Supporting students to develop collaborative learning skills in

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKBJETBritish Journal of Educational Technology0007-1013© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency2006 376937947Original ArticlesCollaborative learning skills in technology-based environmentsBritish Journal of Educational Technology

British Journal of Educational Technology doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00671.x

Vol 37 No 6 2006

937–947

Supporting students to develop collaborative learning skills in technology-based environments

Anne Nevgi, Päivi Virtanen and Hannele Niemi Anne Nevgi is a senior researcher at the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education at the University of Helsinki. She holds a PhD in adult education from the University of Helsinki, and specialises in university teachers’ pedagogical training and in research on web-based instruction and learning in higher education. Päivi S. Virtanen is a doctoral student and researcher at the Department of Education, University of Helsinki. Her dissertation research focuses on the processes of self-regulated learning and student support in virtual learning environments. Hannele Niemi is Vice-Rector of the University of Helsinki and a professor at the Department of Education, University of Helsinki. Her research interests include teacher education and empowerment of students’ learning in virtual learning environments of higher education. Address for correspondence: Anne Nevgi, Centre of Research and Development in Higher Education, Department of Education, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki. Tel: (358)-9-19120627; fax: (358)-9-19120561; email: [email protected]

Abstract The paper focuses on the question of how to advance collaboration through the Web and support lifelong learning. First, the theoretical framework and architecture of a new web-based tool, the ‘IQ Team’, is introduced. IQ Team is an interactive online assessment and support system to learn social skills needed in cooperative work, and belongs in an interactive online assessing and tutoring system, ‘IQ Form’, developed for the Finnish Virtual University. IQ Team has three main elements: (1) interactive self-evaluation test banks, (2) online tutoring sets and (3) learning diaries. In the creation of IQ Team, the validation process was conducted with two samples (n = 259 and n = 275). The online students’ social skills in different groups were explored, and the feedback data from different user groups were analysed. The online students scored high values for social skills, and no differences were discerned between university, Open University and technical students. The qualitative data (n = 35) were collected in order to get users’ feedback of the tool. The qualitative data consisted of interviews, open-ended questions and online discussions. The users of IQ Team reflected that the tool benefited them to become aware of their group work skills and developed their collaborative learning skills. IQ Team provides a powerful tool for online instruction and communication in higher education and in the Open University to promote joint-regulated learning. © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

938

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

Introduction Learning through the Web is both an individual and social process. The social dimension emerges in knowledge construction and in different ways to support students’ learning, eg, help-seeking strategies, providing feedback and emotional support needed for persistency in learning processes. Learning has increasingly been seen as embedded within a social context and framework. Successful knowledge-building communities establish socio-cognitive norms and values that all participants are aware of and work towards (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003; Slavin, 1997). Web-based environments are important forums for joint problem solving, knowledge building and the sharing of ideas. A serious problem is that students’ capacities to work cooperatively may be weak. Open University students, who mainly study part time or besides work, may also lack learning skills, and have difficulties adjusting their studies to fit with family and work life. For them, virtual learning environments offer chances. One opportunity for such students is to participate in virtual learning groups and to share with peers different learning tasks. However, virtual teams may have difficulties acquiring, comprehending and acting on internal or external feedback that could stimulate their communication practices. Virtual team members may not feel comfortable criticising one another or expressing their feelings to distant team-mates about problems they perceive with the group’s communication. They may also have problems interpreting clues from distant team members. Dialogue and collaboration may be hindered because of the reduced number of social clues (eg, facial expressions, inflection, non-verbal clues) and increased social distance (Häkkinen, 2001; Huysman et al, 2003, p. 432). The lack of social clues may prevent students from interpreting what is going on in web-based learning environments, and may lead to feelings of isolation and loneliness. The IQ Form system was developed to benefit the Consortium of the Finnish Virtual University (FVU), an alliance of all the universities in Finland formed to deliver courses and other study options in different universities. The portal of the FVU combines and makes available the supply of the partner universities to students, who may select individual courses or larger combinations of them. They may also connect conventional campus-based studies and FVU studies with each others’ courses as they wish. The FVU does not serve as a direct provider of courses. However, it has certain meta-level tutoring services, of which the IQ Form project focuses on increasing students’ awareness of themselves as learners and improving their management of the learning process (Niemi, 2002b) The students of all universities in Finland have free access to the FVU portal and to courses and meta-level services offered there. The IQ Form service was officially launched in 2004 after a piloting phase in 2001–03. During the years 2004– 05, it has had 12 000 users. The name ‘IQ Form’ refers to the technological solution of an ‘intelligent questionnaire platform’. This is an intelligent system of computing that allows interactive relationships online between a user and a technological environment. IQ Form is based on an assumption that in order to develop web-based learning, more attention must be paid to learners’ characteristics and must help learners become more aware © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

