CONFERENCE SERIES

Microlearning and Capacity Building

Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner • Microlearning & Capacity Building

A new digital micromedia ecology, and with it new learning strategies, are emerging. The shift Proceedings of the 4th International Microlearning 2008 Conference
to fragmented digital communication and information flows affects all aspects of daily work
and daily lifelong learning. This calls for innovative experiences, processes and technologies:
ubiquitous, personal and dynamic, casual and volatile, but still complex and effective.

What is the impact on educational issues in formal and informal learning environments, in
­vocational training, higher education, and professional training?

To discuss the new challenges and opportunities for individual and organizational capacity buil-
ding, Microlearning 2008 brought together media technologists and academics, visionaries and
practitioners, entrepreneurs and corporate professionals from many countries, disciplines, and
fields of expertise.

The participants brought new visions and analyses, innovative concepts, projects, and best
practice results. The Proceedings of the 4th International Microlearning 2008 Conference
contribute to answering the questions of new media users in seven main subject fields: ­
New Media in Organisations, Classroom Without Walls, Corporate Learning, Mobile Training,
Web 2.0 & Education, Micromedia Environments, Quality and Evaluation.

iup Editors: Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner

ISBN 978-3-902571-60-1
CONFERENCE SERIES
Series Editors: K. Habitzel, T. D. Märk, S. Prock, B. Stehno

iup • innsbruck university press

www.uibk.ac.at/iup
innsbruck university press in Conference Series:
Series Editors: K. Habitzel, T. D. Märk, S. Prock, B. Stehno

Also available by iup in this series:

Contributions – 2nd International Conference on Proton Transfer Reaction

Mass Spectrometry and Its Applications, ISBN-10: 3-901249-78-8, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-78-5
Editors: A. Hansel, T. D. Märk

41st Symposium on Theoretical Chemistry – Innsbruck, Austria September 5–7, 2005

ISBN-10: 3-901249-80-X, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-80-8 – Editors: B. M. Rode, B. R. Randolf

Contributions – 15th Symposium on Atomic and Surface Physics and Related Topics
ISBN-10: 3-901249-82-6, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-82-2 – Editors: V. Grill, T. D. Märk

Microlearning: Emerging Concepts, Practices and Technologies

Proceedings of Microlearning 2005: Learning & Working in New Media Environments
ISBN-10: 3-901249-83-4, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-83-9 – Editors: T. Hug, M. Lindner, P. A. Bruck

Zukunftsplattform Obergurgl 2006:

Forschungsplattformen innerhalb der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck
ISBN-10: 3-901249-86-9, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-86-0 – Editors: M. Grumiller, T. D. Märk

Bildung schafft Zukunft

1. Innsbrucker Bildungstage, 17. – 18. November 2005
ISBN-10: 3-901249-87-7, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-87-7 – Editor: Heidi Möller

Die Wiederentdeckung der Langsamkeit

Tagungsband zum gleichnamigen Symposion anlässlich des Tages der psychischen Gesundheit 2005
ISBN-10: 3-901249-88-5, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-88-4 – Editors: Matthias A. Brüstle, Wolfgang Weber

Pangeo Austria 2006

ISBN-10: 3-901249-93-1, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-93-8 – Editor: Monika Tessadri-Wackerle

Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Adjoint Applications in Dynamic Meteorology

ISBN-10: 3-901249-98-2, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-98-3 – Editors: M. Ehrendorfer, R. M. Errico

Micromedia & e-Learning 2.0: Gaining the Big Picture

Proceedings of Microlearning Conference 2006
ISBN-10: 3-901249-99-0, ISBN-13: 978-3-901249-99-0 – Editors: T. Hug, M. Lindner, P. A. Bruck
 www.uibk.ac.at/iup

Contributions – 3rd International Conference on Proton Transfer Reaction

Mass Spectrometry and Its Applications, ISBN-10: 3-902571-03-9, ISBN-13: 978-3-902571-03-8
Editors: A. Hansel, T. D. Märk

Micromedia and Corporate Learning

Proceedings of the 3rd International Microlearning 2007 Conference
ISBN: 978-3-902571-09-0 – Editors: M. Lindner, P. A. Bruck

Österreich, Spanien und die europäische Einheit – Austria, España y la unidad europea
ISBN: 978-3-902571-11-3 – Editors: P. Danler, K.-D. Ertler, W. Krömer, E. Pfeiffer, E. Rodrigues-Moura

XXV CILPR 2007 – Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes

Communications : Résumés
ISBN: 978-3-902571-15-1 – Editors: M. Iliescu, H. Siller-Runggaldier

Geomorphology for the Future

ISBN: 978-3-902571-18-2 – Editors: A. Kellerer-Pirklbauer, M. Keiler, Ch. Embleton-Hamann, J. Stötter

Zukunftsplattform Obergurgl 2007

Forschungskooperationen innerhalb der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck
ISBN: 978-3-902571-21-2 – Editors: M. Grumiller, T. D. Märk

Competence development as workplace learning

ISBN: 978-3-902571-25-0 – Editors: L. Chisholm, H. Fennes, R. Spannring

Contributions – 16th Symposium on Atomic and Surface Physics and Related Topics (SASP 2008)
20.1. – 25.1.2008, Les Diablerets, Switzerland
ISBN: 978-3-902571-31-1 – Editors: R. D. Beck, M. Drabbels and T. R. Rizzo

Die Dienstleistungsrichtlinie – Dienstleistungsfreiheit in Europa Segen oder Fluch?

ISBN: 978-3-902571-47-2 – Editors: G. Wachter, F. Burger

From the Vacuum to the Universe – Proceedings of the first Austria-France-Italy Symposium 2007
ISBN: 978-3-902571-53-3 – Editors: Steven D. Bass, Florian Schallhart, Barbara Tasser
© 2008
1st edition
All rights reserved.

Universität Innsbruck
Technikerstraße 21 a
A-6020 Innsbruck
www.uibk.ac.at/iup

Editors: Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner

Publishing staff: Carmen Drolshagen, Gregor Sailer
Organisation of Proceedings: Wolfgang Hagleitner
Translation: Julia Bruck
Organisation of Conference: Birgit Berger
Produced: Fred Steiner, Rinn – Book on Demand

ISBN: 978-3-902571-60-1
 Microlearning and Capacity Building
Proceedings of the
4 th International Microlearning 2008 Conference

Editors:
Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner

Printed with support of

Research Studios Austria
Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Table of Content

Forewords and Introductions

Peter A. Bruck
Welcome and Introduction to “Micromedia and Capacity Building” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Martina A. Roth
Welcome to Microlearning 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Martin Lindner
The Shift Towards Microinformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Web 2.0 – E-learning 2.0 – Quality 2.0? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Foundations and Basics

Judy Breck
Unbundling Online Educational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Matthias Rohs
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Martin Lindner
Micromedia Flow Experience Design
A Conceptual Framework for Designing Microcontent-driven Applications
for Peripheral View and Partial Attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 Table of Content

Applications and Practices

Lars Johnsen
The Seven C’s of Educational Topic Maps:
Towards Open Microwebs for (Language) Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Eva M. Unterrainer, Meinrad E. Welte

Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Martin Ebner, Walther Nagler

Has the End of the Chalkboard Come?
A Survey About the Limits of Interactive Pen Displays in Higher Education . . . . . . . . 79

Stefan Walder, Wolfgang Hagleitner

Mobile Hydraulic Engineering Simulations as Microcontent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Çetin Güler, Arif Altun, Petek Asķar

Teacher Trainees as Learning Object Designers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
 Welcome and Introduction to
“Microlearning & Capacity Building”
(Foreword & Intruduction)

Peter A. Bruck
Research Studios Austria Forschungsgesellschaft mbH (Austria)
General Manager

Dear Readers,

The research and development work which the Research Studios Austria (RSA) are
undertaking in the area of technology-enhanced learning has three clearly defined
starting points:

1. The need and pressure to learn are increasing continuously and quite generally
as part of the transformation of our society and economy into a knowledge- and
not machine-driven society;

2. The time available for learning is getting shorter and especially those whose
work schedule is tightly structured and quickly changing are hard-pressed to
keep up;

3. Knowledge gaps are widening and second tier digital divides are common place
even in digitally native social strata1.

This analysis is clearly in need of more differentiation, but it highlights the fact that the
research work of the RSA is consistent in its focus on the needs of society and users, of
corporate human resources managers and markets, of professionals and certification
institutions. This is also the fact for the programme and proceedings of this year’s 4th
International Microlearning Conference.

1
“First tier digital divide” commonly refers to access issues (both internationally and domestic), “second
tier digital divide” to usage questions regarding ICTs; see the discussion on digital divides in L. G.
Kruger’s recent report to the US Congress, 2008; available online:
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL30719.pdf.
2 Foreword & Introduction: Peter A. Bruck

Capacity Building
The social, economic and cultural development of the information society is
characterized by the increasing complexity of roles and the need of people to manage
these roles and autonomously define many of the conditions and rules for their activities
and work.

The notion and concept of capacity building refers to the efforts to increase skills and
insights so that individuals and organisations are better able to meet the demands with
which they are faced and do so in a competent and rewarding manner2.

In some contexts, the concept is extended to signify a general increase in the ability to
be effective and to act in a manner which achieves one’s goals, be they individual or
organisational3.

Some of the key issues in capacity building include the sustainability of skills and abilities
as well as the transfer of such skills and abilities from training environments to real-life
situations in projects and work. These issues are particularly relevant in contexts where
there is a time gap between the learning process and the application of what was
learned and also in the context of international development4.

Microlearning
By now, the Research Studios Austria have been working for more than four years to
develop the approach of using technology to make learning more effective by breaking
learning processes into small steps which can be readily taken without completely
disconnecting the learner from the flow of daily routine in work or work-related actions.

We have learned to focus the application area of our approach and our Knowledge Pulse
solution with regard to the various types and functions of learning. One of the prime
areas of application appears to be the area of information retention.

In many forms of learning, people learn something once and never return to the matter
learned. Thus, little or no effectiveness remains, only a vague memory of having
completed some learning activity.

2
Continuing Education proposes to address this.
See e.g: http://www.inwent.org/capacity_building/index.de.shtml.
3
This is particularly the case for non-profit organisations.
See: http://www.managementhelp.org/org_perf/capacity.htm.
4
For references, see the evaluation report by UN DESA on the capacity building programs within the
UN framework; available at:
http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/Capacity_Building_supported_by_the_UN.pdf.
Welcome to Microlearning 2008 3

Loss of learning 1: Switching the context

The reasons for the lack of sustainable learning and the accompanying hurdles to
overcome are manifold: firstly, the learning context most often differs from the knowledge
application context; this applies to both the social context, e.g. when a seminar room is
traded for the office, and to the thematic context where the subject matter is shifted to
application in real life; most often this is compounded by a break in media, e.g. a switch
from lectures, books or even computer simulations to a telephone conversation or
working at the computer.

Microlearning with the Knowledge Pulse is specifically designed to be integrated into the
flow of work routines and uses moments of shifting attention to pop-up a screen saver or
a widget containing a small learning step. The likelihood of taking the learning step rests
on four features found in our approach: the step needs to be small; the pop-up should
only be triggered when there is no activity on the device; the content should be pushed
towards the user and be linked to the previous step; the user must easily be able to
direct and adjust the time delay, frequency and logic of the pop-up.

Giving the user easy control over the learning tool is a critical success factor in the
context of e.g. Austrian corporate work culture.

Loss of learning 2: No time

Time pressure is part of the information economy and the service industries. “No time”
refers to the increase in intensity of using time on the job and even off the job with regard
to achieving set goals. No time also refers to the fact that most learning processes
demand a complete interruption or dropping out of ongoing activities in order to engage
in a new, separate activity.

Microlearning with the Knowledge Pulse integrates learning into the work flow in
moments when there is a transition from one activity and attention matter to another. By
using “idle” moments and addressing users at their work place, microlearning
tendentially does not require “time of its own” in a daily schedule. It is done “in-between”.
Metaphorically speaking, it can therefore be argued that microlearning creates time.

Loss of learning 3: Lack of readiness

One of the most practical issues facing learners is the fact that e.g. seminar notes,
printouts from lecture materials, and DVDs with learning simulations tend to not be
immediately available when one is ready to take a learning step. The search for learning
materials is often fruitless, and in most cases cumbersome or simply not possible.
Getting ready for learning depends on having the materials at hand and being able to
start immediately without delay.
4 Foreword & Introduction: Peter A. Bruck

The very idea of Microlearning with the Knowledge Pulse rests on the push rather than
pull function of the application. A micro-step manager pulls the appropriate next step
from the content database and delivers it to the user. There is no need to look for or
research the learning resources. Due to the push character of the application, the
content is always ready and is served to the user at the appropriate time.

Loss of learning 4: Just too much

Another hindrance to the sustainability of learning is that digital learning materials often
appear to be “just too much” to users. This feeling can carry a number of different
meanings. Most often, it refers to the user’s confusion at not being able intuitively grasp
how “big” a DVD or learning web site is. The lack of transparency of digital media
regarding the volume of content is a major obstacle to the forward and backward
orientation of learning, whereby forward refers to one’s intuitive understanding of “how
much” is still to be learned, and backward refers to “how much” has already been
learned.

