EEEP Online Community of Practice:the First to Boldly Go in Greece

Niki Lambropoulos, EEEP membereLearning & Online Communities Architect, Researcher

niki@lambropoulos.orghttp://nikilambropoulos.org

Abstract: We present results from a study conducted in the Greek context of online communities within online courses for informal and life-long learning. Online Communities of Practice (CoP) are associated to Open and Distance Learning (ODL) and Informal Learning. In investigating Informal Learning, fourteen Greek teachers, members of the ‘Greek Primary Teachers’ Association for the Valorization of ICT in Education’ (EEEP) responded to a questionnaire. The questions were based on identification of informal learning abilities and were related to sociability and usability for groupz-ware and management, online participation and activation processes, as well as other suggestions and changes in the Greek educational system regarding ICT in Education.

Keywords: online communities, informal learning, life-long learning, active participation processes

IntroductionThe rapid development of eLearning started in the 1990’s lead many educational organizations to either blend their educational activities or adopt the web-based education model. Additionally, after Rheingold’s book The Virtual Community in the 1990s, the idea of simulating a community was as popular as ever. Collaborative learning (Brown et al, 1989) and the communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) supported both views and online educational communities contributed to community knowledge building in Learning Management Systems (Zaphiris et al., 2004). Online communities of practice and communities of special interest (Preece, 2004), as well as semi-structured communities in online courses, are based on participants’ discussions, and usually blend both off and online synergetic activities. The development of a group of individuals who belong to ‘real’ Communities of Practice (CoP) to an Online Community of Interest (OnCoI) is an interesting issue in both everyday and scientific life. The development might continue to an Online CoP (OnCoP), where a common constitution, shared visions, as well as shared products just like this chapter and the book or seminars as well as roles assigned by democratic procedures (voting a committee). Some of the members act as invisible observers of the synergetic activities and never seem to cross the threshold of observation (Observational & Vicarious Learning; Bandura, 1986). Research has been conducted on these observers, as it is considered to be a common phenomenon in both online and online learning communities. Sproul and Faraj (1997) refer to an 80% lurking and Preece from 46% to 82% (2000). Some people spend many hours lurking and know the topics of conversation and key players very well. Thus, evidence of Informal Learning in a Self-organized way exhibit the hidden learning processes of inactive contributors.

Little research has been done on the cognitive processes and the strategies lurkers use in online forums, such as information seeking and locating, creative information ‘copying’ and the thick red line which separates lurkers and active members.

Additionally, there is not adequate research on discussions developing in online courses, as well as frameworks and groupz-ware applications that might help to bridge this gap and enhance informal learning and community knowledge building. The latter as tacit knowledge could be identified (Polanyi, 1966), recognized, transferred and used in different educational and social contexts, for example in the classrooms. In our study we are going to investigate inactive contribution and the potential of members’ contribution in discussion forums within LMS. The aims for this study were to identify, describe and analyse the context for the Greek teachers in online courses as well as cognitive processes and mechanisms for working in online courses and communities within a learning management system.

The Road to Online Communities of Practice

The aims of this chapter are the description of sociability issues (people, policies, practices) and the process that occurs between ‘Real Communities of Practice’ (CoP) to ‘Online Communities of Interest’ (CoI) and ‘Online Communities of Practice’ (OnCoP). The grey zones within the transitions, which describe the plasticity of CoP development to a potential online CoP, are suggested to be based on the attitudes concept for ‘complexes of ideas and sentiments… contained in motives’ (Cohen, 1966). The grey zones are related to the ‘sleeper effect’ (change of behaviour after a lapse of time), borrowed from the social psychology terminology of the 60s (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953). At that time, sociologists were actually interested in attitudes ‘always as a part of an ultimate aim of studying the structure of social conduct’ (Cohen, 1966). Thomas and Znaniecki (1918-20) have defined social psychology as the ‘scientific study of attitudes’ (cited in Allport, 1954). The 50’s and 60’ era decision in favour of the social learning was made because social psychology and social learning theory appeared as the passage from American behaviourism to a more sociocultural approach with an emphasis into group intelligence due to mass media development. The author finds similarities in the recent years such as the introduction of new disciplines coming from the passage of social psychology and learning theories to the online social psychology and online learning.

The last 5 years Jenny Preece insisted on the concepts of sociability and usability regarding creation, design and development of online communities in a more or less theoretical vacuum. Sociability is concerned with ‘the collective purpose of a community, the goals and roles of the individuals in a community, and policies generated to shape social interaction’ (Preece, 2000:7). Usability is a measure of quality of user’s experience when interacting with a product or a system and is described by the ease of learning, efficiency of use, memorability, error frequency and severity and subjective satisfaction. As such, the theoretical framework sketches two processes in a macro and micro level i.e. the group formation and the individual’s contribution process to the group. The ‘sleeper effect’ exists within the ‘potency of contributing’ drawing from social psychology (group dynamics, attitudes and communities of practice), learning technology (tacit and informal learning in communities of interest), management (group organisation and motivation) and communication studies (online interactivity and dialogue).

In the Formal, Informal and Life-long Learning framework, we are going to discuss similarities and differences between Cop and CoI. This is due to the fact that CoP are

closer to the formal education whereas CoI are more open and creative as in Informal Learning. The idea of simulating a community is as popular as ever. Fox (2002), Hodgson & Reynolds (2002) as well as Jones (2003) do not share the enthusiasm. Fox suggests the actor-networks based on a more individualized approach as the communities of practice are actually imagined communities. This is due to the fact that specific practices are exhibited in communities of practice such as mimicry, demonstrating and collaborative work and these properties cannot be implemented in an online learning community. Communities of Practice (CoP) associated to Open and Distance Learning (ODL) suggest specific stages and practices when a newcomer engages in CoP. The procedure is called legitimate peripheral participation (LPP, Lave and Wenger, 1992) and it is based on the old ‘master and disciple’ relationship.