Collaborative learning skills in technology-based environments

939

of their learning processes. Learners need guidance in developing their selfregulative strategic learning skills and collaborative competence needed in learning. The learner’s capacity is a necessary precondition to effective learning, but technology can be an important promoter and facilitator of enhanced capabilities. Technology-based learning environments and interactive technological tools may empower learners to manage their own learning and support learners’ collaboration. The IQ Form system can be integrated with any kind of online instruction and can be complementary to campus-based courses. The IQ Form system consists of two assessment tools, IQ Learn and IQ Team (Niemi, Nevgi & Virtanen, 2003). In the paper, we focus on IQ Team and explore how the tool enhances adult students’ cooperation and group work skills in technology-based learning environments.

The IQ Team tool There are three basic elements in IQ Team: • The interactive test bank, with questionnaire sets for students’ self-evaluation — ‘Group roles’ test to assess metaknowledge of group processes, ‘Together or alone’ test to assess monitoring of cooperation, and ‘How does a group work?’ test to assess joint knowledge creation; • The tutoring sets, based on a hypertext structure for each subcomponent of the tests, for the purposes of: — tutoring students towards self-regulation and cooperative learning and — providing additional guidelines for teachers; • A learning diary for recording reflections from learners’ experiences and their test profiles, and a discussion forum for reflection on cooperation in learning. The questionnaires work as databanks and serve mainly as self-assessment tools. Students may select different questionnaire combinations, aiming at becoming more conscious of their learning styles and motivational strategies, group behaviour and changes in these qualities during the course. After completing the questionnaires, the students will receive the test results outlining their personal or group profiles. Test results, illustrated with multiple presentations, eg, visual, numerical and linguistic symbols, are connected with tutoring sites. From the tutoring sites, students will get information on how to develop their group work and collaborative learning capacity. Tutoring packages, which guide students and teachers to use information about students’ social behaviour, are constructed on the same theoretical basis as questionnaires. Teachers can examine the test results of their student groups, and they are provided with help from tutoring sites on the best ways in which to guide students to develop their group learning skills. Teachers can discuss with their students the test results using the learning platform of the virtual course. IQ Team also provides an opportunity to compare learners’ profiles with their own earlier profiles and the group profiles of other learners attending the same virtual course. Learners can construct their own learning portfolios in which they are able to save their own test results and reflections on their own learning. © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

940

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

Table 1: IQ Team supporting learning on the Web

IQ Team

The interactive test banks

Tutoring sets

Learning diaries

Social behaviour and the group members’ roles Social interdependence Components of knowledge creating and group processes

Tutoring students and teachers towards collaboration and guidelines for the creation of effective group processes

Reflections on experiences of an individual learner and learning groups Discussion area for joint reflections