The flashcard system of the Knowledge Pulse incorporates a progress indicator which
renders the user’s relative progress visible at all times. This feedback concerning what
has already been learned rests on the character of the Knowledge Pulse as a system
containing a limited number of learning cards which are didactically bundled into lessons,
courses and programs.

Microlearning and Capacity Building

The primary interest of the Research Studios Austria in organising this year’s ML08
international conference and publishing the proceedings rests on the claim that the
microlearning approach is eminently suited for the sustained buildup of capacities.

When we organized the first conference in 2005, microlearning was an entirely new term
and we needed to introduce the concept. Today, due to the development of Web 2.0,
“microcontent” is a known fact.

Last year’s conference ML07 featured a number of key topics ranging from Micromedia
to Corporate e-Learning and including Schools Without Walls, Enterprise Trainings,
Social Software Developments, and Peer2Peer Learning.

The main objective of and reason for the Research Studios’ focus on microlearning lies
in making learning simpler and more effective through the support of new media
technologies.

Simplicity and effectiveness are the keys to success in learning. Too much technology
tends to make learning even more complicated and confusing for users. Technology-
assisted learning should not require learners to become software specialists.
Welcome to Microlearning 2008 5

Micromedia and Corporate Learning

rd
The 3 International Microlearning2007 Conference was titled “Micromedia and
Corporate Learning”. The term and concept of “micromedia” was generated in response
to ICT users’ calls for the design of innovative experiences, processes, and technologies:
personal and dynamic, casual and volatile, but still complex and effective. The changes
brought about through the development of micromedia are most profound in the area of
corporate learning. This we wish to explore in the following pages and the conference
sessions.

Microlearning 2008 brings together media technologists and academics, visionaries and
practitioners, entrepreneurs and corporate professionals from around the world, to
discuss new visions and analyses, innovative concepts, projects, and best practice
results related to the impact of the new digital micromedia ecology emerging at the work
place and in corporate learning strategies. We cherish the multi-faceted expertise of the
participants and their interdisciplinary approaches to e-learning.

Formats and Outcome

The Microlearning conference series discusses informal and formal learning as well as
the acquisition of information and knowledge in the context of new, microcontent-based
media technologies, practices, and environments. We are continuously striving to
improve the format of the conference and increase the positive outcome for participants.

We are attempting to create a different kind of conference by

• blending different perspectives, putting a sharp focus on the intersection and

interaction of technologies, markets, information design/architecture, and the
Humanities;

• not restricting participation to a particular in-group or network, but bringing

together international experts and leaders from different fields: teachers,
educators, and learning technologists; entrepreneurs in the field of Web 2.0 and
the Mobile Web; academic scholars, consultants, and corporate practitioners;
information architects and designers; experts in mobile data services…

• keeping the conference smaller-sized (ca. 100 participants), which allows for
intensive and focused discussions instead of a multitude of different sessions
and frontal presentations;
• inviting participants from many corners of the world, from Western and Eastern
Europe, USA, Canada – earlier conferences have even included participants
from Southeast Asia and Japan.
6 Foreword & Introduction: Peter A. Bruck

Partners and friends

The 2008 Conference is also special thanks to the efforts of Intel Education, joining us
for the third time as Head Sponsor of ML08. Intel demonstrates that it views technology
as a means to put learning at users’ fingertips. “Classroom Without Walls” denotes the
Intel® Education Initiative aiming to close the digital gap and assist pupils and teachers
in the use of cutting-edge technology. One of the Initiative’s key functions is to support
capacity building in many different countries around the world.

I especially welcome and thank Martina Roth for joining me as Conference Chair for
Microlearning 2008 for a second year in a row.

We hope that this book and the conference will be useful to you in your endeavours in
using technology to make learning simpler and more effective.

May 2008, Salzburg/Innsbruck

Prof. Dr. Peter A. Bruck Ph.D.

General Manager

Research Studios Austria

 Welcome to Microlearning 2008
(Foreword)

Martina A. Roth
Director Global Education Strategy, Intel Corporation (Germany)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As a Conference Chair, it is my great pleasure to once again have the opportunity to

open this conference in Innsbruck. For the 4th time, this Microlearning Conference is a
unique platform for international experts and practitioners from diverse fields to discuss
the latest developments in digital technologies and practices stimulated by microcontent.
This year’s theme – Microlearning & Capacity Building – is especially challenging, as
Capacity Building is really about empowering people (individuals, organizations,
societies) to keep up with the global Knowledge Society, ideally through the use of
Internet-based and mobile ICT.

With new technologies and new media, from laptops to Internet-enabled mobile devices,
“information and communication” is no longer a technical problem to be dealt with by IT
engineering departments. When the so-called “Web 2.0” hit the mainstream, ICT became
usable human information and communication. This is an incredible opportunity.
However, it is important to understand that these information and communication
processes are not just an extension of face-to-face or paper-based scenarios. Digital
technology both offers and requires new cultural forms, and new cultural practices. This
is what this conference is all about, and this is the challenge that Intel® Education has
now been addressing for decades.

We cannot afford 21st century students being taught using 20th century methods in 19th
century classrooms. As a driving force for the digital transformation sweeping the globe,
Intel® Education is uniquely positioned to help governments transform and enhance their
teacher professional development efforts through its Intel® Teach Program. According to
a 2006 World Bank survey on Information and Communication for Development, policy-
makers found that connecting schools to ICT constitutes one of the top e-strategies to
help promote economic growth and reduce poverty.

One way to describe the new state of the global “digital ecosystem” is to see it as a shift
towards “microinformation”. Information and knowledge are no longer stored within
8 Foreword: Martina A. Roth

archives, silos, or expert’s minds, they are emerging between the participants of a large
networked system in which small bits, chunks and pieces of information are circulating.
This is the environment tomorrow’s learners and teachers will have to adapt to. This
conference is addressing the resulting problems and opportunities. Online Communities
of Practice are but one example.

Microlearning2008 is quite a unique event, as it bundles a variety of interests,

perspectives and experiences. It is an open, trans-disciplinary space for the circulation of
new ideas – a small-scale representation of the 21st century Knowledge Society we want
to, and indeed need to, achieve. As a Conference Chair, I would like to wish us a very
successful and interesting event, and I hope that you will benefit from it as much as I will.

May 2008, Feldkirchen bei München

Dr. Martina A. Roth

Director Global Education Strategy

Intel Corporation
 The Shift Towards Microinformation
(Foreword)

Martin Lindner
Research Studios Austria Forschungsgesellschaft
Studio MicroLearning and Information Environments
(Austria, Germany)

„Think Globally, Act Locally“ - this phrase had been coined by pioneer ecologists 40
years ago, but fits very well for Information and Communication technologies too. We are
seeing an unprecedented change in the global and local „ecosystem“, as digital
information and knowledge is circulating faster and becoming shorter, smaller, and more.
Microlearning and microinformation are phenomenona which became more and more
important since we coined the terms and prepared the field with the first Microlearning
conference, back in 2005.

Since then, numerous experts, visionaries, practitioners and entrepreneurs have come to
Tyrol, a region renowned for its beauty and touristic attraction, to discuss the most
innovative technologies and practices of the future digital life- and workstyles. This fits
surprisingly well, because Information and Communication Technologies are indeed an
invisible and clean resource for dynamizing innovative developments – not only in the
technical and economic but also in the cultural field.

The Research Studio Austria MicroLearning and Information Environments, organizer of

the conference, has the mission to conduct „Application-led Research” focusing on new
ways and new strategies to organize information, knowledge and learning matter. The
name reflects the fact that for digital Information Workers learning has transcended the
walled gardens and silos of traditional training and schooling. In the last year, we have
been seeing a surprisingly broad adoption of the “Web 2.0 meme” – including German-
speaking countries which generally seem to be adapting differently to digital innovations.

“Web 2.0” is generally identified with new spontaneous forms of online communication
leading to some “user-generated content”. And often this is just abbreviated to “Blogs
and Wikis”. The “microcontent” approach broadens significantly this understanding of
new Web technologies and practices. In our perspective, the new digital environment is
not “made of people” in the first place but made of microcontent – small pieces loosely
joined, in a permanent state of flux and of circulation.
10 Foreword: Martin Lindner

This approach opens new ways for modeling learning and information processes: In
microinformation environments, microcontent flows have to be designed that match the
fundamentally different attention patterns of those working with digital information and
knowledge. The importance of this challenge will even increase as networked media get
more ubiquituous, more mainstream, and inevitably more “micro”.

The papers accepted for this volume of Proceedings give a comprehensive introduction
to the foundations and exemplary applications of microcontent-based capacity building.
The contributions indeed show that, with the Microlearning conference series, Austria
and the Tyrolean Inn valley region are catching some glimpse of a „Silicon Valley spirit“.
To meet the challenges of the digital Knowledge Society, it will have to be nurtured.
 Web 2.0 – E-learning 2.0 –
Quality 2.0?
(Introduction)

Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany)

Abstract: What constitutes the new, innovative elements that are commonly referred to as Web 2.0
and e-Learning 2.0? Do these developments have consequences on the way in which we save,
manage, and develop quality in e-learning? These questions have initiated many debates
surrounding the term e-Learning 2.0. The issue of quality was already a hot topic in the era of E-
Learning 1.0. In the era of E-Learning 2.0, it is fraught with even greater insecurity. The present
contribution explores these questions. It is divided into three segments; it initially describes what E-
Learning 2.0 is, which Web 2.0 foundations it is built on, and what aspects are changing. In a
second step, the essay points out the consequences that arise for quality development in the e-
learning sector. Thirdly, the essay describes several exemplary approaches and gives practical
suggestions for the manner in which quality development must evolve.

1 Introduction

"The idea is that learning is not based on objects and contents that are stored, as though
in a library. Rather, the idea is that learning is like a utility - like water or electricity - that
flows in a network or a grip that we tap into when we want." (Stephen Downes 2007)

Imagine downloading a lecture podcast from the seminar web site in the morning,
playing it in an MP3 player, participating in an online exam preparation session with an
international group of students in the afternoon, and logging into the virtual world of
Second Life in the evening, in order to take part in a seminar workshop on the
aforementioned lecture material. This is what daily life is beginning to look like for many
students. In the corporate world, such online training courses are also no longer a dim
future prospect, having already become reality for an increasing number of employees.
Internet-based teaching and -learning is being revolutionized. The term “E-Learning 2.0”
is an umbrella term for activities involving the use of internet tools such as blogs, wikis or
podcasts for teaching and learning purposes. Learners can create new contents and
12 Indroduction: Ulf-Daniel Ehlers

exchange ideas via networks such as the video platform YouTube

(http://www.youtube.com).

In many places, reality continues to look different. In such scenarios, e-learning merely
consists of uploading seminar material onto an online learning platform. Kerres calls
such learning platforms “Internet islands” (Kerres 2006), which may evolve into “gates”
via E-Learning 2.0. Such gates offer access to the entire educational realm of the
Internet, enabling users to find, edit, and share content with other users. According to
this viewpoint, the Internet itself becomes the learning platform. Stephen Downes, the
creator of the term “E-Learning 2.0”, describes it in terms such as “learner-centered”,
“immersive learning”, “connected learning”, “game-based learning”, “workflow (informal)
learning”, and “mobile learning”. He describes a change from standardized learning
environments to “Personal Learning Environments” (Downes 2007). But what does the
term truly encompass? What constitutes the new, innovative elements that are referred
to as Web 2.0 (Tim O`Reilly 2004/5) and E-Learning 2.0? And, in particular, do these
developments have consequences on the way in which we save, manage, and develop
quality in e-learning? If yes, do we need new approaches and concepts in order to
secure and optimize the quality of E-Learning 2.0 in the future? These questions have
initiated many debates surrounding the term e-Learning 2.0. The issue of quality was
already a hot topic in the era of E-Learning 1.0. In the era of E-Learning 2.0, it is fraught
with even greater insecurity.

2. New Quality for New Learning?

The importance of quality development for education and e-learning is increasing. This
involves assessment of learning matter and –processes, as well as certification and
accreditation of programs and institutions. Quality management aims to define
comprehensive organisational processes and to specify quality indicators in institutions
of education. Quality assurance determines whether previously stipulated quality
standards are actually adhered to. Quality control is aimed at detecting and preventing
errors. But what is the situation regarding E-Learning 2.0 learning scenarios, in particular
in cases where courseware is not specified in advance, and learning processes may be
extremely diverse and irregular, due to following individual learning patterns? What about
educational processes which take place outside of formal institutes of education and
beyond formal curricula? Who determines the quality of such learning scenarios, which
topics can be qualitatively assessed at all, and which methods can be employed to
improve quality?

For learners involved in E-Learning 2.0, a strong sense of autonomy is both a

requirement and a goal. Learners are self-regulated to a high degree; learning takes
place everywhere, not just in institutions; learning lasts a lifetime and consists of many
Web 2.0 – E-learning 2.0 – Quality 2.0? 13

episodes; learning takes place in learning communities and social networks, using social
software and individually customized content. Quality assurance and –development in
such learning scenarios must therefore focus on individual learning processes and on
the performance displayed. It is primarily a question of the learner’s perspective and less
about the organizational processes, and/or the so-called input factors. Only to a lesser
degree does quality assessment employ classic methods of expert and standard-based
quality management, quality assurance, or quality control. Instead, it primarily employs
participatory methods and responsive designs. The objective is to obtain an
individualized assessment that is based on the learning process. Table 1 illustrates the
various subjects addressed by quality assessment in terms of E-Learning 2.0.