Nowadays, CoP and CoI echo Sherif and Sherif (1953) as well as Siegel and Siegel (1957) as they recommended a distinction between reference (RG) and membership groups (MG). Reference groups work differently than structured, membership groups i.e. motivation appeared higher in membership groups although the quality was better in the reference groups. Sherif and Sherif (1953) suggested that both membership and reference groups affect the attitudes held by the individual. The direction of a person’s attitude change over time depending on the attitude norms of her membership and her reference group. The members attain membership in RG while maintain membership in MG whereas membership is some times imposed comparing to free registration in a reference group. The quality of work is sometimes better in RG due to free improvisation, unguided self-directed learning and brainstorming. People tend to exhibit attitude change in reference groups rather than membership groups (Siegel and Siegel, 1957). So, the process of active participation is certain in CoP and possible in CoI whereas CoI are more likely to exhibit change i.e. self-development comparing to membership groups. Reference group members tend to discuss their cognitive dissonance with the content and are more motivated in a free environment comparing to the experts-disciples interaction in membership groups (McGuire, 1965).

CoP and CoI differ in the set of goals especially towards the final products of participation. Attention and goal making process is quite different than setting intention. Setting intention is focused on the present moment and is connected on the importance of group existence as the underline force that aligns the members’ actions. Intention does not change comparing to goals and motivation although sometimes is not detectable. Attitudes, motivation, attention, shared focus and goals are outgrown on intention, are directed on future outcomes in order to deliver the artefact. Identifying the group intention and being grounded provide integrity and unity in the group. As such, group dynamics are aligned and all members’ move towards the same direction. Right group intention provides the group with continuing aspiration and quality of work. As such, in the Greek framework of our study, Greek Teachers CoP (GTCoP) might have higher levels of motivation and goals, and division of labour that follows the jigsaw strategy for completing a mission, but they lack the ‘unified thread’ that intention provides, offers shared focus and vision and excels the quality of work. In GTCoI, shared intention creates the self-organised system that enhances informal and non-formal learning. Engagement in CoP is crucial but in CoI it is not necessary. According to Wenger (1998), engagement in social practice is the fundamental process by which members learn and so become who they are as they pursue shared goals over time. Levels of engagement are depended in many factors, both external and internal to the individual.

Being co-present with the members of the community of practice saves significant time for newcomers’ introduction and engagement and enhances creativity as the newcomers bring new ideas to the group. Energetic participation is evident in similar frameworks. Specific practices are suggested within the previous stages, such as mimicry, demonstrating and working together. Mimicry is related to observation and reproduction of model’s behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Newcomers are within the zone of proximal development and during LPP they observe the tutor’s and/or other members’ behaviour. In the first stage GTCoI newcomers appear as lurkers and active readers as they start reading other people’s messages and trying to get familiar with the interface. Observational Learning is the potential benefit to these learners when they observe or ‘listen in’ on experts or their peers as they discuss and perform a new activity on an online environment. These discussions are based on verbal reasoning and self explanation (Chi et al., 1994). GTCoI interact and work towards the construction of community-artefacts which might be in an abstract form i.e. knowledge.

The differences between Online Communities of Practice (CoP) and Online Communities of Interest (CoI) are based on the following levels:

the intention drive and its attributes (intensity and awareness) that leads to motivation,

the different levels of external and internal motivation as central towards attention,

the rules and the netiquette of communication and practice, the production of artefacts and the division of labour.

Intention is the initial framework that defines the next levels. The corollary of the characteristics is the determination of the levels of members’ engagement. They describe more the social activity theory framework than a free and open level of self-organised CoI. Purpose, people and policies are the components of sociability in Communities of Interest (CoI). In our study, EEEP group is a developing Online Community of Interest; the members have special interest in the Valorisation of the Use of ICT in Primary Education and there is a need of exchanging knowledge and experience. The main purpose of the community is to share information, solve any kind of problems, and help each other. EEEP members crossed the threshold of CoI and developed an online Community of Practice.

There was an effort to open up existing systems in education in Greece (lifelong learning, nationwide school communication and teachers’ online communities of practice), learning management systems (LMS). Eight online training courses were created using moodle LMS open source software and Greek Teachers now have the freedom to participate in theses courses on a voluntary basis. Creative transfer of learning is of great importance given that they are expected to implement the acquired knowledge in everyday practice and vice versa. As a result, the Greek Teachers Community of Practice (GTCoP) made its entrance to the online educational world with two groups of special interests (GTCoI) via two networks: the Greek National School System (www.sch.gr; 8,500 members in March 25, 2004) and the Scientific Society for the Promotion of ICT in Primary Education (www.eeep.gr; 90 members in March 25, 2004). The educational system in Greece does not favour online learning despite the EU educational policy. Not only is there a law that prohibits online

education unless an organisation proposes its use implicitly in its constitution but there is not any consideration for a new law that allows online learning, recognise online learning communities and consequently Informal Learning. As such, the system creates more obstacles for online, informal and life-long learning needed in GTCoI, so a way of validation of participation in the provided online courses is not feasible at the moment.

Informal as Social Learning in Online Communities

Livingston (2000) indicated that informal learning includes anything you do to gain knowledge, skill or understanding from learning about anything that interests the individual outside of formal or organized courses occurred either individually or collectively. He stresses the fact that ‘the centrality of their tacit knowledge to the production and reproduction of society has typically been unrecognized both by others and by these people themselves’. According to McGivney, V. (1999) informal learning is learning that takes place outside a dedicated learning environment, which arises from the activities and interests of individuals or groups, but which may not be recognised as learning. As McGivney (1999, p. vi) points out “in the context of adult learning, ‘progression’ can mean several things – personal progression, social progression, economic progression and educational progression. These frequently overlap.” In a recent study conducted by Cook and Smith on UK Online Centres (2004), progression was taken to mean evidence of an advancement of a person’s goals, knowledge, viewpoint, ambitions and/or confidence. Livingston (2000) extends the informal learning concept to lifelong learning and knowledge society.

