Innovative Technology for Collaborative Learning and Knowledge Building (ITCOLE)

Main goals
The project aimed to contribute to scientific and technical know-how about whether collaborative building of knowledge with the help of new technology could be used to facilitate better learning achievements and development of new cognitive competencies in European education. The specific goal of the project was developing and testing innovative pedagogical models, design principles, and learning scenarios of collaborative knowledge building in European education.
The outcome of the project was to offer all European educational institutions the opportunity to install and deploy a web-based educational platform along with guiding pedagogical principles, both of which would be verified with pedagogical research during the project’s life. The pedagogical framework would include description of the educational principles, proposed learning activities and tutorial for teachers/tutors, outside experts and students themselves. This would be made available in a printable electronic form, as well as in on-line help within the software application.

Problem
According to the ITCOLE project, a widely experienced concern in western societies is how it is possible to prepare future generations to cope with cognitive, social, and motivational challenges of the emerging knowledge based society. An educational challenge emerging from the knowledge society is the need to train citizens to use tools such as computers, information networks, multimedia, and virtual reality applications that constitute the most concretely visible part of the knowledge society. The skills of using the new technology and searching for new information are not enough; people need more advanced skills for acquiring knowledge, and using it meaningfully in different contexts.

Objectives of the project
The objectives of the project were to
1. Develop pedagogical models of collaborative knowledge building for European education;
2. Develop a modular knowledge-building environment to support collaborative learning; and,
3. Evaluate, test and disseminate the environment in European schools in order to build meaningful pedagogical practices and to advance the use of collaborative learning technology.
The last objective included the following pedagogical research questions:
1. How does ITCOLE promote pedagogical change in the participating schools?
2. Whether and how does the system support the progressive inquiry model?
3. How does ITCOLE support collaboration between students?
4. How does the system facilitate community building?
5. How does ITCOLE foster conceptual change?
6. What kind of support and supporting tools do teachers need to monitor and guide students in the context of ITCOLE?
And the following technical research questions:
1. Are the users satisfied by the functionality provided by the system? How does ITCOLE support current practices of learning and instruction at school?
2. Does the usage of the system support the quality and efficiency of the work of the users? Which indications can be found for that?
3. How easy to use is the system from the viewpoint of the students and teachers? What kind of support would the users need in order to be able to use the environment in an effective way?
4. For which types of classroom activities is it particularly good? Which extensions or enhancements might be required to extend its application area?

Learning technologies applied

The aim of the Synergeia-environment, developed within the ITCOLE-project, is to be a modular knowledge-building environment to support collaborative learning and Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), especially for primary and secondary education, in various European countries.

Synergeia combines features of two types of electronic learning environments: it consists of communication tools, and empty spaces to allow the teacher to create and shape his or her courses. It also has the shared workspaces and document sharing from the collaborative workspaces. Synergeia can be seen as a shared workspace for learners, prepared and shaped by the teacher. On top of this Synergeia adds some features that are specific to this learning environment, and are used to facilitate CSCL. One of these features is the ”MapTool”, a shared whiteboard together with chat functionality specifically designed for CSCL. Furthermore, Synergeia has Knowledge Building areas, shared discussion spaces where learners can communicate and elaborate on their common knowledge. Within these Knowledge Building areas, learners are provided with built-in scaffolds; that is, they have to use a set of Thinking Types. Thinking Types are labels that the learners have to attach to their contributions. Examples of Thinking Types are “theory”, “question” or “summary”. The idea is that learners develop and use more metacognitive skills in their communication while using these thinking types.