E-Learning 1.0 E-Learning 2.0

Quality is assessed by experts Quality is assessed by learners and peers

Learning platform Personal Learning Environment

Content User-created content

Curriculum Learning diaries/e-portfolios

Course syllabus Communication

Availability of tutors Interaction

Multimedia (Interactivity) Social networks and communities of

practice

Appropriation process Participation process

Table 1: Various conditions and subjects of quality assessment

It must be stated that E-Learning 2.0 does not require novel philosophies or quality
development methods – such as e.g. a new and totally modified quality philosophy along
the same lines as the second generation of educational quality. However, changes in
general conditions and contexts must be taken into consideration. In order to
accommodate such changes in context, the quality development process must include
other questions, assess other subjects, apply other quality criteria, and draw on specific
methods of quality assurance, –improvement, and –development. In sum, the role of
quality development is changing. In many of the more traditional learning scenarios,
14 Indroduction: Ulf-Daniel Ehlers

quality development still comprises examination and quality control. By contrast, in E-

Learning 2.0 scenarios, the role of quality development increasingly facilitates learning
progress. Learning methods and quality development are moving closer together.
Methods such as feedback, reflection, and recommender mechanisms are gaining
importance. The following paragraphs list distinct conditions which must be taken in to
consideration in quality development for E-Learning 2.0 scenarios:

• From reception to participation: The learning metaphor is changing. In E-

Learning 2.0, quality is no longer as strongly tied to the evaluation of a predefined
learning environment or learning matter produced by experts. Active participation,
not reception, is in the spotlight, i.e. the question, to which extent do learning
scenarios motivate users to create individual, personal learning environments, to
compile customized learning matter and to share it with others.

• From control to reflection: Quality development for E-Learning 2.0 scenarios

shifts the focus from a focal point of conformity to one of reflecting on the learning
process. Learners are supported in reflecting on, discerning, and implementing
their own learning progress, educational strategies, needs etc. Furthermore, they
are encouraged to critically reflect on the contribution of educational media
concerning these aspects. The goal is to attain a personally ideal configuration of
educational media and –strategies, which is then developed further upon
independent reflection.

• From a focus on products and processes to performance- and competence:

The learning applications and provider processes are of less importance to quality
development. Quality development focuses on the performance of learners, the
learning products they create, as well as i.a. their learning progress (such as e.g.
e-portfolios), which line their path towards personal empowerment.

• From educational planning for learners to educational planning by learners:

Often, attempts are made to obtain high-quality learning scenarios through carefully
analysing educational needs, including a comprehensive conceptual phase,
designing learning matter to include feedback loops and development processes,
and evaluating learning processes and outcomes. In E-Learning 2.0 scenarios,
many of these processes are shifted from the program provider to the learner.
Quality planning must thus support learners in their ability to develop quality using
reflection, to facilitate learning-oriented evaluation, and to provide learners with the
necessary tools to develop quality according to their own personal learning
environment.

• From the recipient to the developer of learning matter: To discern how

courseware and media properties can influence the learning process in the most
positive manner, quality assessment in E-Learning 2.0 scenarios leaves behind the
logic of impact research. The assessment does not focus on learning processes
Web 2.0 – E-learning 2.0 – Quality 2.0? 15

that take place in a uniform learning scenario. Rather, the main focus lies on
processes of development and flexible usage, as well as validation processes via
social exchanges with other learners.

• From the LMS “learning island” to the Internet as a learning environment:

Kerres (2006) points out that Learning Management Systems function like an
island, representing a self-contained area within the vast expanse of the WWW
ocean. E-Learning 2.0 scenarios view LMS are a mere starting point and signpost
for one’s own search for and usage of Internet content, as well as for adapting
content and linking it with tools that can be flexibly arranged into personal learning
portals. Quality assessment thus no longer focuses on LMS material but rather on
the learning products and the learning processes documented in e-portfolios, if
applicable.

• From exams to performance: Learning progress and performance can be

determined through more than just examinations. They can also be deduced
particularly well from the learning curves documented in portfolios (e.g. in wikis or
weblogs), as well as learning products and social interactions.

References

Downes, S. (2007): E-Learning 2.0. In development.

URL: http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/elearning-20-in-development

O’ Reily, T. (2005): What is Web 2.0?

URL: http://www.oreilly.de/artikel/web20.html

Kerres, M. (2006): Potenziale von Web 2.0 nutzen. In: Andreas Hohenstein & Karl
Wilbers (Hrsg.) Handbuch E-Learning, München: DWD – vorläufige Fassung, 5.
August 2006.

URL: http://mediendidaktik.uni-duisburg-essen.de/files/web20-a.pdf (Accessed

10/20/2006)
 Unbundling Online Educational Resources
(Paper)

Judy Breck
Learn Nodes (USA)

Abstract: In post Web 2.0, unbundling online educational resources allows the micro pieces that
become availble to function as nodes in emergent patterns of networked meaning in cognitive
context. Findability tools are key unbundlers of online educational resources. The mobile
educational resources ecology must be interoperable with the open Net so that unbundled cognitive
patterning seamlessly includes the mobile platform.

1 Introduction

When I visit Innsbruck for Microlearning 2008, I will be for the first time in the Alps of
Austria. As I begin to enjoy Innsbruck, there will be some new pieces of knowledge that
will quickly enter my mind: how Innsbruck is a skiing center, the character of the town,
and echoes of the Habsburgs. The mountain setting will undoubtedly stir context in my
mind built up in my youth spent in the Rocky Mountains of West Texas and New Mexico.
Many connections will link up in my head and form cognitive patterns.

Some of the connections will be obvious ones like comparing the height and vegetation
of the Alps and Rockies and, I would guess, noticing that skiers are a lot alike wherever
they are. I am sure the character of the town will seem ancient compared to any town in
the American West. It will be a natural connection for me to think about my great-
grandfather who built a general store in 1887 in the brand new town of Los Cerrillos,
New Mexico (now a ghost town). In his day, Innsbruck was already very old with
sophisticated, civilized beauty that could not be approached in the rough and tumble 19th
century American West.

If I visit the cenotaph of Maximilian I in Innsbruck, his death date, 1519, may prompt my
thoughts to connect to Hernan Cortez who conquered Mexico for Spain the same year.
Musings from that mental link to Spanish Mexico may connect patterns in my mind that
contrast the roughly built stone school in Figure 1 with the magnificence of 19th century
Innsbruck. Micro pieces of knowledge — old and new — will freely link into patterns
within my thoughts. The patterns will reflect meaning. The shape of the patterns will be
Unbundling Online Educational Resources 17

affected by the context of thoughts constructed over my lifetime. The excitement of

learning and thinking about Innsbruck will occur in the network ecology of my mind.

As we move through and beyond the Web 2.0 interlude in the development of the Net,
we are watching the virtual learning become an ecology of meaning that is — at least
roughly — like how we experience micro pieces of knowledge in our minds. The
mechanism is simple: micro knowledge pieces act as nodes that link within the open Net
ecology to form patterns of meaning our minds can explore.

Knowledge bundled for conveyance

Figure 1 is a photograph taken in around 1895 of the students and their teacher,
Professor Niles, at the school in Los Cerrillos, New Mexico (Ferguson, 1987). The school
was built by my great-grandfather whose oldest daughter is the girl at the upper left, near
the “X.” Knowledge that these students would receive from something as remote to their
lives and culture as Innsbruck could come to them from the knowledge ecology of their
teacher’s memory. Other sources for information about Innsbruck might be available
within a bundle such as a book owned by someone in the town. Today kids in both
places carry knowledge of the other’s town in their pockets via their mobiles.

Figure 1: Los Cerrilos, New Mexico school, ca. 1895. The teacher (front row center) is
Professor Niles.

Although school boys and girls today in both New Mexico and Austria carry devices
capable of mirroring a lot about both Los Cerrillos and Innsbruck, it is very unlikely that
they will encounter that knowledge at school because school knowledge still comes in
bundles created by the education industry. Before the networked era, bundling was a
18 Foundations and Basics: Judy Breck

powerful way to convey knowledge for learning. Now bundling, as it remains the habit
and method of schooling, is a major roadblock to online learning.

At the time the school picture was taken, the concept was a century into the future of
clicking a screen that would provide a pattern of information about a subject like
Innsbruck directly to students as a micro subject in a global knowledge commons.
Innsbruck knowledge would have been findable back then in some sort of bundle, of the
type in this definition of “bundle”: a number of things fastened together into a mass or
bunch convenient for handling or conveyance (Webster’s Dictionary, 2002).

What a teacher knows continues to be a sort of bundle that takes knowledge to students.
For the purpose of educating today, knowledge is bundled in many other ways. Lesson
plans bundle the knowledge to be taught for the purpose of unbundling it in a pre-set
sequence in a class. Textbooks bundle by topic and student grade. Curricula bundle
knowledge by often elaborate pedagogical theories and methods. Knowledge is bundled
according to the expected ability of students to learn depending on their ages,
backgrounds, gifts, and special needs. Knowledge is bundled by cultures, with the goal
of assuring that the next generation is oriented to the thinking of their elders.

Unbundling releases micro pieces of knowledge into the open Net

In the early years of the Net — from the mid-1990s into the current Web 2.0 interlude —
the education sector has put a lot of bundled knowledge online. Traditional analog
bundles have been digitized into online distance courses and courseware, lesson plans,
textbooks, and curricula. These materials are usually bundled by grade level and often
by culture. Just as they were to the school boys and girls of Los Cerrillos and Innsbruck
in the 19th century, micro pieces of knowledge are conveyed inside of these bundles.

The reason educational materials were bundled in the first place — back in the time of
Professor Niles, and long before and since — was to make it possible to convey the
knowledge the bundles contained over space and time. Today, billions of bundling
dollars are spent every year making and delivering textbooks into the hands of students
individually, so they can use them on their own time — and across towns, regions, and
countries.

The Net is eliminating the time and space justifications for bundling knowledge in
textbooks and the like. But unbundling is being pushed and demanded by a completely
different set of network forces that the education establishment is only beginning to
notice. Unbundling occurs spontaneously in a network. Whereas repositioning analog
bundles has been clumsy, unbundling is natural and sweet.

Unbundling gives us a much needed new word in the 21st century education vocabulary.
In April 2008, the word was used in an opinion piece in the New York Times to report
that: “A bill pending in Congress would require publishers to sell ‘unbundled’ versions of
Unbundling Online Educational Resources 19

the books — minus the pricey add-ons.” (New York Times, 2008). This is a glimpse into
the pushing under way for education materials to unbundle. That natural pressure is not
limited to educational materials; it is changing all online content bundling in the open Net.
Education is late in responding to natural network unbundling.

An article called The Urge to Unbundle (Mannes, 2005), posted in February 2005 on a
business conversation blog called FastCompany.com includes these early highlights of
the trend:

…a la carte pricing is creeping into all sorts of everyday transactions that

traditionally have bundled stuff together. We've now seen the music,
brokerage, and real-estate businesses flirt with – or submit to – itemization…
law firms are breaking out charges for partners and associates on their bills.
Lawmakers ask cable operators why viewers can't just subscribe to their
favorite channels rather than a 70-channel package… Expect more of the
same – in part because technology is forcing it… knowledgeable
purchasers… "will reject bundles that are not the right mix from their point of
view. And they will search for other sellers who allow them the option of
picking and choosing."

Nicholas Carr has a chapter called “The Great Unbundling” in his book The Big Switch
(Carr, 2008), a top seller in the latest wave of books about the Internet. Carr, who writes
for the Harvard Business Review and other financial publications, uses this word from
economics that becomes wonderfully apt for what happens when many kinds of content
arrive on the Net: they unbundle. He explains in The Big Switch (p. 153) the unbundling
that happens when newspapers are put online:

The publisher’s goal [in print] is to make the entire package as attractive as
possible to a broad set of readers and advertisers. The newspaper as a whole
is what matters, and as a product it’s worth more than the sum of its parts.
When a newspaper moves online, the bundle falls apart. Readers don’t flip
through a mix of stories, advertisements, and other bits of content. They go
directly to a particular story that interests them, often ignoring everything else.

Education swims against the nature of the Net unless it allows its online resources not
only to be open, but also to unbundle. For example, a study course or curriculum is a
bundle online, often having inside it several bundled lessons, each of which lessons
bundles a number of micro pieces of knowledge, that are in turn bundles of webpages,
images, and videos. In building bundles of this sort pedagogues expect online users to
work through their bundles as planned, obediently learning along a path they have
designed. Print publishers — and folks from the sectors highlighted in the FastCompany
excerpt — will all tell them that something else altogether actually happens. The users
rip into the bundle to find and use the micro pieces of their choice.
20 Foundations and Basics: Judy Breck

Of course the bundling of ideas for teaching and learning can be an effective way of
conveying knowledge. A well-followed lesson plan in a class setting is efficient and
effective for teaching. Learning a subject by reading a well written book about it is a
proven method. But in the open network ecology online, bundles tend to be ignored and
micro pieces within them are targeted and linked to.