Livingston’s paper is the main reference to informal learning in our days. He suggested that the basic terms of informal learning (e.g., objectives, content, means and processes of acquisition, duration, evaluation of outcomes, applications) are determined by the individuals and groups that choose to engage in it. He uses the terms explicit and implicit knowledge as found in Claxton, 1998. Livingston stresses the importance of the collective aspects of informal learning - the social engagement with others - as an integral part of any actual knowledge acquisition process. In addition, he suggests that ‘much of the most important learning adults do occurs in these moments of transition which provoke a concentrated period of informal learning’. Guy Claxton (1998) described tacit learning within informal learning environments such as working environments, super-markets, galleries etc. His definition of knowledge was implicit and explicit (1998:31). Lynne Chisholm, in a presentation for the EU for non-formal learning (2003), summarised learning methods that seem to be applied to our effort for informal learning recognition for CoI:

Communication-based methods: interaction, dialogue, mediation Activity-based methods: experience, practice, experimentation Socially-focussed methods: partnership, teamwork, networking Self-directed methods: creativity, discovery, responsibility

Our suggestion is founded on the previous discussions and sees informal learning under the same lens as formal learning. When we refer to education most of the times we connote formal education and academic training without considering neither the framework where formal education takes place (schools, organizations, buildings, the educators as human beings with shared problems), nor the timetable, the actual time

spent on education. Most important of all, everyday learning is not considered to be part of the education and the educational system. Seeing and being aware of everyday situations is learning indeed, learning about the world we live in; learning is seeing and being aware of how we learn, about our behaviour and our own selves in a self-reflective manner. This is the parallel school. The following figure describes the three sides of learning that simultaneously occur: (a) learning in specific institutions and organizations (formal learning); (b) learning about the world and ourselves (informal learning); (c) learning in our working environment within communities of practice (CoP). The connecting thread between all is interaction, co-operation and collaboration with the context and the people inside the context.

Non-formal learning (non-formal L as semi-structured learning) is suggested to be located within the grey zone between formal and informal learning. The grey zone between formal learning and CoP is suggested to be the area where CoP form formal learning with focus groups, related to a more democratic approach of decision making in order to participate in decision making. Lastly, the grey zone between CoP and Informal Learning is considered to host Communities of special Interest (CoI). Self-directed, Self-organized learning in Social contexts is proposed to be the learning strategy within and outside the triangle. The holistic educational principle exists within the triangle as the locus where all three approaches meet towards life-long learning process.

As such, informal learning could be distinguished in (a) learning in social contexts and (b) learning about oneself within these contexts. Learning about oneself suggests the self-observation and self-directed learning strategies, where the individual identifies patterns of behaviour in her/his own learning, each time finings her balance between herself and the environment. These are stored as information. The most important aspect of this learning is the identification of the process and the context at once. This indicates a process of cooperation and interaction among the community members. Consequently, informal learning is a process-based learning instead of facts-based learning. Although informal learning has being identified as significant as formal learning in this study, there is great difficulty on validating it since any alteration of the known formal education patterns is suggesting chaos and confusion and as such, actual standards cannot be identified. As a result, following a process

directed framework and based on the outcome of e-mint study, we identify the following processes for informal and non-formal learning objectives:

being aware of the situation, identification of the framework description of the situation/environment description of problems and provision of solutions and suggestions participation in the process of changing the previous environment

Within Informal Learning framework, Formal Education is used as a tool the individual employs in action within the informal education background. Informal learning contradicts slow and ineffectual formal learning that appears more as a military service. Formal educational characteristics are based on repetition, imitation, thinking in circles and educational design patterns rooted in the curricula as well as fixed educational toolkits (e.g. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Learning Objects). It might be a reason why brain scientists stress the fact that we use only a small part of our brain capacity. Informal learning accompanies institutional learning and goes beyond imitation, repetition as well as trial and error methods that are based on old reactions and memories in order to make learning easier. Informal learning leads the person beyond the borders of the known based on self-organized and self-directed learning in a less depended framework. In learning in actuality, not in theory, learning is becoming self-efficient, bringing a tremendous feeling of security to the individual. In addition, individual’s responsibility is increased for both the other members and the environment.

Following Livingston, we stress the importance of the collective aspects of informal learning - the social engagement with others - as an integral part of any actual knowledge acquisition process. In addition, he suggests that ‘much of the most important learning adults do, occurs in these moments of transition which provoke a concentrated period of informal learning’. As such, Informal Learning is distinguished in:

Informal Learning in social contexts and Informal Learning about oneself within these contexts.

Learning about oneself suggests the self-observation and self-directed learning strategies, where the individual identifies patterns of behaviour in her/his own learning and stores them as information. The most important aspect of this learning is the identification of the process and the environment at once. This indicates a process of cooperation and interaction among the community members. As such, informal learning is:

based on intimate relationships between the individual and the environment on a daily basis;

the place where both the inside and the outside world meet not based on ideational but factual events, as the result of deep understanding;

goes beyond fragment finding and carries the joy of learning itself without any motive.

the environment where profit and goals are not the issues since all actions are incomplete and weaved in Life-long learning framework.

As a result, methodologies for identification, recognition and assessment in Informal and Non-formal Learning1 are suggested to be based on both internal and external processes on a group basis. The latter ensures the informal and non-formal nature of the two types of learning, avoiding a change to formal educational approaches. CoP and CoI methodologies for assessment suggest the identification of actors, important members for the life and development of the communities. Technology and Sociology meet on Social Network Analysis, where actors are identified based on visualisation information maps. These actors form Focus Groups of experts (Cohen, et al., 2000) and are able to bring a great change in the education system as the ones who meet all the previous objectives. Subsequently, methodologies for assessment are suggested to follow methodologies for ‘standards’ (Bjørnåvold, 2000) as they identify the formative purpose of the learning process (key qualifications based on the objectives), and learning deficits. Focus groups of experts are proposed o be the ones to identify, define and validate key qualifications. The summative purpose, the practical proof is the construction of community artefacts as well as the ability to transfer the acquired knowledge in different levels and contexts. Remaining in the vygotskian framework for non-formal-learning-based assessment in CoP, Engeström’s (1987) ‘expansive’ learning model could be reflected in the assessment methodologies as clarified by Bjørnåvold, with the ability of the individual to:

question established facts; define and clarify problems; cooperate and find possible solutions; approach unexpected problems; and formulate and implement solutions.

