for interaction development

advocates the successful acquisition of knowledge as the first stage in learning. To achieve this, the premise was that MUVLEs must take account of the individual differences of a learn and adjust to take advantage of them. The ‘Create’ component was based on the premise that without applying the acquired knowledge it would have little relevance beyond the exam room. Finally the ‘Communicate’ was based on the assumption that as humans have evolved into social beings that without ‘articulating’ that knowledge it is either not retained or not accessed when it would need to be.

User Experience Analysis This section presents the results of the User Experience Analysis. The 30-item questionnaire is made up of ten factors, each tested three times. The purpose of the correlation analysis is to establish whether the three variables are correlated.

Control Correlation analysis of the ‘control’ factor (Table 1) shows that Control1 and Control3 (r=0.295, p=0.003) are strongly related, with 8.7% of the variance being accounted for and a probability of 0.3% that this result was due to sampling error,


Table 1. Correlation matrix for ‘control’ attribute Control1

Control2

Control3

Control1

Control2

Control3

Pearson Correlation

1.00

0.177

0.295

Sig. (2-tailed)

.

0.08

0.003

N

100

99

99

Pearson Correlation

0.177

1.00

0.012

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.080

.

0.907

N

99

99

99

Pearson Correlation

0.295

0.012

1.00

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.003

0.9070

.

N

99

99

99

suggesting the relationship is very significant. Comparing Control1 with Control2 (r=0.177, p=0.08) shows a weak relationship, with 3.13% of the variance being accounted for and a probability of 8% that this was a result of sampling error. Comparing Control2 with Control3 (r=0.012, p=0.907) shows that there is no relationship between these two variables. The significance levels of Control1 compared with Control2 and Control2 compared with Control3 shows that it is very likely these results were because of sampling error and that there is a strong chance the result was due to other factors.

Attention Correlation analysis of the ‘attention’ factor (Table 2) shows that Attention2 and Attention3 (r=0.367, p < 0.001) are strongly related, with 13.47% of the variance being accounted for and a probability of less than 1% that this result was due to sampling error, suggesting the relationship is very significant. Comparing Attention1 with Attention2 (r=0.020, p=0.847) shows a weak relationship, with 0.04% of the variance being accounted for and a probability of 0.85% that this was a result of sampling error. Comparing Attention1 with Attention3 (r=0.091, p=0.370) shows that there is no relationship between these two variables. The significance levels of Attention1 compared with Attention2 and Attention1 compared with Attention3 shows that it is very likely these results were because of sampling error and that there is a strong chance the result was due to other factors.

Selecting Technology and Planning Learning Goodman & Goodman (1990) indicate that current forms of instruction that attempt to support the concept of the zone of proximal development are limited as some may disrupt, confuse, or negate the potential development of students and that the traditional role of the educator as an expert imparting knowledge and discipline, causes the

Table 2. Correlation matrix for ‘attention’ attribute Attention1 Attention1

Attention2

Attention3

Pearson Correlation

1.00

Attention2 .020

Attention3 .091

Sig. (2-tailed)

.

.847

.370

N

100

99

99

Pearson Correlation

.020

1.00

.367

Sig. (2-tailed)

.847

.

.000

N

99

99

99

Pearson Correlation

.091

.367

1.00

Sig. (2-tailed)

.370

.000

.

N

99

99

99


learner to become dependent on them for sources of information and ways of thinking and doing. Hovland, Janis & Kelley (1954) argue that such environments also require the learner to perceive the educator as a credible expert, which can sometimes be challenged if a student has heard a contradicting message from a source they deem more credible. They emphasise that the key differences between traditional instruction and persuasive instruction are the expectations or anticipations that effect the likelihood the learner will accept or reject the communication. These expectations are even more apparent in virtual environments where learners are more likely to question the credibility of the information provided (Murphy, Long, Holleran & Esterly, 2003).