Piles of rocks and patterns of meaning

Unbundling of educational resources in the open Net allows micro pieces of knowledge
that had been fastened together in a bundle to become findable themselves separately
from other pieces in their bundle. Once that happens something else takes place that
hugely amplifies learning potential. The spectacular educational benefit of unfastening
micro pieces of cognitive stuff into the open network ecology of the Net is that their
release lets those pieces connect meaningfully with any and every open piece online —
to participate simultaneously in as many cognitive patterns as occur whose meaning they
can enrich.

A pause here to think about types of micro pieces will be helpful, using an informal
metaphor instead of network theory. In economic theory, unbundling means selling the
different parts of a package separately. Thus instead of selling together a full
photography set-up with all accessories, you would unbundle to sell the camera, flash
unit, and tripod separately. For educational unbundling, we can think of taking apart a
curriculum on the history of New Mexico setting loose micro pieces like the photograph
of the school in of Los Cerrillos. I have, as an illustration, created such a micro piece that
is a blog post called Learn Node: Los Cerrillos, New Mexico school at the time the town
flourished (Brecka, 2008).

Economists can deal with the sales numbers for micro pieces by piling them up like a
bunch or rocks, scaling quantity up or down. Unbundling the photography set-up being
sold makes it possible to scale its parts separately — to have separate piles of cameras,
flash units, and tripods. It is not pile-of-rocks-scaling that makes unbundling of the micro
pieces of knowledge inside an online curriculum a valuable addition to global learning.
The quality of patterns outside of a bundle are improved when individual micro pieces
within the bundle begin to link with related pieces from sources that have nothing
whatsoever to do with the bundle from which the micro piece is loosed. The example Los
Cerrillos blog post is already a node linking to family records, a tourism history, and a
state park history. As the blog post is found by others interested in Los Cerrillos, a link to
the post will enrich more distant nodes and patterns.

Thus, the big deal for education when micro pieces of knowledge are unbundled is that
the micro pieces can be linked to limitless other pieces that were not in the bundle. The
micro pieces do not form piles, like rocks. They link organically with other online micro
pieces to add quality to patterns of meaning. Because the nodes that the micro pieces
Unbundling Online Educational Resources 21

form have no limit to the number of other nodes to which they can link, releasing a micro
piece that becomes a respected node for learning can enrich many patterns.

To conclude this brief introduction of unbundling for open educational resources, the
following are two of the important implications educators need to explore and develop.

2. The key role of findability

For existent and future online courses, curricula, lesson plans, and other pedagogical
bundles that include micro pieces of knowledge, unbundling does not need to be a
disruptive process. The bundles can remain and can be used for their original
instructional purposes.

Unbundling does not require dismantling — or even building separate micro pieces to
duplicate those inside the bundle. The micro pieces in the bundle of knowledge just need
to be made findable online. Each micro piece needs to be given its own URL, keywords,
tags, and links to related nodes. The SEO people would say to give each micro piece
juice by linking to it from respected webpages of related content. Educators can use a
pallet of new findability tools from the commercial search engine optimization
enterprises. These tools modify online content so that it emerges on cue, and emerges
linked to related ideas in a network of context. The emergent patterns are micro pieces
linked to one another to form networked meaning in cognitive context.

The concept educators have had of teaching teachers and students to search for quality
learning materials in the enormity and complexity of the Net is undergoing remarkable
change in areas that are coming under the umbrella of findability. I have written about
the history and elements of findability at learnodes.com (Breckb, 2008). As we move
beyond the Web 2.0 interlude, network laws are exerting functions and powers we are
only beginning to understand. None of these is more exciting and hopeful than findability.
Peter Morville writes in his groundbreaking book Ambient Findability (Peter Morville,
2005):

Ambient findability describes a fast emerging world where we can find anyone
or anything from anywhere at anytime. We’re not there yet, but we’re headed
in the right direction. Information is in the air, literally. And it changes our
minds, physically. Most importantly, findability invests freedom in the
individual. As the Web challenges mass media with the media of the masses,
we will enjoy an unprecedented ability to select our sources and choose our
news. In my opinion, findability is going ambient, just in time.
22 Foundations and Basics: Judy Breck

3. The interoperability of the mobile educational resources ecology

The mobile educational resources ecology must be interoperable with the open Net so
that unbundled cognitive patterning seamlessly includes the mobile platform.

In the unbundled findable Net learning ecology that is emerging beyond Web 2.0,
micro pieces of knowledge must be open in the Net, unbundled, findable, and
linkable. If any of these requirements are missing, patterns of meaning among
micro nodes cannot form. Learning in this ecology from a mobile device requires
access to the open Net with sufficient interoperability to use the content of patterns
of micro links.

As the use of mobile learning increases, equality of opportunity for learning requires
the full open Net be useable on mobile devices. Partial or impaired access to the
network patterning powers of the Net has the same kind of negative effect on
learning resources as bundling does: both keep learners from experiencing open
cognitive linking online.

References

Ferguson, John A. "Jack". “The Early Years: Some Truths and Legends of The North
Clan”, North Centennial, 1987.

URL:
http://www.judybreck.com/breck_north_family/centennial/pages_1987_book/centen
nial_page4.html (accessed May 2008)

"bundle.", Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster,

2002.

URL:
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (accessed May 2008)

New York Times, “That Book Costs How Much?” April 25, 2008.

URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25fri4.html (accessed May 2008)

Mannes, George. “The Urge To Unbundle”, FastCompany.com, Issue 91, February

2005.
Unbundling Online Educational Resources 23

URL:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/91/open_essay.html?page=0%2C0
(accessed May 2008)

Carr, Nicholas. The Big Switch: Rewiring the World from Edison to Google. W.W. Norton,
New York, 2008.

Brecka, Judy. “Los Cerrillos, New Mexico school at the time the town flourished”, Learn
Nodes, May 13, 2008.

URL:
http://www.learnodes.com/2008/05/13/learn-node-los-cerrillos-new-mexico-at-the-
time-the-town-flourished/ (accessed May 2008)

Breckb, Judy. “Findability Is Moving Education to the Net, and 7 elements of edu
resources findability”, Learn Nodes.

URL:
http://www.learnodes.com/findability/findabilityAnimation.html (accessed May 2008)

Peter Morville, Ambient Findability. O’Reilly, 2005, pp. 4-6.

 “Informal E-learning” – What Does it Mean?
(Paper)

Matthias Rohs
E-Learning Center, University of Zurich (Switzerland)

Abstract: Although informal learning is an old-fashioned term in the pedagogical domain, it has
become increasingly popular in the past few years through increased discussion. As a result of this
debate, the term has lost conciseness and threatens to become an empty buzzword for political and
managerial speeches. Therefore, the discussion on informal learning in the field of e-learning is
threatened with failure even before it has truly started. This paper will give a short overview of the
roots of informal learning and present the results of an expert survey on “informal e-learning” as a
contribution to further discussion in this field.

1. Introduction

Since the 1990s, public dialogue on informal learning in all fields of education has
increased. The term has been picked up within the context of e-learning and the debate
on Web 2.0, social software, mobile learning and personal learning environments (e.g.
Attwell, 2007; Cross, 2007a). The discussion on informal learning in the field of e-
learning has until now been dominated by a mixed use of terminology and only a few
attempts have been made to create a definition of the term (Hauske & Bendel 2007).
Obviously, what is missing is a debate on what this term or phenomenon is and what it
could be, respectively.

There are three ways to come to a definition of a term (Zürcher 2007, pp 37-44):

1) Top-down definition by an authority: In the context of informal learning, the

European Union’s Memorandum of lifelong learning (Commission of the
European Communities 2000, p. 8) defined three categories of learning
activities: informal-, non-formal- and formal learning. Although this definition
has been circulated widely, it is not in common use.

2) Etymological definition: The second way to define a term is by its etymological

meaning. Formal denotes “concerning the form”. By contrast, the prefix “in” or
“non” means “without any form”. Based on this understanding, non-formal and
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 25

informal are the same. However, this approach generally does not lead to a
differentiated definition of formal and informal learning.

3) Use in practice: According to Wittgensteins Theory of Use

(Gebrauchstheorie), the meaning of a word arises from its use in a language.

Following the last definition, it is necessary to explore in which way informal learning is
used, as well as its context and the meaning associated with the term. This does not
mean finding one precise definition of “informal e-learning”. However, the discussion
requires reflection on what it means when the term informal learning is used in the
context of e-learning, as well as highlighting of the different perspectives. This will help to
gain a better understanding of the theoretical perspectives present in the discussion and
will lead to more practical solutions in the future.

To this end, a small survey was conducted with experts on informal learning & e-learning
in order to get a better idea of their understanding of “informal e-learning”. The survey
focused on experts in higher education.

The results of this survey must be viewed within the context of the broader discussion on
informal learning. For this reason, this paper begins with three short chapters concerning
the background of the discussion, the reason for the increasing importance of informal
learning, and some characteristics of informal learning.

2. What is the background of the discussion?

I would first like to review the roots of informal learning. Retrospectively, it is easier to
understand which criteria were used to describe informal learning and why they were
used. I will begin with a general perspective and later proceed to examine e-learning in a
more focused manner.

The term informal learning first appeared within the context of schooling. John Dewey
(1997/1916), an American philosopher and educator, used the term at the beginning of
the 20th Century to describe a “natural” learning process outside of school. In his eyes,
informal learning constitutes the basic mode of learning which can be facilitated by
formal education. It can be characterised as an implicit accommodation of experiences
and knowledge through playing with or watching somebody without any learning
purpose. Collaboration and communication are thus essential prerequisites for this type
of learning.

The term informal learning thus has its roots in the differences between school education
and out-of-school education. This context characterised the discussion on informal
learning for a long time. Since the 1960s, informal learning has been discussed more
26 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

widely; not only within the context of schooling, but also in the field of adult education
(Tough 1967) and education in developing countries. The debate gained additional
attention through the OECD’s Faure-Report (Faure 1973), which pointed out the
importance of informal education. The first research projects dealing with informal
learning were initiated within this context. Prominent American and Canadian studies on
informal learning (e.g. Watkins & Marsik 1990, Livingstone 2000) are cited particularly
often.

Furthermore, discussion on informal learning has taken place all over the world,
especially in the field of further- and school education, and increasingly in all fields of
learning. The topic was also picked up in the field of e-learning. However, the debate
focuses on two perspectives: on the one hand, it is tied to Web 2.0, social software and
mobile learning (e. g. Naismith et al., 2004; Jones et al. 2006) and on the other hand, it is
viewed within the broader perspective of a technologically enriched learning environment
(e.g. Conole et al. 2006, Creanor et al. 2006).

3. Why is informal learning important?

The attractiveness of informal learning is not based on a new trend. Naturally, it is

surrounded by a growing hype, but there are also valid reasons why informal learning is
receiving so much attention. On the one hand, the past decade has shown that formal
learning cannot solve the learning demands of the future. There is a rising need for just-
in-time information and practical knowledge. However, formal training requires time to
plan and organise courses, which often renders it too slow to be useful. On the other
hand, informal learning exhibits characteristics that are very important for today’s
economies. In contrast to formal learning, informal learning is not only faster and more
deeply rooted in all areas of life; it is also linked to experience and implicit knowledge.
This knowledge is essential for the effectuation of complex social and technical tasks,
which are becoming more and more typical for our economy. This does not mean that
we no longer need formal education. It means that formal and informal education are
complementary types of learning. Formal learning forms the basis for understanding
complex coherences, while informal learning provides the basis for understanding and
critically reflecting on theory. Thus, formal learning is necessary to gain competences for
effective informal learning and informal learning helps to bridge the gap between theory
and practice. Only the combination of formal and informal learning ultimately leads to
operational competence (Rohs, 2007).

There are many other reasons for the importance of informal learning from an
economical, political, technical and pedagogical viewpoint (Zürcher 2007), but it is
needless to list them all at this point.
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 27

4. What does informal learning mean?

The first characteristic of informal learning is that it takes place outside of school and
educational institutions, respectively. This definition has its roots in the differentiation
between in-classroom and non-school-related education. The following paragraphs
specify several other criteria; however, all of them represent but one perspective on the
term and are by themselves insufficient to determine whether a learning process is
formal or informal. These criteria include:

• Institutional context: Many definitions of informal learning focus on the context

of learning. The learning environment thus determines the nature of the learning
process (Straka 2000). It is known that informal learning may also take place in
formal learning environments such as schools. A popular example is the
“hidden curriculum”, which contains learning objectives not intended by the
institution.

• Certification: Informal learning is often characterised as “non-certified learning”.

However, considerable efforts are underway (particularly in Europe) to establish
structures for the recognition and validation of informal learning (e.g. Colardyn &
Bjornavold 2005)

• Intention: Informal learning is also characterised by the learning intent. The aim
of informal learning isn’t to acquire knowledge but to solve a problem or to
answer a question (for oneself or others) (Dohmen 2001).

• Awareness: As a consequence of being problem-oriented, the process of

informal learning is often subconscious (Watkins & Marsick 1990).

• Learning outcomes: While the learning outcome of formal learning focuses on

theoretical knowledge, the learning objective of informal learning focuses on
know-how and is partly tacit (Dehnbostel 2001).

These are only some of the criteria used to define informal learning. Depending on the
point of view or area of research, additional criteria are important to define the term.
However, the differences between formal and informal learning must always be
understood as a continuum of formal and informal learning aspects (Stern & Sommerlad
1999, Cross 2007b, Rohs 2007).