Our model expands the previous model referring to the ability of the group and the individual to:

be aware of the situation, identification of the context; describe the context work-in-process; describe of problems and provide of solutions and suggestions in a

collective way; suggest new ideas based on collaboration and brainstorming; and participate in the process of changing the previous environment by

implementing previous suggestions

The study

The rationale for the study was our familiarity with the context as well as the absence of coherent educational CoIs in Greece the time the study started. Fourteen out of 61 subjects (22,95%) from the ‘Greek Primary Teachers’ Association for the Valorization of ICT in Education’ (EEEP, formed in December 2003), responded to a

1 In both Norway and the U.K. such practical experience is an additional criterion for assessment in job interviews whereas official recognition for Non-formal Learning is still absent in Greece. Smart cards provision could avoid repetition of what the employee already know, give formal recognition to the knowledge and skills that GToCoP already possess and as such the number of teachers with formal qualifications will be increased (Cedefop, Perker, et al. 1994). Electronic smart cards as eCVs could better describe the abilities as well as reflect the potential of the individual playing the role of an online personal record.

questionnaire in July and August 2004. The questionnaires were based on the findings from a previous study (Lambropoulos, 2003). The decision made on EEEP was due to the following reasons:

(a) Most of the members in EEEP are members in the Greek National School Network (from now on SCH.GR).

(b) As a community of special interest i.e. the use of ICT in Education in Greece, they are familiar with the subject and they are able to give specialised responses, probably more specialised than the main study group.

(c) Accessibility of the group. As a Greek Teacher, interested in the practical use of ICT in Education the researcher is a member of the group.

(d) Members were willing to help.

The main objectives of the study were the: (i) identification and description of informal learning mechanisms and

strategies;(ii) identification and description of the contribution processes; (iii) identification and description of usability requirements for the above;(iv) design, development and maintenance of the Greek teachers CoI; and informal

learning outcomes for community knowledge building in the previous context.

The participation was on a voluntary basis. A call was sent to the members and the participants were selected depending on their level of engagement in the discussion forum. The frequency of their responses recorded between the months May to August. Other practical issues were not taken into account in the pre-pilot. These issues were the low participation due to the very expensive internet access in Greece; Greece is among the 5 most expensive countries for internet access (EEEP conference, 2004). Starting in September 2004, schools were given free internet access. The ration of the participants was as following:

1. Zero Level of Engagement, 4 participants (28, 5%)2. Low Level of Engagement, 4 participants (28, 5%)3. Medium Level of Engagement, 4 participants (28, 5%)4. High Level of Engagement, 3 participants (14, 5%)

Research Methodology

The problems towards user-designer co-operation for the development of online groupz-ware were: (a) the absence of specific methodology for online communities; (b) the absence of several approaches for online questionnaires specifically designed for online communities. Andrews et al (2003) were the first ones to create a framework for online questionnaires; (c) the great number of online communities on the net, suggests different problems as every community has a unique nature; (d) the absence of a solid criteria system (standards) for online communities’ categorization and indexation; and (d) difficulty in detecting the huge number of non-participants due to absence of any exhibited behaviour. As such, they are invisible although they are the biggest number of community members.

As such, non-structured group messages taken out of CMC in a focus group might better

test a specific research question;

obtain greater depth and breadth in responses compared to individual interviews; (c) verify research plans or findings;

extract patterns and themes of agreement or disagreement as units meaning for design patterns/genres; and

enhance the reliability of interviewee responses.

As a result, activities are not ‘anthropologically strange’ (Garfinkel, 1967). Common dialogues as conversational material contain stocks of knowledge based on common understanding, revealing patterns as a ‘cookbook recipe for actions’. Asking for additional material on an individual level might be seeing as re-interviewing and doing validity checks.

Content Analysis

The following threefold perspective is suggested for the next step of analysis of the messages: (a): classical content analysis (Bauer, 2000), (b) discourse analysis (Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis, Herring, 2001) and (c) empirical linguistic analysis (Herring, 2001, 2004) based on the intentions of the communicators (Preece & Ghozati, 2001) and situated meaning (Gee, 1997:97).

Discourse analysis (DA) for content analysis was used to identify similarities, differences and suggestions as extracted from the messages. DA of the messages was highly depended on the context taking into consideration that ‘the conventional meaning of an utterance was but a stage of its interpretation’ (Sinclair, 1992:79).

Messages Discourse Analysis

Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis approach (CMDA, Herring 2001), is drawing theoretical assumptions from linguistic discourse analysis. ‘At its core is the analysis of logs of verbal interaction (characters, words, utterances, messages, exchanges, threads, archives, etc.)’ (Herring et al, 2004). It is based on three levels of language interchange: (a) structure: structural phenomena include the use of special typography or orthography, novel word formations, and sentence structure, (b) meaning: meanings of words, utterances (e.g., speech acts) and larger functional units, (c) interaction: turn-taking (Herring, 1997), topic development, and other means of negotiating interactive exchanges and (d) social behaviour: participation patterns (as measured by frequency and length of messages posted and responses received). Structural CMC phenomena (e.g. emoticons, abbreviations, lexical items, quoting etc) were not taken into account although they are helpful for computer-assisted data analysis. Coding was restricted to the meaning and interaction level. This decision was made due to the purpose of the research was to identify replies as well as observations of discourse phenomena based on semantic reference rather syntactic since the main goal was the identification of answers to the question. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were used as the semantic references as well as indications regarding the frequency of their appearance were coded and counted and summaries were produced based on content clusters. This is how recognition of Informal Learning occurred. Turn-taking and time lag in spoken communication is absolutely linear whereas in CMC ‘exhibits numerous violations of both the "no gap, no overlap" principle and the principle of orderly turn alternation’ (Herring, 1997).

Nonelinearity was depicted in a 2D map of interactions based network analysis (Zaphiris et al., 2003). Overlap in CMC is also problematic. In group communication, unrelated messages from other participants often intervene between an initiating message and its response, in likelihood proportional to the number of active participants involved in the communication (Cherny, 1999).