In a virtual learning environment, one is often deprived of direct human interaction, but there are many ways to enrich learning processes through interactive systems, which provide a human centred component in technology-based environments. The IQ Team tool can be applied as an assessment tool of online courses. With students’ permission, the personal learning diary can also be used in the evaluation process. Learners may send their learning diary texts to a teacher and gain feedback concerning their learning development. In addition to teacher-tutor’s feedback, the IQ Team system automatically provides learners’ responses through the test results and offers information about how to enhance their learning to become more self-regulatory when studying independently and cooperative when engaged in group work. The tutoring texts and learning activities encourage self-reflection and group work analysis. Development of reflective skills is achieved through the use of the learning diary and discussion forum. The initial experiences of the use of the tools show that a teachers’ role is important in activating and monitoring students to apply the tools in their studies. The test banks and tutoring tools are available in three languages (Finnish, Swedish and English), and can be found online at FVU’s website (http://www. virtuaaliyliopisto.fi). The basic structure of the IQ Team is presented in the Table 1. Theoretical background of the tool Learners need self-regulative skills in web-based environments, but learning through the Web is also a social process. Cooperation and social interaction are essential components in learning and knowledge creation. Learning has been increasingly seen as embedded within a social context and framework. Successful knowledge-building communities establish socio-cognitive norms and values that all participants are aware of and work towards (Scardamalia, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003; Slavin, 1997). Web-based environments can be important forums for joint problem solving, knowledge building and sharing of ideas (Cao & Greer, 2003). But at the same time, virtual environments may create barriers to cooperation, because online learning often lacks direct, face-to-face interaction, or at least relies heavily on a different form of student initiative. Students who are successful in face-to-face situations are not necessarily so in virtual environments. For building the test bank system, IQ Team, we applied ideas of metacognition and selfregulation of learning to collaborative processes on the Web. The basic outlines are from © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

Collaborative learning skills in technology-based environments

941

a concept of metacognition (Borkowski, 1996; Pintrich, 2002; Pintrich, Wolters & Baxter, 2000). The assumptions are that in group processes learners ought to be keenly aware of other members and how they affect the group dynamic. One needs metaknowledge about a group before they can act as agents to improve the group dynamic. The second component is group members’ ability to monitor their joint activities and the third dimension is combined with knowledge creation processes. Metaknowledge of social behaviour is promoted in IQ Team by providing knowledge about roles in the group. To successfully accomplish learning assignments in group-based web-based courses, students need knowledge about themselves as group members and about how to identify the dynamic group processes. In a spirit of cooperation, members must be made aware of how they influence the group dynamic. Knowledge about their own and others’ roles, and discussion about the influences of different roles is important even though people do not always take the same role in different situations. Even in the same group, different roles can be distributed to different persons at different times (Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 2000). Johnson and Johnson’s (1998; 2000) ideas about the roles in cooperative learning have been used to develop the IQ Team test. The role dimensions of cooperative work (rejecting, dominating, encouraging, conforming, sharing know-how and avoiding) have been modified for online students in higher education. Monitoring of cooperation refers to the working strategy of a group. Learners manage their learning through judgments, feelings of knowing, comprehension monitoring and displays of confidence. Successful learning requires skill to select and manage effective strategies. In cooperative work, there are also social activities and processes that learners engage in while performing a task. Social interdependence is structured in a group situation. It determines how individuals interact with one another. Positive social interdependence exists when individuals share common goals and each individual’s outcomes are affected by the actions of the others (Deutsch, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1996, 1998, 2000). Based on Johnson’s and Johnson’s (1998; 2000) ideas about social interdependence, cooperative and competitive scales were constructed for IQ Team. Individuality as one working preference was added to the test. The test’s components are individualistic, competitive and collaborative tendencies. Joint knowledge creation is a primary aim of cooperative learning. IQ Team’s original test version consisted of two measures for group processes. One was for interaction processes, another for knowledge creation. Interaction tests were based on interpersonal relationship theories (Douglas, 1979; Gurtman & Pincus, 2000). The other test of group processes was created according to Nonaka’s and Takeuchi’s (1995) ideas of knowledge creation processes. This test consisted of descriptions of facilitating conditions in a group. During the validation process, it became evident that the two components were strongly integrated. Effective knowledge creation depends on an enabling context. A shared space fosters emerging relationships and facilitates individual minds to become integrated in a collective cognitive space (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