To identify situations as “informal e-learning”, it is necessary to define criteria which are

useful to describe such situations. To initate steps in this direction, I have carried out an
expert survey. The method and results are summarised as follows.
28 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

5. Methodology

Past debates have shown that the definition of informal learning depends on the field in
which the term is used. The concept of what informal learning could be depends largely
on the context within which it is used. It is therefore necessary to get an idea of what the
e-learning community associates with the term (see Introduction). To explore the
community’s understanding of the term, I designed an online questionnaire with seven
open-ended questions.

The survey focused on the field of higher education. For this reason, the questionnaire
was sent to experts known for their focus on e-learning, informal learning and higher
education. Twenty-two of 48 questionnaire recipients1 responded (three of them received
the questionnaire in English). They describe themselves as experts in the field of e-
learning (20), informal learning (10) and higher education (7), partly specialising in
knowledge management, podcasting, social software or mobile learning.

The QDA software ATLASti was used to analyse the qualitative data. This software helps
to analyse data by creating codes and bundling them into categories. It supports data
analysis by following the process of theory-building via grounded theory as well as
question-oriented analysis.

The quality of the data renders it impossible to make general statements, but it does
provide a starting point for the discussion on the concept of “informal e-learning” as
perceived by experts in this field.

6. Findings

The results of the questions in the questionnaire are summarised as follows.

6.1 What is “informal e-learning”, in your point of view?

The first question addresses the individual understanding of informal learning (without
any restrictions). The answers focus on the following aspects of the learning environment
and related personal criteria:

a) Criteria of the learning environment

Applications/Services/Technologies: As mentioned in Chapter 4, the learning

environment constitutes an essential criterion for the definition. The use of applications,
services and technologies for learning purposes is a particular trait of “informal e-

1
The experts hail from Germany, USA, Great Britain, Austria and Switzerland.
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 29

learning” and is central to the definition. Thus, many answers focus on technical aspects,
e.g. technologies (“new learning technologies”, “Web 2.0”, “social software”), services
(“Google”), and applications (“Internet tools”). There is evidence that these technologies,
services, and applications are used for more than just learning but this does not exclude
e-learning software, which also supports informal learning.

No pedagogical environment: Furthermore, the informal learning environment is

compared to common definitions characterised by a lack of pedagogical structure.
Answers included phrases such as “informal contexts”, “no curriculum”, “not part of
formal educational programmes” and so on.

Situated: Last but not least, the learning process is described as situated. In this context,
what is probably meant is that the learning process is anchored in a certain situation.

Time: Such aspects are often added using time-related attributes, e.g.: everywhere,
every time, meaning that learning is embedded in all life activities and not associated
with special learning periods. This attribute is rarely used to define informal learning, but
in my estimation it is often included as an aspect of non-pedagogical environments.

Grades: A further criterion previously mentioned under certification was referred to using
the terms “not rated/no grades”, “no certification”.

b) Personal criteria:

Self-directed and motivated by personal need: Two core aspects of this category include
the autonomy of the learning process, i.e. being independent from all pedagogical
influences, and motivation based on a personal need or network featuring the same
interests.

Cooperative, dialog-oriented: One criterion mentioned often, without being part of the
standard definition of informal learning, is the cooperative learning process. This aspect
is important for all informal learning processes, but is seldom as emphasised as in the
field of informal learning.

In sum, most of the criteria are well-known in the traditional debate on informal learning.
Only two aspects are extraordinary. Firstly, the connection to technology and secondly,
the aspect of collaboration. Although John Dewey emphasises the collaborative aspect
of informal learning and it is also listed in Colley et al. (2003), this aspect had no
importance for most definitions of informal learning. Moreover, some aspects which are
distinctive of many definitions of informal learning, e.g. learning outcome, awareness,
role of the teacher, are missing.
30 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

6.2 Which applications, technologies and services are used for “informal e-
learning”?
The second question focused on the technological aspects of “informal e-learning”. As
previously mentioned, the differences may be classified into three categories, which I
would like to elaborate on at this point.

Applications: browser

Services: search engines (Google), social bookmarking (delicious), social networks

(facebook, XING, eduspaces.net), RSS

Content: Wikipedia, Youtube, micropublishing

Technologies: e-portfolios, wikis, podcasts, weblogs

Furthermore, respondents listed hardware that can be used in the manner of mobile
phones or PDAs.

Obviously, some respondents found it difficult to name the technologies, applications and
services which characteristise “informal e-learning” because they were bound to a
specific interest or need, e.g.:

• “From the broad range of ways the internet is used to support information
seeking, handling and management of information, communication,
collaboration, the development of social networks.”

• “Everything supporting personal knowledge management and enquiry”

• “In particular, everything supporting communication and collaboration”

• “All technologies supporting communication in learning contexts”

• “All technologies supporting attainment of knowledge”

• The third category does not connect informal learning with special applications,
services and technologies:

o “not connected to special technologies”

o “not concrete”

o “the Internet”

o “it makes no sense to name any”

The comment that “traditional” e-learning environments also support “informal e-learning”
activities is worth noting.
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 31

Altogether, it can be summarised that there are no explicit “informal” technologies,

applications or services for “informal e-learning”. However, some of them, in particular
those supporting collaboration, seem more closely connected to informal learning
activities.

6.3 How would you describe the differences between formal and “informal e-
learning”?
The third question addresses the differences between formal and “informal e-learning”.
The differences concentrate on the following categories:

Technology:

• Personal Learning Environments (informal) vs. Learning Management Systems

(formal)2

Learning environment:

• Curricular structure vs. flexible organisation with optional learning resources

(informal) vs. curriculum with defined time scope
• Flexible structures regarding time and location (informal) vs. fixed structures
(formal)

• No assessment and certification (informal) vs. assessment and certification

(formal)

Individual attitudes:

• Autonomous (informal) vs. passive (formal)

• Learner initiative (informal) vs. teacher initiative (formal)

Aside from these contrasts, many answers underline the issue of juxtaposing informal
and formal learning at all, as informal learning may also take place in formal learning
environments. In a similar vein, Colley et al. (2003) argue: “Our analysis strongly
suggests that such attributes of formality and informality co-exist in all learning situations,
but the nature of that co-existence or, to put in in another way, the interrelationships
between informal and formal attributes vary from situation to situation.” (p. 65).

Some models show this grey area using both formal and informal aspects, e.g. the
aforementioned Stern & Sommmerlad 1999 (“Continuous Learning Continuum”) or Cross
2007b (“Informal Learning Mixer).

2
As previously argued, there is no special technology for informal e-learning.
32 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

6.4 What is the relevance of “informal e-learning” for teaching and learning in
higher education?
This is a central question, but difficult to answer, as there are only a few surveys which
provide an orientation. Thus, respondents’ personal “feelings” and experiences
constituted the primary backdrop for the answers. Nevertheless, the answers provide
clues as to why informal learning could be important.

Some responses were very rigid, such as: “informal learning is more important than
formal, so if higher ed(ucation) does not embrace it, higher ed will cease being relevant
in society”.

Other experts were more cautious in their opinions and referred to the methodological
problems of measuring the importance of informal learning. However, the overall tenor
stressed the major importance of informal learning.

The main issue lies in the fact that informal learning is mostly ignored within the context
of higher education. In consequence, this leads to a lack of competencies that are
developed by informal learning (especially key competencies), on the one hand. On the
other hand, informal learning continues to exist alongside university education as an
open digital learning network – much like a “shadow university”.

It can be summarised that the importance of informal learning is increasing, but is being
ignored by institutions of higher education. This appraisal of the situation must be
interpreted against the background that this view was expressed by people engaged in
the field of informal learning.

6.5 Is it possible to support “informal e-learning” in higher education (technical,

didactical)? If yes, how?
In line with the argument that informal learning is important for higher education, it is
necessary to ask whether “informal e-learning” can be promoted. The answer to this
question was a clear “yes”, but with some restrictions regarding the cultural aspects of
teaching and learning in higher education. These restrictions pertain to a “culture” or
“environment” of informal learning, supported by fostering openness and autonomy.

The responses also included several concrete methodological proposals, e.g.:

• “One-to-one mentoring models”

• “Introduction of e-portfolios”
• “Offering courses on how to learn and how to use informal learning”

• Credit points for informal learning

• Recognition of informal learning

“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 33

• Offering project- and dialog-oriented methods

• Continued reflection
• Individual platforms for students (PLEs)

Furthermore, one respondent noted: “The most important thing is to better understand
what students are doing”. This statement can be interpreted as a call for increased
“bottom-up” development of methods supporting informal learning.

6.6 Which connections between “informal e-learning” and formal e-learning in

higher education exist, according to your point of view (e.g. independent
preparation for lectures via the Internet)?
Depending on the understanding of the nature of “informal e-learning”, there are different
estimations of the connection between formal and “informal e-learning” within the context
of higher education. On the one hand, the connections obviously exist. Students learn
informally via the Internet and are also using this knowledge for their studies. In a similar
manner, their studies build on the students’ previous experiences in using technologies.
This is also seen as a normal part of studying. Furthermore, some institutions of higher
education have gained experience in the use of weblogs and wikis, which enable the
connection of formal and “informal e-learning”. Even so, in most cases, the degree of
conscious intent in supporting such connections remains uncertain. In fact, it may be
posited that this often takes place unconsciously, as expressed in the following
statement regarding the abovementioned connection of formal and informal e-learning:
“None really, tech-savvy students do this on their own, but many do not think of doing
this, or if they happen to they don't know they are doing it.” In the same vein, one
respondent answered the question by stating that there are “a thousand” connections,
but they have to be explored.

However, this does not mean that there are no conscious arrangements aiming to
facilitate the connection of formal and informal learning, e.g. the preparation and wrap-up
of virtual and physical courses through wikis and blogs. Nevertheless, I believe that this
situation is uncommon in higher education.

7. Summary and outlook

In answer to the question “Informal e-learning – what does it mean?”, it is impossible for
me to make a definite concluding statement. Nevertheless, the survey offers an
impression of the understanding of the term “informal e-learning” within the learning
community:
34 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

a) There is a more or less distinct comprehension of “informal e-learning” that can

be linked to practice.
b) There is no common understanding of or clear framework for “informal e-
learning”.
c) Although the individual interpretations accentuate different aspects, it is
possible to discern a broad consensus on the criteria discussed in the field of
informal learning.
d) Technical aspects and collaboration play a major role in “informal e-learning”.
Furthermore, it can be summarised that there is an informal, student-driven connection
of formal and informal learning in the field of higher education. The deliberate
arrangement of formal and informal learning by teachers/lecturers is not very
sophisticated, but there are a lot of ideas for the facilitation of informal learning within the
context of higher education.

In addition to these findings, the question remains, do we need the term “informal e-
learning”, or are there other terms covering this type of learning? Should there be further
discussions on different “learning environments” and different “learning resources”? On a
metalevel, it is my impression that “informal e-learning” could be a container including
aspects of several important movements within the context of e-learning and opening up
a new perspective on them. At the content level, open movements (e.g. open
educational resources, open software) and microcontent form a basis for “informal e-
learning”. At the technological level, on the one hand one can find more personalised
perspectives (e.g. PLEs) which are typical of “informal e-learning” and, on the other
hand, collaborative learning processes containing references to Web 2.0 and social
software.

References

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning

Papers, Vol. 2, Nr. 1.

Colardyn, D. & Bjornavold, J. (2005). The learning continuity: European inventory on

validation non-formal and informal learning. Cedefop Panorama series 117.
Luxembourg.

Colley, H., Hodkinson, P. & Malcolm J. (2003). Informality and formality in learning: a
report for the Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2003 (93 S.), URL:
http://www.hrm.strath.ac.uk/teaching/postgrad/classes/full-time-
41939/documents/formalandinformallearning.pdf. (accessed March, 2008).
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 35

Commission of the European Union (2000). A Memorandum of Lifelong Learining.

Brussels. URL: ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lll/life/memoen.pdf (accessed
March, 2008).

Conole, G. et al. (2006). JISC LXP - Student experiences of technologies. URL:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/lxpprojectfi
nalreportdec06.pdf (accessed March, 2008).

Creanor, L. (2006). L E X - The Learner Experience of e-Learning. Internet:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/LEX%20Final%20Report_August06.pdf
(accessed March, 2008).

Cross, J. (2007a). Informal Learning. Rediscovering the natural pathway that inspire
innovation and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Cross, J. (2007b). All or nothing, Informal learning blog. URL:

http://informl.com/2007/02/09/all-or-nothing/ (accessed March, 2008).

Dehnbostel, P. (2001), „Perspektiven für das Lernen in der Arbeit“, in:

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Qualifikations-Entwicklungs-Management (Hrsg.),
Kompetenzentwicklung 2001, pp. 53-93, Münster: Waxmann.

Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and Education (EA 1916). New York. Free Press.

Dohmen, G. (2001). Das informelle Lernen - Die internationale Erschließung einer bisher
vernachlässigten Grundform menschlichen Lernens für das lebenslange Lernen.
Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. URL:
http://www.bmbf.de/pub/das_informelle_lernen.pdf (accessed March 2008)

Faure, E. et al. (1972): Learning to Be: The World of Education Today and Tomorrow.
Paris: UNESCO.

Hauske, S. & Bendel. O. (2007). Informelles E-Learning. URL:

http://www.informelles-lernen.de/fileadmin/dateien/Informelles_Lernen/Texte/Hausk
e_Bendel_2007.pdf (accessed March, 2008).