Information Both evaluators felt that the system could offer more information relating to the activities they are being asked to carry out. I didn’t get presented with any information, I was asked to enter text. I felt that I needed information such as why I was doing this but didn’t get it. – Evaluator 1 It did not tell me a great deal, mainly asked my opinions of things – Evaluator 2 In a classroom environment, this is easily achievable through the support of an educator or more competent peer, but in the case of those students using the system on their own at a remote location, the system will have to be adapted to provide more accessible information. This could be achieved through greater use of the animated pedagogical agent to provide assistance during the learning activity, or through techniques that will not interrupt the state of flow, such as presenting cultural signposts, or artefacts.

Knowledge The evaluators were asked to indicate whether they felt the level of knowledge required to use the system was appropriate to the target user group. This system will require patience and some level of experience to use. Lacks instructions and an indication of the size of any one lesson – Evaluator 1 This evaluators indicates that the system may not be appropriate for all NC levels, but suggests that using more instructions may help.

Level The evaluators were asked to indicate whether they found the level of material presented to be at an appropriate level for the target user group. Some of the language seemed to be suitable for users who were fairly mature. ‘Interpret whether the order of your slides represent the order of importance of the information.’ will require a mature learner to understand what is required. – Evaluator 1 The wording seemed a bit formal and verbose. Not very ‘friendly’ – Evaluator 2 Both evaluators raised concern over the use of the terminology from Bloom’s taxonomy and their suitability for learners in secondary school, suggesting that some students might not be able to understand what is required from them as a result. This concern is valid, and emphasises the difficulty in ensuring students are encouraged to undertake activities that are challenging, whilst ensuring that they are not going beyond their means. The terminology, which is linked to a student’s learning level (in this case, level 5 for ICT), could be made more appropriate through linking it to the level of their literacy, or by adjusting it depending on whether the learner is doing a self-directed activity, or under the guidance of an educator.


Designing, Implementing, and Testing Prototypes Usability The evaluators were asked to comment on the user friendliness of the system based on set criteria. It was reasonable. Knowledge of windows is necessary – Evaluator 2 This evaluator points out that users will need to have experience of computers using a WIMP environment, suggesting it may not be appropriate for all NC levels. There is no explanation of what this system is designed to do and for whom so I don’t know where I might want to go. – Evaluator 1 This evaluator found that the system might confuse some students through not providing them with information on its scope; a factor that others have argued interaction designers should ensure is implemented. However, Fleming indicates that the reason for this is that most users of virtual environments are looking for a specific piece of information, whereas this evaluator was concerned about what the learner would want if they did not have a clear goal in mind. Figure 3. Fluid links mechanism

I was presented with links for ‘Your notepad’ but I had no idea what I could use this for or its purpose. – Evaluator 1 The issue raised by this evaluator was taken into account with the implementation of fluid links, which attempted to give the user information on the purpose of links through presenting additional details in the status bar (refer to Figure 3). However, it is likely that this evaluator does not use the status bar, meaning the additional information was outside their attention focus.

Refining and Testing Learning and Persuasion Despite advances in the presentation of information in virtual environments, traditional design methods have been based on the assumption that individuals see these systems as tools for completing planned tasks and therefore the aim of interaction designers should be to allow users to complete tasks with a reasonable degree of efficiency and within acceptable levels of comfort (Rogers, Sharp & Preece, 1994). These models have failed to take into account factors relating to how the needs and attitudes of individuals affect how they interact with virtual environments through concentrating solely on their cognitive and physical characteristics (Jordan, 2002).


Even so, a computer that is designed as a tool or instrument often increases the capabilities of individuals, and thus reduces barriers, increases self-efficacy, enables better decision making and changes mental models. Through focusing on the needs of individuals, by understanding whether they are using technology as a tool to increase their capabilities, a medium to provide experiences, or as a social actor to create relationships, interaction designers will be able to increase the persuasive effectiveness of a MUVE (Fogg, 1998, 2002).