FLE3 shares many of the pedagogical ideas and functionalities with Synergeia. The main resemblance is the use of thinking types in a knowledge building area. An extra functionality that FLE3 has is jamming, a tool that can be used for prototyping. Functionalities such as the calendar and address book are organised differently in both tools (for further information see www.euro-cscl.org).
New methodological approaches to ICT-based learning innovation

The project was particularly interested in a method of e-Learning called computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). CSCL, as defined by ITCOLE is focused on how collaborative learning supported by technology can enhance peer interaction and working in groups, and how collaboration and technology facilitate sharing and distributing of knowledge and expertise among community members. However, as ITCOLE points out, even if the emphasis in CSCL research is on socially oriented theories of learning, there is still no unifying and established theoretical framework, no agreed upon objects of study, no methodological consensus, or agreement about the unit of analysis. Positively considered, this ambiguity can be seen as reflecting the richness and diversity of the field. Negatively interpreted, it seems that the field is proceeding along increasingly divergent lines.
Furthermore, diversity exists not only on how CSCL is conceptualized among the research community but also from country to country. ITCOLE highlighted such differences focusing on the countries represented in the project (Finland, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands).

The teaching methods and particular techniques as well as devices (apart from the Synergeia and FLE3 tools) varied from school-specific project to project. The large number of such projects implemented in schools (around 80) during the ITCOLE project was a factor that contributed to this. However, the main methods and techniques were originating from the adopted pedagogic principles of ITCOLE.

Overall, the ITCOLE project partners focused on different dimensions of CSCL, particularly those related to work already having been done in the past on the particular interests of the national research teams. Thus, emphasis was placed on the implementation and further elaboration of the progressive inquiry model, a wider pedagogic and epistemological model which was integrated into CSCL. In brief, progressive inquiry is a sustained process of advancing and building of knowledge characteristic of scientific inquiry. It suggests that new knowledge is not simply assimilated but constructed through solving problems. Through intensive collaboration and peer interaction, resources of the whole learning community may be used to facilitate advancement of inquiry. CSCL was also approached from the particular point of view of how it fosters conceptual change. Community and knowledge building were two other dimensions of CSCL that were approached by the ITCOLE project.
Teaching and student roles
Observations about shifts in traditional teacher-student roles in the classroom during the implementation of the ITCOLE project, as well as problems in applying new roles in practice, have been made for each of the national cases represented in the project except the Netherlands. In the following paragraphs, results regarding the teachers’ and students’ roles during the project’s test phase 2 are presented.

Finland
The Finnish teachers were quite pleased with the general pedagogical arrangements and with the students’ activity and advancements. The issue that raised most questions was the challenges of adequate guidance and scaffolding needed from a teacher during the progressive inquiry process. Quite puzzling appears to have been also the heterogeneity of the students; the Finnish teachers reported that there were some students who could not cope with the open-ended inquiry without substantial support. Some teachers also mentioned some students’ reluctance in publishing their own ideas and unfinished explanations for all to see.

Greece
The Greek teachers were aware that, under the new circumstances, they had less control of the classroom. They reported that their experience with Synergeia had made them more comfortable with respect to their fear that students cannot collaborate by themselves, unless under the tight control of the teacher. It was very important for the research group’s agenda, for promoting learning environments that support conceptual change, that teachers tinkered with the curriculum and faced their fears of losing control of the classroom. The results were very satisfying in this respect.

The Greek teachers realized that the new activities demand a new set of norms, such as:
1) students accepting having their previous “wrong” positions in public view, using texts as drafts to think about and comment on, rather than as either true or false pieces of information; and
2) students seeing collaboration as part of achievement rather than achievement as a means to show off. Participation in ITCOLE helped the teachers realize these issues, although they lacked the theoretical terms that would help them include them in their designs.
Italy
The most problematic aspect singled out by the Italian teachers was the difficulty of letting the students use the Internet independently. Students were not allowed to use the computers on their own; in fact, the school policy always requires the supervision of an adult any time the students are using the computers. Another difficulty for the Italian teachers was their role in the classroom. They discovered that such a project forced them to deal with a new role and new competencies, and their relationships with their students were impacted by the project. The limited amount of time available for such activities was also perceived as a very problematic aspect.

Teachers and students interactions

Finland
In the Finnish projects, the collaboration appears to have partly been very successful, and partly difficult to accomplish. Four teachers mentioned that the computer-mediated discourse in the Knowledge Building areas of Synergeia was successful; one teacher mentioned that it did not succeed as expected. To the question of the benefits of collaboration in the projects, the teachers mentioned the following issues: a) Deepened the level of the process; b) Students learned from each other; c) Students learned to collaborate; and d) easiness to give teacher guidance to all. A theme for Finnish teachers (as well as for many others of other nationality) is that students who traditionally were not very active are much more active in the new environment.