Jones, A. et al. (2006). Using mobile devices for learning in informal Settings: Is it
Motivating? Paper presented at IADIS International conference Mobile Learning.
July 14-16, Dublin.

Livingstone, D. W. (2000). Exploring the Icebergs of Adult Learning: Findings of the First
Canadian Survey of Informal Learning Practices. Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, University of Toronto.

Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. E. (1990), Informal and Incidental Learning in the

Workplace, London und New York: Routledge.
36 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. & sharples, M. (2004). Literature Review in
Mobile Techologies in Learning, Futurelab Series, Report 11.

Rohs, M. (2008). Connected Learning – Zur Verbindung formellen und informellen

Lernens in der IT-Weiterbildung. URL:
http://opus.unibw-hamburg.de/opus/frontdoor.php?source_opus=1230 (accessed
March, 2008).

Stern, E. & Sommerlad, E. (1999), Workplace Learning. Culture and Performance,

London: Institute of Personnel and Development.

Straka, G. A. (2000). Lernen unter informellen Bedingungen. Begriffsbestimmung,

Diskussion in Deutschland, Evaluation der Desiderate. in: Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Qualifikations-Entwicklungs-Management (Ed.), Kompetenzentwicklung 2000, pp.
15-70, Münster: Waxmann.

Tough, A. (1967), Learning without a Teacher. A Study of Tasks and Assistance during
Adult Selfteaching Projects, Education Research Series 3, Toronto: Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education.

Watkins, K. & Marsick, V. (1990). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace.
London: Routledge.

Zürcher, R. (2007). Informelles Lernen und der Erwerb von Kompetenzen: Theoretische,
didaktische und politische Aspekte. Materialien zur Erwachsenenbildung, Nr. 2.
Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur. Wien.
URL: http://www.erwachsenenbildung.at/services/publikationen/materialien_zur_eb/
nr2_2007_informelles_lernen.pdf (accessed March, 2008).
 Micromedia Flow Experience Design
A Conceptual Framework for Designing
Microcontent-driven Applications
for Peripheral View and Partial Attention
(Paper)

Martin Lindner
Research Studios Austria Forschungsgesellschaft
Studio MicroLearning and Information Environments
(Austria, Germany)

Abstract: This paper is an attempt to muster some ideas and metaphors that have surfaced in the
highly fragmented and distributed Web 2.0 design discourse as “tools for thinking”, and assemble
them into a conceptual framework for further discussion. It sketches out a number of concepts,
partly theoretical, partly phenomenological, that may contribute to a more complete understanding
of the emerging digital “micromedia environments” for which future applications, serving Information
Workers and Lifelong Learners, have be designed. A fundamental change from software
development and “usability” approaches towards a holistic approach of “User Experience Design” is
diagnosed. Finally, several suggestions for a better design of future microinformation and
microlearning applications are given.

1 Introduction: User Experience Design for Microcontent-based

Environments

‘Stop developing software – start designing experiences’

“Working in a field of constant change, information technology designers habitually deal
with evolving practices, fluid conventions, and unpredictable uses.” This was stated over
a decade ago (Brown/Duguid 1994), but in the permanent flux that is ICT, the “Web 2.0”1
represents more than just a step in innovation among many others. It is symptomatic of a
fundamental paradigm change, comparable only with the evolutionary step towards the

1
The term “Web 2.0” is used throughout this paper to also include the “Mobile Web 2.0” (Jaokar/Fish
2006), mainly as a descriptive term for the changes in the Web following the boom of blogs, tagging,
feeds, and user-driven social and semantic software in general. For a definition that stood the test of
time, a thorough reading of O’Reilly (2005) is still worthwhile.
38 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

personal “microcomputer” (around 1975), with the change from the DOS-PC interface to
the desktop/windows-metaphor (around 1985), or with the moment when the PC also
became a Web terminal (around 1995).

All of these were primarily cultural innovations, not so much technological innovations in
a narrow sense. The windows/desktop/mouse-combination of the “microcomputer” sure
was smart technology, but even in 1978, it was not really “hi-tech”. Neither was the GUI
of the Macintosh, or the combination of HTTP, HTML, and the Mosaic/Netscape browser
that made “the Web” accessible.

ICT innovation in the field of human-computer interaction, as opposed to the depths of

the “machine-room”, cannot easily be modelled after the “higher, faster, further”
innovation processes of the 20th century pertaining to aeroplanes, or mainframe
computers. ICT innovation seems headed towards more lightweight, more distributed,
more networked, more dynamic, more feedback-driven applications (O'Reilly 2005). It is
as much a matter of design as of “technology”. At the same time, the notion of design
became quite generic: It relates to the design of Graphical User Interfaces (GUI), User
Experiences (UX), Information Architectures (IA), Software and Hardware, the most
famous examples still being Apple’s iPod/iTunes and the iPhone, and Google’s bundle of
applications from Search to GDocs.

This poses a fundamental challenge to the development of “smart” ICT applications.

“Stop designing products. Start designing experiences!”, demands Web 2.0 design guru
Peter Merholz.2 The catchphrase “Processes are not programs” makes a similar point.
One can no longer start with “naked” core functionality and then wrap it up into some
“usable interface” in a second step. But professional software projects, in R&D contexts
and others, still seem to be far off this mark, as Buxton (2007, p. 73) notes: “[…] one of
the most significant reasons for the failure of organizations to develop new software
products in-house is the absence of anything that a design professional would recognize
as an explicit design process.”

This is affecting “instructional technology” as well: Nakakoji et al. (2003) postulate to

begin “with the design of learning experience,” rather than to start by choosing an
instructional method and then combining it with a given software system. However,
before a learning experience can be designed, it is necessary to reconstruct and
understand the digital media experience in its technical, sociocultural, and
anthropological dimensions.

2
Peter Merholz (www.peterme.com) is an early blogger who founded his own renowned company for
User Experience design and Information Architecture, Adaptive Path.
Micromedia Flow Experience Design 39

Subject Positions and Software Postures

In a similar manner to socio-cultural discourses, different technologies as well as
different media incorporate specific “subject positions” (Foucault 1982), limiting the field
of possible experiences and activities and, mostly subconsciously, superimposing a
specific frame of mind and pattern of thinking onto each individual using a technology or
interacting with certain media. The look & feel of the interface, the possibilities for
interaction and experiences, the structure and flow, as well as the semantics of the
contents – all of these aspects define a kind of “place” which an individual must step in
and accommodate himself/herself to.

The overall subject position for a concrete digital media usage scenario can itself be
described as the effect of overlapping partial subject positions. These are created by
special pieces of software (such as MS Word), by the wider “software environment”
which the software is embedded in (i.e. the OS), and by the functionality and interface of
a specific device (such as a Desktop PC, a laptop, a PDA, a smartphone, a game
console…). Each of these “sub-positions”, as well as the overall one, are themselves a
complex effect of specific technological, cultural, and social factors incorporated into the
design of the media and the patterns of media use.

Until now, developers mostly designed for users of what Cooper/Reinmann (2003, p. 103
ff.) call “sovereign posture” desktop programs: These are “best used full-screen”,
“monopolizing the user’s attention for long periods of time”, “offering a large set of related
functions and features”, and tend to be kept “up and running continuously”, dominating a
user’s workflow as the primary tool even when other programs are used for support
tasks. But now, as the tool paradigm of the desktop terminal is finally giving way to the
new “information space” paradigm of the Web, a piece of software can also act as part of
a wider ecosystem.

‘Point of Presence’
“I don’t just ‘use’ the Internet, so why am I a user?”, complained Robert Scoble, famous
blogger and then Web 2.0 evangelist for Microsoft.3 Having the full range of modular
Web 2.0 applications at one’s command simultaneously, the “Web subject” finally feels
like a digital being, living in the center of an immersive digital lifeworld. Thus, designing
for this new subject position is not the same as “usability” and “human-centered design”,
as introduced by Jacob Nielsen and Don Norman, some 15 years ago. It is not just about
taking human factors into account better, ergonomically and psychologically. Instead,

3
Robert Scoble, I don’t just “use” the Internet, so why am I a user? Posted in the Blog “Scobleizer”
(11/10/2005). http://scobleizer.com/2005/11/10/i-dont-use-the-internet-so-why-am-i-a-user/, accessed
08/01/2007.
40 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

such new designs must be based on an analysis of the systematic position that a specific
media environment and a specific piece of software are omitting.

The distinct general subject position of Web 2.0 can be characterized, more or less
metaphorically, as a “Point of Presence” (PoP). In telecommunications, a PoP is the
physical or virtual place where a connection is made available to a user dialing into a
network via a local access line. Idehen (2006) later adopted the term to define the “Web
2.0” as “a phase in the evolution of web usage patterns” that emphasizes “presence-
based interaction” between “‘Web Users’ and ‘Points of Web Presence’ [exposed APIs]”.
The following usage of the term is still quite technical, but works both ways: Not only are
humans connecting with a technological network, but also vice versa. The functionality of
“Web 2.0” largely relies on “user-generated content” and recorded traces of user
interactions. Thus, there is also a complementary human “Point of Presence”, i.e. the
mind of the individual as an entry point to a mental and semantic network, which the
service needs to connect with in order to create value.

For the human subject as a “digital being”, this leads to a characteristic user experience:
a fresh new start into an open space of possibilities. The famous old Microsoft Internet
tagline “Where do you want to go today?” carried the underlying meaning of “Who do you
want to become today?”, and the implied answers were: “anywhere” and “anybody”. In a
way, a specific persona is being built from scratch in each new Web session. For the
most part, this happens unconsciously, but as a side effect of a flow of clicks that builds
up an individual story.4 To exaggerate for the purposes of illustration: In the beginning,
there is always just one “Point of Presence”, the “blank page of the mind” symbolized by
the minimalistic Web 2.0 design of the Google Search start page.

Even when most people continue to sit at some sort of desk, this digital experience is
closely related to the life-form of “digital nomads”. The PC is no longer a desktop, it is a
laptop, an “extension of man” in a much more concrete sense. Mobility as a whole is not
a primarily topographic experience: The medial and mental possibility to be “anybody,
anywhere, anytime” opens up the possibility to use all of the topographic “non-places”
(airports, buses, waiting rooms, bars...) which are typical for “supermodern” life- and
work-styles (Augé 1994).

When designing for the new “Point of Presence” subject position, there is also no
fundamental difference between applications for private entertainment and for
professional work. The consequences on design will be described in more detail in the

4
This is also a structural reason for the breakdown of the borders between private and professional use
of the Web, as well as between the respectable subject and the thrillseeker who is always just a click
away from porn, poker, or strange YouTube videos.
Micromedia Flow Experience Design 41

following paragraphs. In any case, Web 2.0 applications (PC and mobile) will have to be
designed

• for micromedia technologies, devices, and circulation systems optimized for

transmitting and processing content in the form of meme-sized microcontent-
chunks;

• for dramatically different patterns of attention and development, along with the
simultaneous use of digital information sources and applications;

• for new, complex structures of the digital environment, enhanced by peripheries

and background, allowing for different kinds of focus and “peripheral view”;

• in the form of interfaces for modular lightweight micro-applications that combine

“perceived simplicity”, “flow quality” and “gesture-driven” directness with the
enriching seamfulness that abstract “sign layers” are adding to the lifeworld.

2 Micromedia and Microcontent

The new digital media environments are micromedia environments. Here, the term
“media” is to be understood in a threefold sense: (a) as media technologies:
technological systems for (mass) sign transmission and circulation; (b) as media content:
content formatted for transmission and circulation; (c) as media space, i.e. the immersive
environment created by media in terms of (a) and (b).

There appear to be several independent tendencies driving towards micromedia and

microcontent. As McLuhan (2001) noted, the rise of electric media (e.g. telegraphy,
telephony) transformed the printed press from the start, replacing the lengthy written
essays in journals with a highly fragmented “mosaic” of news and ads. In radio and TV,
over the long term, one can observe a similar shift from standalone, elaborate pieces
towards a temporal “mosaic” of small units (clips, news, pop songs…). But ever since
digital technology turned into “media” in the mid-90s, two parallel trends toward an ever
more rapid circulation of ever smaller pieces of content have stood out:

Firstly, among small-sized handheld devices, particularly telephones with displays, we

have seen a remarkable comeback of media technologies that are characterized by a
[relatively] low resolution, low fidelity, and slow speeds (Manovich 2000), as opposed to
broadband and multimedia technologies that are aimed at “more” (“more resolution,
better color, better visual fidelity, more bandwidth, more immersion”). Thinking of
networked cell phones, Lev Manovich rightly prophesized that “minimalist media or
42 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

micro-media” would “not only successfully compete with macro-media but may even
overtake it in popularity”.

Secondly, even on large PCs screens, content now tends to become microcontent. After
Google had shredded the macro-content of the document- and page-based Web 1.0 into
small fragments, the Web 2.0 now consists of clouds of small content chunks (really,
“small pieces, loosely joined”, as Weinberger stated in 2002). These “microcontent”
chunks are “small” with regard to the space they require on screen and in system
memory, but also small regarding the processing time within the computational system
(i.e. download time) and the human mind (i.e. attention span). Web 2.0 avant-gardists
noted this tendency as early as 2002, leading to the following definition by Dash (2003),
which is still valuable:

Microcontent is information published in short form, with its length dictated by the
constraint of a single main topic and by the physical and technical limitations of the
software and devices that we use to view digital content today. We’ve discovered in the
last few years that navigating the Web in meme-sized chunks is the natural idiom of the
Internet.