Presentation Evaluators were asked to comment on how information was presented. Isn’t clear enough that when I click on a subject I have actually gone in to that section and that I now have lessons which I can choose. – Evaluator 1 The points raised by this evaluator (as well as anonymous reviewers) was that when they selected a subject, the next screen looked similar to the one they just came from. This is something that can be modified in a later implementation. It felt flat and textual. Needs something like icons or images to ‘lift’ it somewhat, the use of bullets and italic words would be helpful – Evaluator 2 This evaluator felt that the system did not present information as effectively as it could do, indicating that using icons could help. However, whilst icons can make the system more visually appealing, using artefacts in this way is incompatible with the Multilingual Support as each artefact would have to not contain text and mean the same in both cultures. Furthermore, Chak (2003) points out that whilst text-based buttons (used to enable multilingual support) are not as visually appealing and do not look the same in all browsers, users are more likely to be familiar with them and they are easy to implement and change.

Graphics Evaluators were asked to comment on the appropriateness of the graphics used. Very scarce, would have liked to see much more together with many other multimedia elements. – Evaluator 1 This evaluator was concerned about the limited use of graphics and other forms of multimedia, suggesting that the system would have benefited from having more. Indeed, Rieber (1994) indicates that instructional graphics can aid learning, as visual information is an effective method of communication, arguing that as graphics form a core part of successful teaching strategies then incorporating them into computerised instructional material is advantageous to learning.

Text The evaluators were asked to comment on the appropriateness of the text used. Too much body text and too little explanation or instructions text. – Evaluator 1 This evaluator indicated that there were not enough instructions to accompany the onscreen text and that there was too much body text. Whilst this could be address by adding more graphics, Rieber (1994;) points out that as graphics move the attention focus of the learner away from the instructional text, they can inhibit learning.

Engagement Evaluators were asked to describe how engaging they found the system to be. Did not like engaging with this system, I did not feel in control and several weird things happened e.g. when I pressed the back button, the text I had just entered had disappeared – Evaluator 1


This evaluator found the prototype very difficult to use, which affected their engagement with the system. However, their comment that they did not feel in control emphasises the importance of this factor to users. [The engagement] was OK, but quite time consuming thinking what to write in the boxes – Evaluator 2 This evaluator felt the system was engaging enough, suggesting the LSP settings were set correctly for this user, but they felt that the writing tasks were time consuming, which might make them inappropriate for some students.

Type of Learning The concern of this evaluator about the location of the lesson aim emphasises the difficulty in developing MUVEs that adapt depending on the competencies of a student. For self-directed learners, who are likely to know more about the subject, it might be more appropriate not to put the conclusion at the start (i.e. the learning outcomes), as they might be less likely to learn or be persuaded (Hovland, 1954). For me, this was much too text based and boring. Lacked graphics and interaction such as dragging and dropping – Evaluator 1 This evaluator raises a valid concern about maintaining a balance between the amount of text and graphics. However, with one of the aims of the system being to encourage greater literacy and reflective thinking, it is necessary for learners to use text to convey their thoughts and ideas. In addition, whilst it is possible to implement the drag and drop capabilities suggested by this evaluator, the functionality would be limited to those users with Internet Explorer and would therefore not be accessible to all users.

The assumption is that there would be feedback from the system/teacher on ‘what I wrote’ – there is a high expectation of lots of interaction – Evaluator 2 As recognised by this evaluator, the educator would have to ensure that students receive adequate feedback relating to their reflective writing to ensure that they have developed a full appreciation for what they have experienced and to encourage them to continue to do so.

Special Educational Needs and Multicultural Factors It is now known without doubt that personalisation in e-learning systems is vital since they are used by a wide variety of students with different characteristics Eyharabide, Gasparini, Schiaffino, Pimenta & Amandi, 2009). Through the use of parameters, it is easily possible to adapt the system so that it takes into account special educational needs and the cultural background of learners. Whilst the use of the technology for this purpose is not fully explored in this study, the issue has been considered in the design of the MUVE. For example, it is possible that an individual with a social impairment may be at a high level (e.g. NC Level 8) in terms of their ability to recognise artefacts, but at a lower level (e.g. NC Level 3) when they have to put them into some form of social context (Bishop, 2003). In terms of the cultural and religious background learners, modifications to material may have to be made to ensure that the appropriate artefacts are used to take account of their differing social contexts (Conole, 2009).