942

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

Method Procedure and data For the validation of the tests for IQ Team, the quantitative data were collected twice. The first phase of data collection was a paper-and-pencil survey among university students of different disciplines in 2002 (n = 259). An analysis of the questionnaire resulted in the modification of the interactive tests for the IQ Team tool. Based on the analyses, the interactive tutoring resources were designed, with private and group diaries being built on the Web. In 2003, students (n = 5) and teachers (n = 5) evaluated the web design and gave feedback to make the service as user friendly as possible. The new data were retrieved from the data matrix saved by the IQ Team (in 2004, n = 275) in the web-based environments. Based on the analysis, some test items were reconstructed. In 2005, the second user feedback was collected from undergraduate students (n = 35), researchers or doctoral students (n = 7), and university teachers (n = 5). The undergraduate students used the tool independently (n = 14) or under the guidance of a teacher (n = 21). Analysis All tests in IQ Team have a five-point Likert scale. The following validation methods were used: (1) an exploratory factor analysis maximum likelihood with varimax rotation (4– 10 factor models) in subscales; (2) confirmatory factor analysis of factor solutions, based on theoretical frameworks; (3) an examination of each separate factor by using factor loading plots of two-dimensional principal component space, and by estimating the goodness of fit, eg, a chi-square (χ2); (4) an examination of the homogeneity of each factor, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated to validate and examine the internal consistency of the dimensions; (5) means, standard deviations and t-test were estimated for different student groups, as well as correlations between social dimensions; (6) the qualitative data were content analysed. The components of the tests with Cronbach’s coefficient alpha are presented in the Table 2. Results Group roles and processes of online students were supportive. Students had very high values in social qualities, and there were no significant differences between university, the Open University and polytechnic students. Rejecting and avoiding were not typical behaviour. The significant gender differences indicated that males (M = 3.10) were more dominating than females (M = 2.83, t = 2271, df = 211, p < 0.024), and females (M = 4.22) were more know-how sharing than males (M = 4.01, t = −2252, df = 211, p < 0.025). The gender roles seem to be traditional also in online courses. Social interdependence and individualistic approach were complementary. The important result (Table 3) is that all social interdependence variables, including the individualistic aspect, had high correlations (Pearsons) with group processes. Individual and cooperative work is not exclusive but complementary. In web-based environments, students need both. In particular, the capacity for innovation and a trustful atmosphere had high interrelationships with individualistic, competitive and cooperative approaches. © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

Collaborative learning skills in technology-based environments

943

Table 2: Factors in the validation process of the IQ Team tests and their alpha scores Alphas of studies The tests Roles in group (6 × 3 items)

Social interdependence (3 × 3 items) Group processes and knowledge creating (6 × 3 items)

Factors

2002 (n = 259)

2004 (n = 275)

Rejecting Dominating Encouraging Conforming Sharing know-how Avoiding Individualistic Competitive Collaborative Trustful atmosphere Goal orientation and commitment Innovation and creativity Power of collaboration Differences as a resource Tutor/teacher as a resource

0.83 0.83 0.77 0.72 0.74 0.75 0.89 0.80 0.75 0.80 * 0.78 0.78 0.87 *

0.76 0.68 0.83 0.63 0.67 0.69 0.82 0.76 0.75 0.64 0.66 0.61 0.57 0.51 0.81

*Dimensions remodified by constructing new items.

Table 3: Correlations of social behaviour Individualistic Social interdependence Individualistic Competitive Collaborative Roles in groups Rejecting Dominating Encouraging Conforming Sharing Avoiding Group processes Trustful atmosphere Goal/Commitment Innovation Power of collaboration Difference as a resource Tutor as resource

1.000

−0.042 0.195* 0.272** 0.035 0.276** −0.085 0.752** 0.373** 0.395** 0.300** 0.339** 0.286**

Competitive 0.425** 1.000

0.079 0.132 0.099 0.004 −0.022 0.094 0.408** 0.722** 0.288** 0.174* 0.294** 0.234**

Collaborative 0.291** 0.270** 1.000 −0.146 0.036 0.292** 0.061 0.353** −0.085 0.498** 0.441** 0.841** 0.596** 0.500** 0.291**

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001.

© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

944

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

Users’ experiences of IQ Team IQ Team has been in a pilot stage until recently. The research group collected qualitative data concerning the usability and relevance of the tool. Feedback on the system’s technological and pedagogical usability was collected from individual users: 35 undergraduate students, 7 researchers or doctoral students and 5 university teachers in 2005. The research group also had discussions with pilot users. The qualitative data were collected through interviews, online discussions and with open-ended questions. The feedback was analysed using content analysis, and the following categories were found: • To become aware of my group work strategies • The role of a teacher is important to guide and supervise to use the tools. The following extrapolates these themes by presenting the most significant and revealing comments: Self-awareness Many students reported that their self-concept as group members had been strengthened as they viewed the results of the self-assessment tests. The respondents of IQ Team saw that the tests support a student as a member of a web-based group by giving information on personal characteristics affecting the teamwork. Students with education as main subject described tests as too self-evident and as simplified models of group work. They thought the tests could be useful for students of science without educational knowledge. However, they discovered that tests helped them to reflect on their role as a group member, and on the ways in which virtual group differed from face-to-face group. ‘I discovered that my behaviour in a virtual group differs lightly from my behaviour in “normal” group work.... and that my role is different in different groups’ (undergraduate student of education). Tests were seen as especially useful in a situation where a student’s self-reflection needs to be aroused or teamwork is going to be the main learning method. ‘The tests are obviously useful for students’ selfreflection. They make you to think about your own behaviour. The tests would work well as an inspiration for discussion in a course demanding much team-work or where group dynamics are discussed. As such, the tests develop a student’s self-knowledge’ (doctoral student of education). Young researchers or doctoral students used the IQ Team system during a course of higher education pedagogy for university teachers. According to their feedback, tests of IQ Team provide reliable information on a user’s characteristics as a team member. The test results were reliable, but they emphasised that the results are conditional on the truthfulness of the user. The respondents suggested that the tests would be of greatest use if they were filled in as a group and if the results were discussed afterwards. One respondent saw IQ Team as a tool that takes into account the principles of meaningful learning: ‘It offers information, tests (encouraging activity), an opportunity to compare the results of one’s group (increases interactivity), and assignments guiding towards mutual contemplation (increases collaboration and transfer–effect)’ (young researcher, PhD). © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

Collaborative learning skills in technology-based environments

945

The respondents found the IQ Team tool very easy to use, reliable and well functioning. They also emphasised that the IQ Team system would best suit students in an early stage of their studies to participate in collaborative study settings, as it offers information on the phenomena of learning in a virtual learning environment. According to the feedback, the IQ Team system would be most useful in the initial stage of higher education, polytechnics and even at lower levels of educational systems. Students of all disciplines benefit similarly because the tool offers personal insight and advice on meta-learning. The respondents mentioned that the tool could be useful in different learning settings: face-to-face, blended learning and fully online learning settings. The importance of the teacher-tutor It became evident that the students gained more from the tool with the guidance of a teacher-tutor. Students who used the tool independently without support from a teacher, reported their experiences of the tool as being irrational, though they mentioned that the tutoring site was helpful and that it provided new insights and ideas to reflect their own behaviour in a group. The assignments helped the students to use the tool more extensively and intensively. The guided use of the IQ Team tool also helped students use the tutorial texts in a more meaningful way, while they tested their strategic learning skills. Students need guidance and activation to develop or redevelop selfregulative skills. Discussion of test results would be beneficial both for students and teachers, as it is important to know something about one’s learning group, both when planning the course and during the course. One respondent emphasised that when using this kind of tool, it is a teacher’s responsibility to start and guide the discussion so that all group members have an opportunity to reflect upon their perceptions within the group. Conclusions This paper has emphasised that learning is a social process, and technology-based learning environments play an important role in supporting active collaborative learning. Self-regulation represents the highest level of meta-cognitive activity. Working in online groups also requires active checking of the status of group situations. Sharing expertise and creating knowledge in a group is a continuous reflective process, in which members must be aware of their roles, tasks and how to monitor the work in a strategic way. The IQ Team aims at advancing successful learning environments in which group members can monitor and control their learning. However, the tool is most beneficial for students when used under the guidance of a teacher. The tool aims at joint-regulated group processes. In modern learning psychology, many concepts, such as authentic learning, self-directed learning, self-regulated learning, independent learning, autonomous learning, problem solving and active learning, have the same purpose, even though they originate from a somewhat different theoretical framework. The common feature is a learner’s active impact on learning and a learner’s involvement in the learning process. The active role may be manifested in individual and cooperative learning strategies (Niemi, 2002a; Simons, 1997; Slavin, 1997). In the construction of the © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