Dash’s further definition can be systematically reduced to three points which apply to
machines as well as humans (Lindner 2006). In both respects, microcontent is

(a) self-contained – the smallest unit that can stand for itself in computational,
mental, and socio-cultural contexts;

(b) individually addressable for computers (through “permalinks”) and humans

(through their rhetorical “meme”-quality);

(c) appropriately formatted for easy consumption and further re-use (such as e.g.
“microformats” and “blog posts”, both oscillating between cultural form and
machine-readable format).

This matches well with the definition of “micromedia”, as postulated by Web economist
Umair Haque while discussing the radical impact of new microcontent-based
technologies, applications, and services on traditional mass media, especially in the
news and music industry. According to Haque, in the context of an emerging highly
dynamic, open, and fragmented digital “attention economy”, “micromedia” are digital,
atomized media “that can be consumed in unbundled microchunks and aggregated and
reconstructed in hyperefficient ways.” (Haque 2005)

This paradigm change is now transforming the whole ecosystem of content production,
reception, and circulation. Whether we like it or not (and there are reasons for both),
micromedia and microcontent are here to stay. This poses two main challenges:
Micromedia Flow Experience Design 43

• How can human “microinformation experiences” be integrated into the complex

context which is formed by the usage of one device (or the simultaneous usage
of multiple devices), by the workflow, by the personal flow of tasks (be it
professional or private), and finally by the socio-cultural context of the media
being used?

• What forms of guidance and steering could possibly be designed to feel natural
for a micromedia user?

In order to find answers, it is necessary to understand and be mindful of new patterns of

attention and focus.

3 Attention, Focus, and the Workplace 2.0

Continuous Partial Attention and the ‘Information Overload’

“Continuous partial attention is a post-multitasking adaptive behaviour. Being connected
makes us feel alive... [It] isn’t motivated by productivity, it’s motivated by being
connected.” This is the definition which Linda Stone gave in 2005 for the influential term
she herself had coined as early as 1998, while a researcher for Microsoft. She was one
of the first to propose a positive perspective on a phenomenon that was, and still is,
mostly discussed as an alarming account of the productivity-hampering dangers of
“multitasking”, “distraction”, and “life interrupted”.5 Like Bryant (2006) and Brown/Duguid
(1999), Stone appears to assume that the experience of “information overload” typically
occurs where outdated organizational structures and psychological patterns are
confronted with a new environment consisting of differently structured
(micro-)information. From this perspective, the solution to “information overload” is not
less information, but more (digital) information (David Weinberger6) – structured and
presented in different ways, in the form of microcontent and “meta-content” (Bryant
2006).

Indeed, there is now a growing need for (near-)simultaneous attention focusing on

multiple sources of dynamic information – something formerly only expected of high-level
managers (so, in a way, there is some reason after all for the inflationary use of the word

5
For a first account of empiric research by professors David Levy and Gloria Marks, see e.g. Seven
(2004).
6
“The cure to information overload is more information: The power of tags shows that the way to
manage information overload is more information.” David Weinberger, Entry in “Joho The Blog”,
05/24/2005.
URL: http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/004037.html
44 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

“manager” for definitions of what used to be ordinary jobs…). However, attention

problems are not just consequences of “information overload” – in an urban civilization
there is always “too much information” around. Each overload one experiences
essentially points to a weakness of filtering mechanisms. In a digital (micro-)media usage
scenario, these problems occur particularly when the new subject created at the digital
Point of Presence is confronted with more traditional roles and concepts for knowledge
and information work, and/or lacks support by well-designed adaptive applications and
interfaces.

To find a way to overcome these problems, a theory of attention of some kind is needed.
Unfortunately, empiric research has not yet come up with a convincing concept for basic
“units of attention” (Cavanagh/Alvarez 2005) which would represent something like the
currency in the attention economy. But in the end, it may well turn out that this approach
is too reductionist anyhow for the modeling of a complex phenomenon that is surfacing
at the intersection of cognition, computing, and the media, with additional socio-cultural
undercurrents. Still, neuropathologists (Sohlberg/Mateer 1989) have proposed a quite
useful typology for characterizing the attention environment of a typical “Information
Worker”, which is what every “Web subject” is, willingly or not:

• Focused attention: The ability to respond discretely to specific visual, auditory or

tactile stimuli.

• Selective attention: The capacity to maintain a behavioral or cognitive set in the

face of distracting or competing stimuli.

• Sustained attention: The ability to maintain a consistent behavioral response

during continuous and repetitive activity.

• Alternating attention: The capacity for mental flexibility that allows individuals to
shift their focus of attention and move between tasks having different cognitive
requirements.

• Divided attention: The ability to respond simultaneously to multiple tasks or

multiple task demands.

As workflows in distributed, project-based teams become fragmented and overlapping,

similar to the Web 2.0 media environment itself, divided and alternating partial attention
ceases to be an exception and tends to become normal behavior, leading to habitual
attention stress. The challenge for micromedia application design is then to help create
and manage new forms of “discontinuous partial attention flows”, both within certain
software environments (such as the Windows OS, a smartphone OS, or even a tabbed
browser) and within the wider scenarios of media usage (such as the office or “on the
Micromedia Flow Experience Design 45

road”). For this, one also has to take into account different media and devices with their
respective spatial and socio-cultural relations.

Four Levels of Focus

It is possible to distinguish four focus levels for the modeling of the abstract Continuous
Partial Attention environment that unfolds around a given digital Point of Presence.
Digital media tendentially model a richly structured environment across applications,
platforms, and devices which is comparable to a multidimensional real-world scenario
(e.g. the office). The different levels correspond to different grades of focus:

Main Focus: The main focus still lies on only one object and one application at a time –
usually some kind of text. What has changed is the character and granularity of the
object. When attention and focus are increasingly divided and alternating, the main focus
becomes restricted to objects that can be grasped within one “unit of attention”. These
units can be longer or shorter, depending on the “flow” of the situation (see below).
However, former macro-content is typically fragmented as much by the new attention
patterns as it is has become shredded by Google search results or blog coverage. Thus,
the greater “object” that is in main focus also loses its clear boundary, increasingly
resembling a bundle of “small pieces, loosely joined”. It is distinguished from other
microcontent around it through stronger “gravitational forces”, which are effects of
personal interest, inherent semantics, and design, resulting in attention.

Semi-focus: In a macro-content environment, semi-focus is reserved for supplementary

applications and contents, similar to a dictionary being used while reading a book, or an
example being looked up while following the main thread of argumentation. In the Web
2.0 context, this semi-focused content becomes much more important. It is nearly as if
the horizon were widening, replacing the “main focus” with a kind of new “semi focus”
which brings forward new horizontal and (in the broadest sense) visual patterns while
certainly decreasing in vertical “depth” and linear argumentation. Both at the rhetoric and
at the graphic level, microcontent is typically designed for semi-focused attention, i.e. for
being “caught at a glance”.

Peripheral focus: Beyond the sphere of objects being “semi-focused”, either in space
(simultaneously) or in time (alternatingly), there is an even wider sphere for “glancing
sideways” from the corner of one’s eyes. The function of peripheral structures is to
embed and to contextualize focused contents, but also to ensure quick reactions if
necessary: “[W]e keep the top level item in focus and scan the periphery in case
something more important emerges.” (Stone 2005). Applications designed for peripheral
focus are e.g. dynamic alert boxes signaling new incoming e-mails or news.

Casual focus: A variation of the peripheral focus is a more playful casual focus (Tams
2006). This is typical of the media effect of the PC-based Web and mobile phones alike:
46 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

Because there is always more information “out there”, the subject is provoked to
permanently explore this space of opportunities. In fact, the Web 2.0 has even been
characterized, among many other things, as the “Casual Web”. Anyone who has done
creative work knows that experiencing this realm of possibilities is quite important for
high-level productivity. It is filled with gaming, if appropriate information (e.g. photos,
gossip, jokes, blog posts, news clips…) is unavailable. Again, the challenge lies in
designing new applications and interfaces in a way that keeps this realm open while
making it an integral part of the entire system of productivity. What is typical of the new
environment is the blurring of borders not only between working and learning, and work
and private life, but also between work and play. Well-designed “micro-attention”
applications must take this into account.

Background (non-focus): Generally, every part of the environment drawing a lesser

degree of attention/focus may be considered as “background”, remaining latent. But
there is also a kind of permanent background, which is usually never focused on, but still
permanently felt, stabilizing or destabilizing the entire situation. What is most important is
probably the general feel of “openness” or “closedness” communicated by digital media.
Either one acts in a (potentially) open space (e.g. the Web) or within the “walled garden”
of an application. Both can make sense in different contexts and for different people. (For
many, it is reassuring to use Microsoft Office tools that communicate the stable feeling of
a closed system in which “every aspect has already been thought of”, as opposed to the
Wild Wild Web where everyone must acccount for themselves and unexpected events
might occur around any corner and at any time.)

Periphery
The evolution of digital media towards micromedia can be described as a change from
highly restricted areas of focus (e.g. macrocontent objects, sovereign posture programs)
to a kind of environment in which semi-focused and peripheral attention plays a much
more significant role. In 1994, John Seely Brown published an important essay on border
and periphery as the main challenges for information design at the dawn of the World
Wide Web. According to Seely Brown, the world seen through the computer screen lacks
the “peripheral vision” needed to provide the rich context which alone makes information
truly useful and meaningful for a human user (Brown 1994).

This is exactly what the Web 2.0, including new Intranets and the converging Mobile
Web, appears to be addressing. Digital media are not so much creating a workplace, or
a new communication medium, but rather a lifeworld in itself. Via social software of all
kinds, they are providing social context, as well as semiotic context, which fill the gap
between the main focus and the non-conscious background.

Actually, a large part of Continous Partial Attention is invested in information that makes
the subject feel alive, that is, taking part in a sphere of vital circulation: “Continuous
Micromedia Flow Experience Design 47

partial attention is motivated by a desire not to miss opportunities. We want to ensure our
place as a live node on the network, we feel alive when we’re connected.” (Stone 2005)
This desire, not productivity in the narrow sense7, is the real reason why managers get
addicted to mobile e-mail clients like the Blackberry or why teenagers look at the screens
of their mobile phone in every idle moment. Concepts of ICT that ignore the playfulness
of digital media will probably fail in the future.

Beyond Push/Pull: The Come-to-me Web

The mobile phone has been described as a casual “background device”, making it easy
“to pop into the foreground for a brief moment before simply falling into the background
once more.” Applications truly geared towards the mobile lifestyle need to take
advantage of this background status, says Nokia usability researcher Charlie Schick
(2005).

Being itself by nature a “foreground device” designed for main focus, the PC has been
known to model periphery and casuality within the screen: in the form of additional layers
and items at the level of the desktop interface (e.g. widgets, e-mail alerts…), at the level
of RSS-driven aggregation pages (e.g. iGoogle, Pageflakes, SuprGlu…), and at the level
of the browser (e.g. tabs, Firefox plugins).

Designing for these kinds of environments means designing for semi-focused or

peripheral attention, and for the intuitive slipping of content from background to
foreground and back again. This is what the Research Studio MicroLearning and
Information Environments is attempting with its concept of “Integrated Microinformation/
Microlearning” and the Knowledge Pulse-application.8

The ambient character of these concepts differs from the old idea of “pull vs. push” which
belonged to the early generations of the Web. This time period was also characterized
by the debate on how to deal with an abundance of information and media which could
simply no longer be handled by people searching for content, e.g. in a library or a
catalogue, and then clicking on a link to call it up on their screen (“pull”). Somehow, the
content had to be brought to the user/consumer (“push”). In 1997, a noted essay in
Wired magazine (Kelly et al. 1997) proclaimed the end of the “pull”-Web and the advent
of digital “push media” which are “always on, mobile, customizable”. An application
somewhat like a hybrid between an ambient screensaver and push-TV was then

7
“Productivity” should probably be understood in a very broad sense, including all activities that build
structures of some kind over time, be it professional, recreational, or private. Interestingly, this is the
approach featured in David Allen’s bestseller “Getting Things Done”, the bible for self-management in
a digital media age. Some passages read like a theory of microcontent.
8
http://www.knowledgepulse.com, http://www.microlearning.org
48 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

developed by PointCast, a much-hyped multi-million dollar start-up that collapsed

spectacularly in 1999.

This old pull/push-opposition belonged to a time when static content was shown on a
single-focus screen. It differs from the emerging dimension of the “Come-to-me Web”
(Vander Wal 2006), which is a function of the micromedia environment of the Web 2.0,
starting with the evolution of weblogs and feeds (since 1999, but gaining real momentum
four years later). The Come-to-me Web goes beyond the pull-metaphors of “wayfinding”
and “library search” and beyond the push-metaphor of “watching TV”. It is based on
attraction and association:

Today’s usage is truly focused on the person and how he/she sets up their personal
information workflow for digital information. The current focus is slightly different: The
push and pull concept focused on technology; today, the focus is on the person, while
technology is merely the conduit that could (and should) fade into the background.

Because the Web is transforming into a dense network of socio-semantic associations, I

experience my activities less as pull/push and more as “attracting” content which was
“already there” in the background, like an “Info Cloud” following me across devices,
platforms, and applications (Vander Wal 2003).