Multilingual Support The implementation of multilingual support in the MUVE involves having multiple database fields, suffixed by the identifying characters of the language. For example, the English version of a lesson title is stored in the Lesson_Node_Title_EN


field and the Welsh language version is stored in the Lesson_Node_Title_CY field. This enables other languages to be added through varying the suffixes. When this was done in 2002 this was going beyond the state of their art. But it is clear that with automated and open systems like Google Translate and the ‘MO/PO’ language file system, database systems like these are going to become less useful. It might be that a more appropriate implementation for this multilingual support would be to use both automatic translation (e.g. Google Translate) with a dedicated dictionary (e.g. MO/PO) as well as customisable terms introduced through tagging (e.g. like the Tags fuction on WordPress) (see Figure 4).

Shared Artefacts Through being separated from the mark-up, the artefacts that make up the MUVE, including text, graphics and downloadable files (e.g. PowerPoint, Word) are accessible by any node in the virtual environment, allowing them to be shared between educators and learners. Each Shared Artefact is stored in a database record, along with data that allows it to be shared at both a system level (using an ID) and by users at the application level Figure 4. Multilingual fields in database

(through using words and descriptions). Since DCOT first proposed Shared Artefacts, a collaboration between three higher education institutions in Ireland and two European partners has resulted in the design and development of reusable learning objects for undergraduate programming students that would assist in their learning (Costelloe, Sherry, & Magee, 2009).

Special Aspects of the Experiment It is though that there are correlations between learning styles and other attributes. This approach has limitations, in that a learner is not either an Activist or Theorist for example, but has varying strengths in each of the four learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1986). Taking into account that a learner has four approaches to learning, with varying preferences for each, it is difficult to attribute the value of a dependent variable to any one learning style. In order to develop a more accurate understanding of the relationship between the learning preferences of a learner and a dependent variable, such as attitude, the effect of all independent variables need to be taken into account.


This could be achieved by measuring the attitude of a learner to a MUVLE optimised for one particular learning style, comparing the strength of their learning style with the strength of the attitude towards the MUVLE and carrying out the same process for a MUVLE optimised for their other learning style preferences. The advantage of such a design is that confounding variables, such as gender and level of Internet use are controllable, but this method also introduces further confounding variables in the form of order, demand and practice effects. In this case, the participant would have to use four different MUVEs and complete four questionnaires to determine their attitude towards individual attributes of each MUVE. The order effects could be eliminated through counterbalancing, in which the order in which participants use each MUVE is changed, so that one group assesses the Activist-optimised MUVE first and the one optimised for Pragmatists last, with the other group completing it in the opposite order. Reducing the effect of practice in this study is somewhat more difficult, even after counterbalancing, as the participant would have to complete the thirty-item questionnaire four times to determine their attitudes for each MUVE. The demand and practice effects could be overcome through having four separate groups assessing a MUVE optimised for each learning style. However, this would recreate the problems with the past studies in which only MUVEs adapted to the strongest learning styles were evaluated and would introduce further confounding variables, such as the quality of the hypertext design and appropriateness of the adapted learning material.

Strong Points, Failings, and Critical Issues To overcome these problems, the study identifies the strength of all four learning styles of participants using the Learning Style Questionnaire of

Honey & Mumford (1986) and compares these with their attitudes towards the factors that can affect the persuasiveness of the Internet as identified in a previous section using a multiattributal design based on the Attitude-Toward-The-Object model (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980).

Solutions and Recommendations Since commencing in 2002, the DCOT Project has pushed the boundaries of the Classroom 2.0 concept, and many of its findings have been replicated. For instance recent research has shown how learning styles and theories can be used within personalised adaptable e-learning adaptive systems (Peterson, Bacon & Dastbaz, 2010).