946

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 37 No 6 2006

knowledge, social elements have emerged as very important. Active learning theories stress the social elements of learning, eg, the importance of cooperative action, collaborative problem solving and sharing as tools for attaining deeper processes of learning. There is evidence that learners also achieve better results through collaboration (eg, Romanov & Nevgi, 2006). An urgent question is how to apply collaborative and social learning theories on learning environments including technology-based systems and tools. These should advance learners’ capacity to become more active and support them to learn new skills to manage their learning as individuals and group members. If we want students to acquire active learning strategies including self-regulation and collaboration, teaching and studying must implement these principles in learning environments. Online learning is already an essential part of higher education studies, especially in an Open University context, in many countries, and there are many indications that this tendency will grow globally in the future. This paper has introduced the above tool, which implemented technology in a very human-centred way, and established it as an instrument to promote learners’ collaboration. The main principle has been interactivity between technology-based environment and users, between students, and between students and teachers. The users’ feedback was promising when they described the experiences they had of the tool. This encourages further development of human-based technology in online learning environments.

References Borkowski, J. G. (1996). Metacognition: theory or chapter heading. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 4, 391–402. Cao, Y. & Greer, J. (2003). Supporting awareness to facilitate collaborative learning in an online learning environment. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen & U. Hoppe (Eds), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 183–187). London: Kluwer. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275–320). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Douglas, T. (1979). Group processes in social work: a theoretical synthesis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Gurtman, M. B. & Pincus, A. L. (2000). Interpersonal adjective scales: confirmation of circumplex structure from multiple perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 374– 384. Häkkinen, P. (2001). Collaborative learning in technology-supported environments: two cases of project-enhanced science learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-long Learning, 11, 375–390. Huysman, M., Steinfield, C., Jang, C. Y., David, K., Huis in’t Veld, M., Poot, J. et al (2003). Virtual teams and the appropriation of communication technology: exploring the concept of media stickiness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12, 4, 411–436. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: a project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 1017–1044). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

Collaborative learning skills in technology-based environments

947

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/SIT.html. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2000). Joining together: group theory and group skills (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Niemi, H. (2002a). Active learning—a cultural change needed in teacher education and in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 763–780. Niemi, H. (2002b). Empowering learners in the virtual university. The introduction to the IQ Form Project and its theoretical framework. In H. Niemi & P. Ruohotie (Eds), Theoretical understandings for learning in virtual university (pp. 197–220). Hämeenlinna, Finland: Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training. Niemi, H., Nevgi, A. & Virtanen, P. (2003). Towards self-regulation in web-based learning. Journal of Educational Media, 28, 49–71. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I. & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40, 3, 40–54. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41, 4, 219–225. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43– 97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Romanov, K. & Nevgi, A. (2006). Learning outcomes in medical informatics: comparison of a WebCT course with ordinary web site learning material. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75, 156–162. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In James W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.). (pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan. Simons, P. R. J. (1997). Definitions and theories of active learning. In D. Stern & G. L. Huber (Eds), Active learning for students and teachers. Reports from eight countries., (pp. 19–39). OECD. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Slavin, R. E. (1997). Co-operative learning among students. In D. Stern & G. L. Huber (Eds), Active learning for students and teachers. Reports from eight countries (pp. 159–173). OECD. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.