We used ATLAS.ti for the qualitative analysis. It handles large bodies of textual, graphical, audio, and video data. It offers a variety of tools for accomplishing the tasks associated with any systematic approach to unstructured data, e.g., data that cannot be meaningfully analyzed by formal, statistical approaches. ATLAS.ti provides significant help in exploring complex phenomena hidden in the data. For coping with the inherent complexity of the tasks and the data, it offers tools to manage, extract, compare, explore, and reassemble meaningful pieces from large amounts of data in creative, flexible, yet systematic ways. The main principles of the ATLAS.ti philosophy are best encapsulated by the acronym VISE, which stands for Visualization, Integration, Serendipity, and Exploration. Tools are offered to visualize complex properties and relations between the objects accumulated during the process of eliciting meaning and structure from the analyzed data. The object-oriented design seeks to keep the necessary operations close to the data to which they are applied (ATLAS.ti, 2004). The following table will lead us to description of facts as derived in the messages.

Table 1. Discourse Analysis Coding guide

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS SEARCHKeywords and Themes (recurrent terms, concepts)Compare and contrast Identify ideas and representations (associations, mobility, implications)Variation in textBrakes, hesitations, inconsistencies, contradictionsConsistency with and between textsIntertextuality (repetition of keywords and phrases)Emphasis and detailRhetorical devises usedAlliteration MetaphorsTaking for granted notionsDeixis The use of words that make reference to the situation (now, we this etc)ModalityJudgement (might, regret, correct, right etc)

Online text indications (our suggestion)Use of specific online symbols such as emoticons, stress of text using capital letters, incomplete sentences, dots and dashes, nick names etc

Findings and Discussion

Several factors appeared to influence EEEP members’ participation in online courses. These factors could be organised based on the locality of derivation: (i) organisational factors related to educational authorities and their contribution or absence of contribution to eLearning and online communities, changes on the curriculum, publications for students and teachers on methodologies and theoretical approaches; (ii) school related factors such as ICT availability, accessibility to the computer rooms from all teachers, changing Head Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of computers for learning; (iii) personal factors related to age, gender, training or absence of training on the use of computers in the learning process, years of teaching, previous experience and familiarization with Online Communities, writing and typing skills, and personal characteristics (being open or closed as a person; and (iv) real world factors such as the expensive rates for internet access in Greece, Internet connection for the schools, spare time and time available for training based on the working timetable and time needed to go to work.

All groups of factors are interrelated and influence each other. From all four groups of factors, there is no control from us as researchers, working with the Greek Teachers’ Online Community, of the organisational, the school-related and the real world factors. There might be intervention on the personal group of factors at the present time. This means availability of online courses, online learning communities, e-material, online training, moderation and support for the moderator and the community design of better groupz-ware as well as efforts on validation of informal learning that occurs in online courses and learning.

This chapter discusses the findings towards Informal Learning outcomes and assessment. The outcomes were on the importance of contribution to the online community and were related to members’ profiles, the use of the Internet and Online Communities in the educational practice, online courses and participation in online communities, the first contribution the community and other members’ comments and suggestions.

1. ProfilesThe respondents were experienced teachers and were older than 30 years old because of the hiring system. Younger teachers are keener and familiar with the use of ICT. Most of the teachers in Primary Education in Greece teach all subjects, including IT. There is a recent effort to hire teachers who have some proof of specialisation in IT for teaching IT in the schools, although IT is not compulsory in the Greek curriculum. Most of the respondents got their experience in the use of computers, (not necessarily connected to use in the classrooms) in seminars and the rest were doing postgraduate studies. As such, ICT training was part of their postgraduate programme. The seminars were very basic and there was no methodology as well as practical use of computers and the Internet in the educational and learning process2. Nobody gained experience when studying in the old Pedagogic Academies. Due to the way Head-Teachers, Educational Counsellors and Supervisors are hired in Greece, based on the years of experience and not on real potential and abilities or studies in school management, most teachers in crucial positions come from the old Pedagogical Academies, without any familiarity with the use of computers in education. 2 Anecdotal evidence of the researcher’s own experience as a teacher for 16 years and an ICT Project Manager for the Greek Education Office in London for 4 years.

2. Use and Production of Educational Material with the Computers and the InternetThe study was conducted 3 months before free access was given to the schools from the Greek National School Network. The findings might be different after 6 months, when the teachers would be able to use the computers and the Internet for educational purposes. For the time being, the findings showed that some teachers are fond of to use the computers and spend more than 10 hours a week. However, the highest percentage (28,6%) was using computers about 1-2 hours per week. The same ratio (28,6%) produce material using both the computers and the internet. There is no need for overuse but minimal use is the starting point for the integration of computers and the internet in the everyday educational practice from all teachers, all levels. In order to achieve this goal, teachers could have the alternative solution of working online, use online courses and cooperate with their colleagues in online communities.

3. Online courses and Opinion on Online ParticipationThe majority of the subjects (78,6%) believe that active participation is important for Online Communities. As 14,3% of the subjects did not reply and 7,1% did not suggest an opinion, there were no negative responses on the importance of active participation. The question about the reasons for active participation was totally open, in order to get initial indications for the nature and the culture of the Online Greek Teachers Community towards a structured questionnaire for the main study. The results that half of the respondents revolve active participation around effective learning and helping the students (21,4%), indicate the target for participation in online communities whereas the medium to achieve this is getting information (28,6%), communication (7,1%), fun (7,1%), and production of material (7,1%), because it is the future for education (21,4%). There were no negative responses, which might indicate the absence of familiarity with the topic. Another significant target for active contribution was personal development 35,7%.

Some expectations derive from the eLearning environment in a blended learning framework, new for the Greek educational reality3. The number of respondents that did not give any answers and they did not know was high (24,8%) in an educational community related to the valorisation of ICT in Education such as EEEP. This indicates that in the ratio of the teachers who are familiar with online courses and online communities would be much higher in the everyday educational reality. The rest of the responses signify the need of informing the educational community about the new methods and pedagogical approaches as well as more communication between the members of the educational community. Subject E (Giorgos Magkos) suggested the need for ‘production, pedagogical material analysis and methodology, effective manuals based on deduction and induction of knowledge, freedom of the pedagogical approaches and philosophy, exchange of ideas, experiences and common visions’. The same need for information and training in new methodologies is found in the absence of responses from the subjects who actually did have ICT training (35,7%). The respondents who use the computers and the internet for 1-2 hours and the ones who use them more than 10 hours per week are the majority of the subjects who advocated active participation.