Greece
Most of the Greek teachers saw collaboration as a means to motivate students, and thus an indirect way to support cognitive development. However, two of the Greek teachers realized that the written expression of students’ thoughts could mediate metacognitive learning for their readers. The fact that in the Greek interventions students were working in the same classroom made some teachers feel that collaboration through the computer was not justified under that circumstances, and that perhaps it had no motivating potential. The Greek teachers reported that they were surprised by the enjoyment that students found in using Synergeia (in all school levels). This remark was confirmed by the students’ answers in the questionnaires.

Italy
According to the Italian teachers, the model of the community of learners fostered students’ motivation, but it needed a lot of attention from the teachers since the didactical organisation has to be very flexible.
Attitudes of teachers and students towards ICT

Regarding teachers and students’ attitudes towards ICT-based collaborative learning, the ITCOLE project points out that these are not “unconditionally” positive. Although their attitudes towards CSCL are generally positive, these are also heavily dependent on their previous knowledge and experience on collaborative learning as applied in teaching of concrete curriculum areas (teachers who do not have such experience tend to be less positive), the existing school practices (schools accustomed to traditional teaching practices are less favourable towards CSCL), the school curricula demands (particularly upper secondary education curricula are less “open” to CSCL approaches), and the degree of teachers’ and students’ “exposure” to traditional teaching/learning practices (teachers and students in secondary education are more exposed to traditional schooling and hence are less inclined to experiment with innovative approaches).

Assessment

Regarding assessment of students, the Greek teachers gave a lot of attention to the degree of engagement of the students. Some monitored how students were interacting among themselves. There is concern about the learning products and how they relate to the time spent. There is an ambivalent stance between assessing as usual and considering progress in collaboration skills and collaborative work through the use of PCs. The Dutch teachers split their concerns between the end products, the concern for the process and the concern for future student benefits. The Italian teachers put emphasis on collaboration skills, communication skills, organizational skills, computer science skills and information organization skills for the students. The Finnish teachers saw a blending of traditional forms of evaluation with new ones and a transfer of assessment responsibility to the students themselves.

The role of staff training

During the ITCOLE project, each partner adapted teacher training to the local needs and circumstances.

Staff training in Finland
In Finland, the training and consultation model was divided into three different phases: orientation training, action stage training, and assessment and reflection stage training.

Ten pilot teachers participated in the orientation (autumn 2001) and action stage training (Spring 2002), and 29 teachers in the assessment and reflection stage training (end of spring 2002) within the ITCOLE –project in Finland. In the orientation stage, the training set out to build on the teachers’ understanding of concepts, theories and methods of progressive inquiry learning, collaborative learning and knowledge building in the learning projects. Furthermore the aim was to introduce teachers to the key terms and operating models of the project and commit the teachers to the collaboration and participatory design process (Synergeia).

In the action stage the teachers planned their projects collaboratively according the pedagogical principles of progressive inquiry and according the goals of school curriculum and information strategy. The implementation of learning projects assessing the pedagogical and technical usability was guided by virtual teacher training (virtual workshops) and face-to face consulting in schools. The virtual teacher teaching dual model was applied to training: teachers had access to the first version of the Synergeia learning environment and, complying with the principles of the project, the virtual training was used as much as possible.

In the assessment and reflection stage training, a seminar was organised with the purpose of disseminating the new pedagogical practices and encouraging the cultural change and reflection. Teachers were also empowered to network with their colleagues and invited to participate to the third testing phase with a peer or in the teams of teachers. During the third testing phase, (autumn term 2002), seven of the pilot teachers collaborated in teams with 22 new teachers, or with a peer they had invited to collaborate. The pilot teachers acted as peer tutors and reference group for the beginners. In the third testing phase the teachers were trained using the same training model; orientation, action and assessment and reflection stage. The third testing phase ended up with the concluding seminar, where dissemination of new pedagogical practices and continuation of the development work after ITCOLE -project was planned.