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS It is clear that the technology for Classroom 2.0 is here and works. Classroom 2.0 won’t just come about through changing technology in schools alone. In today’s era where most young people are connected to the Internet then technology is less of an issue. The biggest cultural change will have to be with regards to the institution of teaching. Teachers have already lost their authority due to school-age learners having access to ‘on-demand knowledge’. Future research will have to look at ways in which educators can be helped to transition from being authoritarian and autocratic to involving the opinion of others. This may come through moderated contributions from the students, like selected tweets, which may be a helpful stage. However they are transition it is clear that in order to have any legitimacy and credibility future teachers will have to recognise that they are not the sole source of knowledge, and research will need to be done to find the best ways of enabling this.


CONCLUSION The chapter introduced the Classroom 2.0 concept as envisaged and proven by the Digital Classroom of Tomorrow Project in Wales. DCOT was based on the idea that the classroom of tomorrow would not be the isolated beast it once was, composed of a small number of learners compartmentalised by age or ability. The classroom of tomorrow – Classroom 2.0 – takes account of a learner’s individual differences and interests so as to provide a learning experience that is tailored to them and therefore more interesting. The Welsh schools that took part in the project showed an appetite and need for personalised learning that used e-learning to ensure everyone was included in the acquisition, application and articulation of knowledge. The research identified three key technological factors essential to making a Classroom 2.0 project successful across frontiers. These were that they needed to take account of special educational needs and multicultural factors; that they needed multilingual support and shared learning artefacts. It is clear from the study that the Classroom 2.0 initiative has a lot of potential in broadening education to take account of the very individual needs of students so that they realise their true potential.

REFERENCES Baker, C. (1885). Aspects of bilingualism in Wales. Multilingual Matters Ltd. Bishop, J. (2003). The Internet for educating individuals with social impairments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 546–556. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00057.x Caldas, S. J. (2006). Raising bilingual-biliterate children in monolingual cultures. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chak, A. (2003). Submit now: Designing persuasive websites. New Riders Publishing.

Conole, G. (2009). Personalisation through technology-enhanced learning. In O’Donoghue, J. (Ed.), Technology-supported environments for personalized learning: Methods and case studies (pp. 1–15). doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-884-0. ch001 Costelloe, E., Sherry, E., & Magee, P. (2009). Experiences gained using a set of SCORM compliant reusable learning objects for teaching programming. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(2), 17. DCSWL. (2003). Iaith Pawb: A national action plan for a bilingual Wales (pp. 38–39). Cardiff, UK: National Assembly for Wales. DfES. (2002). Language learning (pp. 1–9). London, UK: The Stationary Office Ltd. Eyharabide, V., Gasparini, I., Schiaffino, S., Pimenta, M., & Amandi, A. (2009). Personalized e-learning environments: Considering students’ contexts. Education and Technology for a Better World, (pp. 48-57). Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Fogg, B. J. (1998). Persuasive computers: Perspectives and research directions (pp. 225–232). ACM Press. Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, December 2002. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Garrett, J. J. (2004). The elements of user experience. Goodman, Y. M., & Goodman, K. S. (1990). Vygotsky in a whole-language perspective (pp. 223–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Grasmane, D., & Grasmane, S. (2011). Foreign language skills for employability in the EU labour market. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(2-3), 192–201. doi:10.1080/21568235.2011. 629487

Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A., & Esterly, E. (2003). Persuasion online or on paper: A new take on an old issue. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 511–532. doi:10.1016/S09594752(02)00041-5

Hix, D., & Hartson, H. R. (1993). Developing user interfaces: Ensuring usability through product & process. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Oakes, L. (2011). Promoting language rights as fundamental individual rights: France as a model & quest. French Politics, 9(1), 50–68. doi:10.1057/ fp.2010.24

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). Manual of learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey Publications. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1954). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. London, UK: Yale University Press. Jordan, P. W. (2002). Designing pleasurable products. London, UK: CRC Publishing. doi:10.1201/9780203302279

Preece, J. (2001). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Redondo-Bellon, I. (1999). The effects of bilingualism on the consumer: The case of Spain. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11/12), 1136–1160. doi:10.1108/03090569910292311 Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, graphics & learning. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.