3 The eLearning and Online Learning Communities environments launched in January, 2004. Source from the Internet www.sch.gr.

3.1 Participation in Online CommunitiesAlmost half of the respondents agreed that they learn from the active members (42,9%). As such, there is a silent agreement that if there is not active participation there is no discussion and no group. The moderator is important on providing information as well (21,4%). With the help of the active members and the moderator, the members can learn by observation, based on the discussion as appears in the text, and their own personal judgment and self-directed learning (28,6%).

Although the question about roles was not fully answered, it appears that 85,7% sense that roles exist within an online community but probably they cannot define it. Some members (21,4%) believed that leading is needed as well as organisation and problem solving. In addition, the respondents gave the reasons why it is easier for some members to adapt roles: the capabilities of the person who adapts the specific role, familiarisation with computers, specialisation and being an active member by nature.

Active participation forms the group and its identity via cooperation, in order to bring forward important issues for the group and enhance dialogue. Being contributors, the members leave their individuality and subjectivity towards common goals and visions. Active Participation is natural to have different stages and levels of participation due to member’s individuality. Everyone has their own rhythm and learning styles as well as own participation in his/her learning. This process is related to newcomer’s profile, familiarization with the environment and the community. Since it is a new process for the newcomer, training and support is needed from the community. Observation is the key for Active Participation. The overall process of participation in Online Communities appears as following (the ratio is based on the responders’ suggestions only):

1. Information about a Community of Special Interest could happen accidentally or by recommendation. As such, valid information of community’s nature, culture and characteristics are needed to exist either in a form of metadata, newsletters, advertisements or else.

2. Community of a Special Interest: Reassurance of the specific Community’s Special Interest needs to be declared. Then the newcomer who actually has a common interest with the other members of the community will be positive and confident for his choice. This is feasible by providing clear information about the nature and the culture of the community from the very first webpage as well as answering basic questions (even though some newcomers might find them extraordinary.

3. Registration: Part of the registration process in informing the newcomer about the nature and the culture of the community i.e. about people, purposes and policies (sociability issues, Preece, 2000). As such, minimum agreement with the community’s basic sociability issues on the part of the newcomer is reassured. As before, in the process of registration the system needs to ensure that the specific member is interested in the specific community. Then the newcomer will be able to construct a basic profile. Both the system and the moderator need to encourage, help, support and motivate the newcomer to ask for help from the community members as well as providing him/her with guidelines and techniques for constructing good replies in order to increase his/her

confidence. Information on self-expression techniques could unleash members as well.

4. Familiarisation with both the interface and the community is based on observation of structures and axons of development of both

a. Search for existing discussion topics arranged in a searchable and obvious way following navigation guidelines and constructed based on common interests.

b. Search for existing sub-groups based on community’s common interests and sub-topics

c. Active Observation of Discussions i. First contact with the community

ii. Energetic lingering for Active Observation and Awareness iii. Aporia4, hesitation, doubt, insecurityiv. Familiarisation with the communityv. Asymmetrical to symmetrical interactions: finding the

minimum level of agreement with community’s nature, culture and common visions.

vi. Finding interesting topics – information d. Personal Judgment e. Agreement of being interested in the topicf. Definition of personal enquiriesg. Decisions on what to do next

5. Actions (based on personal judgment)a. Cooperation with members via personal communication preferably via

emailb. Engagement in discussion based on the personal interest c. New suggestions are based on the previous messagesd. Feedback is based on the previous message e. Support from the community – Feedback f. If the feedback is positive the communication continues; if negative,

the newcomer returns to the previous observational and lingering stateg. Projects are helpful to encourage Active Participation as they trigger

judgment and discussion. In addition, presentation of members’ projects on an individual basis give the background for discussions

h. New doubts and new questions to be answered i. Community knowledge building adds material to the community’s

knowledge database6. Repetition of the Participation Process

a. Energetic lingering and Active Observationb. Readingc. Engagementd. Decisions on withdrawal from the community are without warning

Each community is unique and each member reflects his/her own identity especially in educational communities where the members can be presented with their real names and identities. The community has to be revolved around common visions in contrast to subjective suggestions. Common purposes and visions create an objective status of the community built on, discussed and analysed based on collective

4 In Ancient Greek, the state of aporia describes the state of observation and looking for answers without additional judgment in the search.

subjective opinions in online discussions. Asymmetrical interactions exist for both information gathering and learning. ‘Active waiting’ is a new term that describes the anticipation, eagerness and hidden expectations of the newcomer in an effort to understand the nature and the culture of the community. As in real life, it is easier or harder for different people to be engaged in online communities and speak in public. Adjustment of asymmetrical interactions based on empathy by creating a state of equilibrium between the member and the community could improve members’ confidence and lead to decision making. Decision making on active participation is then not that difficult for the member if the interactions are more symmetrical after the first registration. The real factors are referred to spare time, familiarisation and previous experience with the environment, writing and typing skills, as well as community’s support and feedback from the members. If the feedback is positive then the member is facilitated in his/her first active participation as well as motivating him/he to continue with the second, more enthusiastic message. Expertise and specialisation lead the member to identify familiar words in the text and find a suitable discussion in order to be confident with the knowledge development. The cycle of thesis – antithesis – synthesis might be central for the architecture of a replying message. As such, the knowledge database of the community could be expanded and actually be used for newcomers’ introduction to the community as well as using the material for reports and newsletters. If community knowledge is building then this is a result of informal learning. Certification of Informal Learning in Online Communities is crucial for enhancing participation and verifying the gained knowledge, stressing the importance of verification and validation of informal learning. The free flow of information makes eLearning and Online Learning Communities irreplaceable for some members of the educational community.