Staff training in Greece
In Greece, the involved teacher trainers were split into the following groups: 1) teacher trainers of secondary school teachers who had already attended one year of graduate training on the introduction of ICT in public schools; and 2) teachers from primary and secondary schools who agreed to play the role of initiators of Synergeia within their own schools. The researchers organized workshops for both teacher-trainers and teachers at the University of Athens.

Staff training in Italy
In Italy, the teacher training was organized by combining three types of action:
1) Face to face training: local and national meetings during which the project was presented, discussed and analysed;
2) Monitoring the classroom sections: researchers trained for this project observed the classroom sessions. During the observation the researchers used some grids designed for this purpose. Some of the sessions have been videotaped; and
3) Distance training: Synergeia (along with email) has been used for this purpose.
The theoretical approach was related to the progressive inquiry model along with the principles coming from the principles of communities of learning, constructivism, and collaboration at a distance.

Staff training in the Netherlands
The training for The Dutch teachers was divided into three phases: an introduction phase, a training phase, and a support phase. The first phase was a face-to-face meeting, in which teachers that showed interest in participation were introduced to Synergeia and to the concepts of CSCL. The second phase consisted of one or more face-to-face meeting(s), in which teachers were taught all details of Synergeia. Furthermore, much emphasis was on the concepts of CSCL, and what this means in day-to-day teaching. In these session(s) the researchers helped the teachers to set up their projects. However, time was too short to be able to fit the projects in the busy school programs. There were no primary schools interested in participating in phase 2. In a later stage, the sessions were held for a group of secondary school teachers. In the support phase, a “contract” was been made with the participating schools that stated what support the teachers could expect from the researchers. In addition to the face-to-face support and training, online tutoring was offered for teachers. In addition a course in Synergeia was created, in which teachers could find all kinds of support (documents, presentations, websites), together with ideas for projects. Besides, an electronic manual was made.

Main actors, adopters and resisters to the adoption of the innovation as identified in the project

The teachers and the students can be adopters but also potential resisters to innovation introduced during the ITCOLE project. There were several indications that the students’ considered the pedagogical changes pursued during the project as positive. Furthermore, it appeared that all participating teachers shared an assumption that the new information and communication technologies constitute a valuable agent of change within the educational system, an agent that allow one to facilitate in-depth and thoughtful learning. However, both teachers and students need considerable support to adopt collaborative learning as implemented by the project and the Seinergia environment. Apparently, it is difficult for students who are accustomed to traditional methods to change their learning practices. In some case studies although the teacher was aware of the high-level pedagogical goals, and tried to foster inquiry skills, collaboration, and knowledge building, it appears to have been difficult to make the students change their study practices. Especially students in higher school levels appeared to be reluctant to change their study habits. In elementary level, it was much easier to motivate the students to practise collaboration and inquiry methods.
Institutional-organisational conditions that affect innovation

Institutional conditions which affect the way the innovations introduced are implemented are c) the school autonomy, and b) the school curricula. School autonomy is an institutional condition that appears to be rather supportive to innovation. In Finland, for example, where schools and teachers are very autonomous even on the level of developing school curriculum and in implementing new learning methods, it was more feasible for the teachers to link their projects to the school curriculum and ICT strategy in purpose to create continuing practices and enhance cultural change in their schools.

The flexibility of school curricula and their degree of compatibility to collaborative learning are also important institutional conditions. In Greece and in Italy, for example, the main institutional barrier in using Seinergia was that the existing curriculum is not very conducive to collobarative approaches. Furthermore, curriculum demands in secondary education appear to be much more restrictive to innovative approaches than in primary education. The data concerning the first testing of the Synergeia environment in different test sites gave an impression that the projects were more advanced and innovative in the primary than secondary level. In secondary, and especially in high school level, the demands of the curriculum and content learning forced the teachers to include also more traditional elements to the projects, and Synergeia was used only as one tool for discussions and document sharing.

