This paper examines the practical implications for teachers wishing to incorporate e-learning and Web 2.0 technologies into their pedagogy. The authors concentrate on applied didactical scenarios and the impacts of e-learning innovations. The methods applied stem from grounded theory and action research. An analytical framework was derived by inverting problem-based learning (PBL). Three practices at the University of East London (UEL) are examined in the context of this framework, using, respectively, a formal virtual learning environment, Facebook and Skype. The paper's findings have implications and provide guidance for those planning and implementing online collaboration and learning in education and industry.
AndersonT.RourkeL.GarissonD.ArcherW. (2001), ‘Assessing teaching presence in computer conferencing’, JALN, Vol 5, No 2, pp 1–17.
2.
BrommeR.HesseF.SpadaH., eds (2005), Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication and How They May Be Overcome, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Vol 5, Springer, New York.
3.
BrommeR.JucksR.RundeA. (2005), ‘Barriers and biases in computer-mediated expert–layperson communication: An overview and insights into the field of medical advice’, in BrommeR.HesseF.SpadaH., eds (2005), Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication and How They May Be Overcome, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Vol 5, Springer, New York, pp 89–118.
4.
de LaatM.LallyV.LipponenL.SimonsR. (2007), ‘Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher’, Instructional Science, Vol 35, No 3, pp 257–286.
DurkeeD.BrantS. (2008), ‘Enhancing teaching through technology: Challenges and possibilities’, Live Learning Laboratory UEL Learning and Teaching Conference, London, 2008.
7.
GarrisonD.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2001), ‘Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education’, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol 2, No 2–3, pp 87–105.
8.
GiesbersB.RientiesB.GijselaersW.H.SegersM.TempelaarD.T. (2009), ‘Social presence, Web videoconferencing and learning in virtual teams’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 23, No 4, pp 301–309.
9.
GoodyearP. (2002), ‘Online learning and teaching in the arts and humanities: Reflecting on purposes and design’, in ChambersE.A.LackK., eds (2002), Online Conferencing in the Arts and Humanities, Institute of Educational Technology, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp 1–15.
10.
McLuckieJ.NaultyM.LuchoomunD.WahlH. (2009), ‘Scottish and Austrian perspectives of delivering a Master's: From paper to virtual and from individual to collaborative’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 23, No 4, pp 311–318.
11.
RehmM. (2009). ‘Unified in learning – separated by space: Case study of a global learning programme’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 23, No 4, pp 331–341.
SclaterN. (2008), ‘Web 2.0, personal learning environments, and the future of learning management systems’, Research Bulletin No 13, EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Boulder, CO, www.educause.edu/ecar.
14.
SchoberM.F.ClarkH.H. (1989), ‘Understanding by addressees and overhearers’, Cognitive Psychology, Vol 21, pp 211–232.
15.
TuC.McIssacM. (2002), ‘The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes’, American Journal of Distance Education, Vol 16, No 3, pp 131–150.
16.
ValckeM.de WeverB. (2006), ‘Information and communication technologies in higher education: Evidence-based practices in medical education’, Medical Teacher, No 28, pp 40–48.