As the results on creating members’ profile were not possible to be summarised in groups, this indicates that there are more than one ways of creating profiles in an online community. Personal judgment has a very subjective nature. Profiling depends mostly on the writing style and what actually the person says and then contribution to the community. The results justify the creation of a profile as the projection of a character as a whole: specific member’s behaviour towards the other members, the member’s unique way of communication and expression, ‘taking sides’ behaviour in a discussion.

Even though all participants responded to the question about developing feelings, either by having feelings or by remaining open, negativity towards other members seemed to dominate this group (42,9) whereas half of the participants did not respond to the question regarding the kind of the feelings. The members who replied to the importance of active participation (35,7) were the members who actually replied that they did develop feelings as being part of the community. The remaining openness actually provides a positive climate regardless the negativity observed in the group.

4. First contribution to the community

4.1 Reasons for first participation The reasons for first participation developed in the form of multiple choices in this part of the questionnaire were based on finding from a previous study (exploratory

study on Taking IT Global Forum). The same approach of Soft Systems Methodology was followed, as well as qualitative and qualitative analysis principles: the participants had to start with an open, un-structured questionnaire and end up with the structure questionnaire. As such, the analysed reasons for activating participation were: discussion, common interest, interesting topic, challenge, use, opposition, somebody told them to do so.

The majority of the respondents (85,7%) were advocates of the discussion as such as the essential part of activation. A community builds on common interest (Preece, 2000) and it is proven once more in this study. Almost all participants (78,6%) suggested common interest, as well as interesting topic (78,6%), as good reasons for active participation. Half of the respondents believed that the use of the community as well as challenge are the secondary reasons for active participation, and less respondents (42,9%) thought that opposition triggers the red line crossing. Only 21,4% said that somebody else told them to participate in the discussions. The fact that this worked for a ratio of 21,4%, makes the moderator responsible for ‘pushing’ some members to activate themselves.

Although there was space for alternative responses in the questionnaire, there were no further suggestions for reasons on activation, other than the ones mentioned above.

4.2. The First ResponseMost of the first messages sent to the group (64,3%) were based on a motoric action anchored on reaction and response to a message whereas the self-introduction was second (21,4%). If the members do not want to comment on a previous response and these are the less confident participants, the alternative solution is one way communication i.e. introduction of themselves to the group. As such, the system or the moderator could ask the newcomers to introduce themselves to the group in a couple of weeks time.

The reasons for sending the first message were different following the individuality of the members. Most of the members (71,4%) wanted to add something different in the conversation, a different opinion, or to promote their views (42,9%) and to say something and to clarify something said. Other respondents wanted to see different views and to open a new topic.

From all the above, the more confident members seem to dominate the stage of the discussion forum. As such, there is a need to observe more carefully the effect of the results that are not dominating the study but stand in the middle.

5. Other suggestions

If common interest exists then the nature and the culture of the community is easy to be sensed from the members. As such, almost half of the members felt part of the group within 2-3 days (42,9%). This results in the need of contacting the newcomers initially within 2-3 days, before their passive behaviour is settled. Either the system or the moderator needs to be close to the newcomers the first couple of weeks to ensure that they are not going to be left without attention, support and feedback.

Almost half of the members did not answer the question on new members’ contribution. The other half do believe that the new members bring modern ideas and new interests to the group, stressing the constant need for modernisation and development. The importance of community knowledge building with the contribution of new members and development of the community knowledge data-basis signify the need to undulate the static state of the community (28,6%).

The majority (78,6%) suggested that interaction with different communities of practice is important for the community, in order to produce better educational material and have better results in collaboration with other communities in a multi-disciplinary and cross-curriculum approach. Members form other disciplines could provide solutions to unresolved problems.

The question on professional development revealed the unfamiliarity of the educational community with the importance of social learning and informal learning as well as the need of validation and certification of both. A significant ratio (35,7%) did no answer the question 7,1% replied that they did not know, and 35,7% thought that there is the potency to improve the English language. The latter is of course correct but it is one of mediums, not the target of participation. A limited number was able to identify the significance of the new learning approaches and actually foresee the need for training, learning more about pedagogical models, the computers and the use of the Internet in everyday educational activities.

5.1 Changes in the Educational System

The changes as proposed from the members are suggested to revolve around three main interrelated axons: (i) the educational authorities and their attitudes towards the use of computers in the classrooms as well as reconstruction of the curriculum in a more open manner. The educational authorities are responsible for the infrastructure regarding ICT availability for all teachers, regular updates and maintenance of the systems, technical support as well as free provision of educational software to all schools. (ii) the teachers regarding training, professional development, theoretical and methodological approaches and motivation and (iii) the students regarding training and real use of the computers in the classrooms in a cross-curriculum approach.

As the use of computers and the Internet in the learning activities is a new field for Greece, the educational community is not familiar with it. Online courses and online learning communities directed by the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs are very limited, exist on a very experimental level and they are not taken seriously as compulsory and as such as part of the curriculum (Lambropoulos, 2003). Essential changes were suggested that might have the potential to extract the dynamism and creativity for both the students and the teachers when using online learning environments and online communities. The curriculum needs to be flexible and open to encapsulate the use of the computers in the learning process, one introducing the IT lesson as part of the core curriculum, in contrast to the very closed and asphyxiated (November 2004- it is an optional lesson in the primary schools). Even the provision of computers in all schools and the introduction of the use of computers in the classroom are of limited help for the teacher and the students without the methodology, different for the various levels and school years. The methodology of the actual use of the eMaterial from the Internet in one school hour is needed as

lesson plans and modelling activities. The Head-teachers and the educational consultants and supervisors need to be aware of the significance and the educational consequences of the use of computers in the classrooms. The IT room need to be available to all specialisations, not only the IT. In addition, coordination is needed for the activities between the teachers as well as the Head-Teacher and lesson plans towards the use of the Internet in the classroom. Computers should be provided in all schools as well as technical support and continuous upgrades. Otherwise both hardware and software are of limited help.