The dominant school ethos towards collaborative learning and collaboration among colleagues (which are closely related to institutional as well as organisational practices) also appears to be a crucial factor. In Italy, for example, the school setting and the headteacher/principal did not always facilitate collaboration between colleagues. Furthermore, the institutional model of Italian schools is still very much based on the transmitting model of knowledge (from the teacher to the students), and does not foster collaborative models (learning from each other). On the other side, in Finland and the Netherlands schools are much more accustomed to collaborative practices both at school and classroom level, a condition which is supportive to the innovations introduced. However, even in such cases, the teachers’ heavy workload is often a factor that is limiting the prospects of collaboration. In the Netherlands, for example, the teachers’ lack of time and, in general, the heavy workload in some cases discouraged them from being fully involved in the project activities.

The availability of ICT infrastructure is also a crucial (rather systemic) condition. Countries such as Finland or the Netherlands are much more advanced in terms of pupil:computer ratio as compared to Italy or Greece. In Italy, for example, often there was just one computer available for a whole classroom. Needless to say, lack of ICT infrastructure is fundamentally limiting the prospects for a CSCL-based innovation to diffuse in schools.

School level organisational challenges which affect the implementation of the innovation(s) introduced by the ITCOLE project, were the school schedule and its adaptation so as to accommodate for (time consuming) on-line collaborative activities, and arrangements having to do with access to ICT.
Conclusions
Perhaps the most promising finding of the ITCOLE project in terms of flexibility is that the use of Synergeia and FLE3 offers the opportunity to more students to engage in fruitful learning experiences. According to the ITCOLE project, the experiences of the teachers show that there have been students who were not particularly good but who showed unexpected initiatives in the context of the ITCOLE school-based projects. The ITCOLE software increases the diversity, introduces new skills where students can show their competence and so gives more opportunity for more students to feel competent.

Both Synergeia and FLE3 are accessible through the Internet and are offered for free.
Download Synergeia at http://bscl.fit.fraunhofer.de/en/download.html
Download FLE3 at http://fle3.uiah.fi/

The ITCOLE project did not directly target the development of e-learning standards in the strict sense of the term. However, it offers valuable insights in the design, development and validation of CSCL environments. Synergeia and particularly FLE3 are offering good examples of CSCL environments and, because they are offered for free and also are open-source, they have the potential to contribute greatly to the establishment of standards in the field.

Although CSCL is an issue that attracts the international interest, the ITCOLE project research reveals that CSCL solutions need to be contextualized within the national learning patrimonies. This is because across countries there is a great variation in the “maturity” of supportive systemic conditions and factors which affect the way CSCL is conceptualized and implemented.

According to the ITCOLE project, differences in the education systems among the participating countries, as well as differences in available infrastructure and teachers’ and students’ background on collaborative learning and technology influenced, directly or indirectly, the learning processes during the project. The first two phases provided very valuable and interesting information concerning implementation of ITCOLE software in diverse cultural and socio-technological contexts.

In Finland, the technical possibilities and the teachers’ initial level of expertise were more advanced. Also, the training and support of the teachers in Finland got a great deal of resources, because the training organisation of Helsinki City was also a partner in ITCOLE project, and this was seen in the teachers’ advancement in their pedagogical thinking and practices. In all of the other test sites, the researchers collaborated with the teachers directly, and the teachers reported that they would have needed more training and more collaboration with the pedagogical researchers. In Italy, the teachers were also quite experienced, but the technical infrastructure was relatively weak. In Greece and the Netherlands, the teachers were much more novices both in terms of pedagogical expertise and skills and practices of using ICT. Consequently, the researchers reported substantial difficulties in finding the common theoretical ground for the pedagogical approach in Greece. In the Netherlands, the researchers were unsuccessful motivating teachers to participate in the ITCOLE testing.

The wider involvement of teachers in the ITCOLE project and the training they received, as well as the design and implementation of school-based projects, offered them the opportunity for professional development. The innovations introduced have many implications for the development of life-long-learning practices among teachers, particularly through the development of communities of learners and collaborative knowledge-building.