Conclusion

The results presented the outcomes of the Informal Learning as community knowledge building for sociability and usability. The aims of the study were fulfilled: the identification and description of informal learning mechanisms and strategies, the identification and description of the active participation processes and the identification and description of usability requirements for the above. The subjects were aware of the situation; they identified and described the context as well as the problems and solutions available and suggested new ideas in order to change their working environment. The EEEP members work towards these changes. The problems that teachers face regarding the use of the computers in the learning practice are different and of different nature. Since the use of computers in the educational reality is still in very early stages in Greece, restructuring the educational system to increase motivation, educate the teachers via continuous online and onsite training via seminars and post-graduate opportunities on eLearning and online are needed. Widening the learning environment and incorporation of blended learning could the background for a new thriving educational community in Greece.

Acknowledgements I cannot thank enough everyone who helped me in this report: the EEEP group and especially the participants in the study: Kosmas Athanasiadis, Fotis Gousias, Giorgos Filippousis, Mary Frentzou, Anna Karydis – Pirounaki, Nektarios Koukoulis, Giorgos Magkos, Giorgos Markatatos, Gelly Manousou, Dennis Paroutsas, Pantelis Prezas, Lefteris Spanos, Nektarios Tsagliotis, as well as Katerina Frantzi. Martha Christopoulou for the advice on the studies, the research, the construction of reports as well as her support. Kosmas Athanasiadis who reconstructed the whole questionnaire in order to be easy for everyone to work. Dimitrios Stasinopoulos & Ippokratis Sfakianakis from London Metropolitan University, Georgios Mpotsas for University of Thessaly and Antonis Mpouras for the University of Athens for their help and comments on SPSS as well as the construction of the reports and the discussion. Peter Oriogun, Sophi Danis and Pythagoras Sfakianakis for their support. And last but not least Sara Martin and Christopher Lai Khee Choong for the unlimited source of inspiration.

References

Allport, A. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 1-46). New York: Random House. p.3.

Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B. & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic Survey Methodology: A Case Study in Reaching Hard-to-Involve Internet Users. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interaction 16(2): 185-210 (2003). [Online at http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/%7Eley/db/journals/ijhci/ijhci16.html#AndrewsNP03 Last access 04.01.2005]

ATLAS.ti 5, Software for Visual Qualitative Data Analysis (2004). [Online http://www.atlasti.com Last access 04.01.2005].

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs London: Prentice Hall.

Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound (pp. 131-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

CEDEFOP. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, Perker, H., and Ward, C. (1994). Identification and Accreditation of Skills and Knowledge Acquired through Life and Work experience. Luxemberg: EUR-OP.

CEDEFOP. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, Bjørnåvold, J. (2000). Making Learning Visible: Identification, Assessment and recognition of Non-formal Learning in Europe. Thessaloniki: Cedefop.

Cherny, L. (1999) Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual World, Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Chi, M., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C.. (1994) Eliciting selfexplanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18:439-477.

Chisholm, L. (2003). Presentation in the Council of Europe Recommendation on the promotion and recognition of non-formal education/learning for young people. [Online http://vanad.noored.ee/konverents/ presentation/Lynnepresentation.dat Last access 04.01.2005]

Claxton, G., (1998). Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: Why Intelligence Increases When You Think Less. London: Fourth Estate.

Cohen, P. S. (1966). ‘Social attitudes and sociological inquire’. British Journal of Sociology, vol 17, 1966: 341-52.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Cook, J. and Smith, M. (2004). Beyond Formal Learning: Informal Community eLearning. Computers and Education, CAL03 Special Issue, 43(1-2), 35-47.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit OY.

Fox, S., Networks and Communities: An Actor-Network Critique of ideas on Community and Implications for Networked Learning. In Banks, S., Goodyear, P.,

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gee, J.P. (1997). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.

Herring, S. C. (May 2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, S. A. Barab, R. Kling, and J. H. Gray (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press

Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Bonus, S., and Wright, E. (2004). Bridging the gap: A genre analysis of weblogs. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii’s International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-37). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 612-634). Oxford: Blackwell.

Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4 (4). Retrieved July 7, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/

Jones, D. & Stewart, S. (1999) The case for patterns in online learning. In the Proceedings of Webnet'99 Conference, De Bar, P. & Legget, J. (Eds), Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Honolulu, Hawaii, Oct 24-30, pp 592-597. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Publications/Papers_and_Books/webnet99/

Hodgson, V. and Reynolds, M., Networked Learning and Ideas of Community, in Banks, S., Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V. and McConnell, D., Networked Learning 2002: A research based conference on e-learning in Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2002, 119-127.

Jones, C., Networks and Learning: communities, practices and the metaphor of networks, Proc. ALT-C 2003 Conf. On Communities of Practice, Sheffield, 2003, 234-248.

Lambropoulos, N. (2003). ECLASS GUNET Learning Management System & Blended Learning. In the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference in ICT in Diaspora,  Hellenic Education Office of the Greek Embassy & Cyprus Education Mission. London, 2003, pp. 1-16.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Livingstone, D. W. (2000). ‘Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: findings of the first canadian survey of informal learning practices’. NALL Working Paper #10-2000, The Research Network on New Approaches to Lifelong Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT).

McGivney, V. (1999). Informal Learning in the Community: A Trigger for Change and Development. Leicester: National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education.

McGuire, W. J. (1965). ‘Inducing Resistance to Persuasion’. In Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press. pp. 200-21.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday & Co.

Preece, J. and Ghozati, K. (2001) Observations and Explorations of Empathy Online. In. R. R. Rice and J. E. Katz. The Internet and Health Communication: Experience and Expectations. Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks. 237-260.

Preece, J. (2000) Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Sherif, M. & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in Harmony and Tension. London: Harper & Row.

Sinclair, J. (2002). Priorities in discourse analysis. In Coulthard, M. (Ed)(1992) Advances In Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. First Published in 1992. 3rd Edition.

Siegel, A. E. & Siegel, S. (1957). ‘Reference groups, membership groups and attitude change’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, American Psychology Association, vol. 55, 1957:360-64.

Warren, N. & Jahoda, M. (Eds)(1966). Attitudes. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Zaphiris, P., Zacharia, G., and Rajasekaran, M.S., (2003) Distributed Constructionism through Participatory Design. in Ghaoudi, C. (Ed) Usability Evaluation of Online Learning Programs, Idea Group Publishing, London, UK.