This is in fact neither push nor pull. It is neither “going somewhere to get information”,
like in a library, nor is it a message obtrusively “pushed at me”, like a pop-up window or a
promotional e-mail. It is much more casual and ambient, more of an extension of my
degree of attention/focus.9 Successful “smart applications” will have to fit into a digital
ecosystem that is modeled after information experiences in the “real world”. Interacting
with the Web 2.0 (or 2.91, or 3.01…) will be like walking down the street10 or sitting in a
cafe, floating in information spaces with ever changing levels of focus, from background-
and periphery focus to semi-focus and main focus, and back again. Such an experience
can happen in the outside world, as in real cafes, e.g. using the mobile phone to access
the Web as an additional semantic layer, but also in interiors dedicated to focus and
work, which themselves are becoming much more “worldly” through the new digital
media of the Web 2.0.

The problem with any kind of “push” in such an ambient foreground/background

environment is that it would be experienced as something very obtrusive, like someone

9
Advertising approaches that have adapted to the new subject position are Google Adsense and, of
course, the famous Amazon recommendations (“People who have bought this book have also
bought…”).
10
James Corbett, “Actually we're all edge cases... and promiscuous.” Entry in weblog “EirePreneur.
Doing microbusiness in Ireland”. 02/02/2006.
URL: http://eirepreneur.blogs.com/eirepreneur/2006/02/actually_were_a.html
Micromedia Flow Experience Design 49

on the street getting in your way and demanding your exclusive attention. For the main
part, this is not just a question of technology. To accept the push, users would have to
understand the pushing content, be it information, advertising, or education, as an
external representation of their own needs and desires. In real-life usage contexts, this is
very rarely the case.

4 Interface and Interaction Design

User-experience design cannot be limited to the graphical user interface itself. It must
include interaction design and information architecture as well. De facto, there are
several levels of interfaces clustering around the user:

(a) the interface of the devices-plus-OS (e.g. a Windows Vista laptop, a Nokia
Series 60 smartphone... );

(b) the interfaces of desktop applications (i.e. “programs” in the old sense, such as
MS Word);

(c) the interfaces of new “widget” clients presenting only one type of microcontent
which they obtain as a Web Service (e.g. a weather or news widget, or a
microblogging client interacting with a Web service such as Thwirl for Twitter);

(d) the browser itself, ever since it came to be more than an application for
browsing web pages and became a kind of operating system for the new
webtop (e.g. Firefox with different plugins).

Evidently, such a multi-interface environment contains particular issues regarding

interface design which cannot be covered in detail at this point. However, two very
important issues are those of “flow” and “seams”. Interface design must consider
different devices and applications in a manner which allows multitasking in space and
time: in space, when different windows (e.g. browser tabs, widgets) are open
simultaneously; in time, because in a multitasking/microtasking situation with continuing
partial attention, it is important to enable interruptions without breaking the flow. This
calls for a concept of “flow” that goes beyond traditional interaction design, which
concentrates on single-focus, sovereign-posture user scenarios.

The Flow
The main concern of interaction design has always been “not breaking the flow”. Cooper
(2003) uses the term “flow” 61 times in the seminal work “Face 2.0. The Essentials of
Interaction Design”, once explicitly giving credit to Csikszentmihalyi, a psychologist who
famously introduced the influential concept in 1975 to describe a type of experience he
50 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

had noticed while observing people engaged in sports activities and creative work.
According to Csikszentmihalyi (1990), a “flow experience” exhibits the following
characteristics: the feeling of gliding effortlessly from one instant to the next; no
separation between self and environment, stimulus and reaction, past, present and
future; rewarding in itself; high satisfaction or even a gentle sense of euphoria; neither
active nor passive; the feeling of being in charge (i.e. intuitively, without a sense of
“manipulating objects”).

In the field of HCI, five dimensions of flow can be identified. They all have to be taken
into account when designing for the new digital media environment. Cooper (2003) uses
the term in a threefold sense:

e) the usability flow which is the programmed “normal flow of system activities and
interactions”, both visual and logical;

f) the user’s workflow, “both within a task and between related tasks“;

g) a specific design that is aimed at “software becoming transparent”, enabling

media flow experiences in the narrower sense of Csikszentmihalyi – a main
feature being gesture-driven “embodied interaction” (Dourish 2001).

For the first and the third dimension of flow, “perceived simplicity” (Skogen 2006) is
particularly crucial. Famous examples include the corporate design of Apple and Google,
as opposed to Microsoft and (formerly) Yahoo. Here, simplicity is not primarily realized
on the logical level of a “usable” interaction structure (although that remains important, of
course), but rather on an aesthetic level.

A fourth dimension of flow not mentioned by Cooper is also important for HCI: The
implicit flow structure of the differing media environments of the office desktop, the
“always-on Web PC”, the PDA, or the mobile phone. Finally, there is a fifth “flow” concept
that may be even more relevant to micromedia design. It was introduced by Williams
(1974) to describe a new experience of watching television brought on by commercial
stations, the introduction of the remote control, and cable TV. TV users were “put in the
spotlight”, creating their own personal flow on top of the programs. From then on, the TV
screen was no longer experienced as a “window” or a “stage”, eventually taking on the
look and feel of “control-room monitoring” with all kinds of digital information inserts and
frequent change of viewpoints. While the habit of following the “programmed flow” can be
compared to the usability flow of desktop software and Web 1.0, this new user-centered,
much more anarchic flow points the way forward to the Point of Presence and the
dynamic microcontent cloud of Web 2.0.
Micromedia Flow Experience Design 51

Seamfulness
The aim of flow-oriented interface design is to make software become transparent. This
is related to the ideal of “seamlessness”, propagated by Mark Weiser, the father of
“pervasive computing”. Here, the ideal interface would be one that is no longer
experienced as an interface. As in the Matrix films, the human dimension and the
machine dimension would become one for the users.

But a world without seams is also a world with less meaning. In fact, some professionals
who are deeply immersed in a Web 2.0 working environment on daily basis have already
started to use three different browsers simultaneously, each for certain tasks or within
certain contexts, in addition to having opened multiple tabs within in each browser. This
is a rather crude reintroduction of interfaces into a situation where technology had
already created a unified space. A similar effect is created by the multiple devices of the
current digital lifestyle: laptop, mobile phone, MP3 device, digital camera, perhaps also a
Blackberry. From the perspective of media experience, it is quite doubtful that there ever
will be “one Ring to rule them all”. Multiple devices add structure and meaning, and
enable subtle changes of subject positions for the users. The same effect applies to the
multiple small applications that together form the Web 2.0 environment of today.

It seems that simply because digital media are so powerful in overcoming restrictions of
time and space, they are calling for a re-introduction of structure in some way or another.
If applications are well designed, for example, they would enforce the basic structure of
the micromedia environment – the field of main focus, semi-focus, peripheral view, and
background. Each of these levels has its own interface, as does each of the objects
embedded within the levels. Chalmers/Galani (2004) would call this approach “designing
for seamfulness”. They also offer an additional explanation for the issues applying to
seamlessness: An interactive media system that is too complex and too perfect may fail,
due to giving the user no possibility to “participate, adapt, and appropriate”, while another
system might succeed not despite, but precisely due to being made up of “inexpensive,
easily manipulated, visible” pieces. Chalmers/Galani call for deliberate design focusing
on “appropriation” and aiming for systems that are robust, flexible, simple, manipulable,
and overt:

By overt, we mean the underlying mechanisms of such systems are made visible, as a
precondition for the other requirements that provide a basis for appropriation. Such
visibility is seamful, rather than seamless. This overt visibility should probably also
aiming for be reducible to peripheral awareness […]

This is related to the importance of an experience of openness, which is not, at least in

the field of consumer media, brought about by “perfect” subliminal technological
infrastructure, but by a seamful, imperfect one (for further remarks on “designing for
openness”, see Lindner 2006).
52 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

5 Conclusion: The Micromedia Dilemma

The aim of this paper was to sketch out a conceptual framework for further systematical
discussion on the design of “smart applications” within a more and more ubiquituous
micromedia environment, which can also characterized as “monomedia” in the sense of
Matthew Chalmers (2001):

We have found it useful to consider the many media, technologies and spaces as one
design medium, because each person’s experience depends on them all. People’s
activity continually combines and cuts across different media, interweaving those media
and building up the patterns of association and use that make meaning.

Point of Presence, Continuous Partial Attention, different levels of focus, peripheral view,
background/foreground, Come-to-me Web, Info Cloud, flow, perceived simplicity,
openness, appropriation, seamfulness… By introducing a set of concepts collected from
very different sources, this environment has been shown to have its inner logic, which
must be understood when designing new applications as well as outlining an R&D
innovation strategy for the next 3 – 4 years.

The concrete starting point for all of these considerations has been the Knowledge
Pulse, a microlearning widget-client/server application developed by the Research
Studio MicroLearning and Information Environments in Innsbruck. Additional suggestions
for the design of microlearning applications have been given in Lindner (2006), including
a chart comparing similar products from the perspective of micromedia design.

In a way, the Knowledge Pulse is a piece of software that is positioned at the boundary
between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. The application can both be conceptualized as a push-
based learning/info machine, or as an integral part of a future Come-to-me Web. But, as
has been shown, the concept of “push” doesn’t fit well into the new microcontent-based
media environment and the subject positions accompanying it. At the same time, the gap
between the rapid evolution of the Micro-Web and the mental and practical adoption of
mainstream users is widening. This leads to a certain dilemma: old structures of learning
and interaction no longer work, while new structures haven’t been built yet.

This typical dilemma is not limited to the field of e-learning. It seems less and less
possible to meet the main challenges of “smart application development” at the level of
one single application. With microcontent-based digital media, it is necessary to consider
an evolving ecosystem that is calling for new concepts. Contents and attention flows are
no longer limited to one application, to one software environment (e.g. the PC desktop or
the Web), or to one platform (e.g. the PC or the mobile phone).

The problems posed by the general “digital climate change” towards microcontent and
micromedia, which we are currently being confronted with, have to be addressed in a
Micromedia Flow Experience Design 53

wider context. In any case, we will have to acknowledge the full complexity of this
emerging field. If “processes are not programs”, then microcontent-oriented design is
becoming as important as software development: So, let us stop designing products for
handling macro-content and calling for macro-attention. Let us start designing
micromedia experiences!

References

All URLs accessed 05/15/2008.

Augé, M. (1995), Non-Places. Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity.

London, New York, NY: Verso.

Abowd, G. D., Mynatt, E.D. (2005), Designing for the Human Experience in Smart
Environments. In: Diane J. Cook, Sajal K. Das (eds.), Smart Environments:
Technology, Protocols and Applications, pp. 151-174. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Brown, J. S., Duguid, P. (1994), Borderline Issues: Social and Material Aspects of
Design. Human-Computer Interaction, v 9, n 1 (pp. 3-36), 1994.

URL:
http://www.johnseelybrown.com/Borderline_Issues.pdf

Brown, J. S., Duguid, P. (1999), The Social Life of Information. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.

Brown, J. S., Hagel III, J. (2005) From Push to Pull: The next frontier of innovation.
McKinsey Quarterly, Online Edition, 2005, 3, pp. 82-91.
URL:
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_abstract_visitor.aspx?ar=1642&L2=21&L
3=37&srid=9&gp=1

Bryant, L. (2006), Humanising the Enterprise through Ambient Social Knowledge. Talk at
O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference (San Diego, CA; March 6 – 9, 2006).
URL:
http://www.headshift.com/archives/002895.cfm

Buxton, B. (2007), Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right
Design. New York, NY: Morgan Kaufman.
Cavanagh, P., Alvarez, G.A. (2005), Tracking Multiple Targets With Multifocal Attention.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 9, Issue 7, July 2005, pp. 349-354.
54 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

Chalmers, M. (2001) Paths and Contextually Specific Recommendations. Proc.

DELOS/NSF Workshop on Personalisation and Recommender Systems in Digital
Libraries, Dublin, June 2001.

URL:
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~matthew/papers/delos.html

Chalmers, M., Galani, A. (2004), Seamful Interweaving: Heterogeneity in the Theory and
Design of Interactive Systems. In: Proc. ACM DIS 2004, pp. 243-252.
URL:
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~matthew/papers/DIS2004v3.pdf

Cooper, A., Reimann, R. R. (2003), About Face 2.0: The Essentials of Interaction
Design. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York:

Harper and Row.

Dash, A. (2002), Introducing the Microcontent Client.

URL:
http://www.anildash.com/magazine/2002/11/introducing_the.html

Haque, U. (2005), The New Economics of Media. Micromedia, Connected Consumption,

and the Snowball Effect.

URL:
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/resources/mediaeconomics.ppt
Idehen, K. (2006), Web 2.0's Open Data Access Conundrum (Update). Posted to blog
“Kingsley Idehen's Blog Data Space” (09/05/2006).

URL:
http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/index.vspx?page=&id=1034

Jaokar, A., Fish, T. (2006), Mobile Web 2.0. London: Futuretext.

Kelly, K., Wolf, G. (1997), Push! Kiss your browser goodbye: The radical future of media
beyond the Web. Wired, 1997, Nr. 5.03.

URL:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.03/ff_push.html

Leene, A. (2006), The MicroWeb. Using MicroContent in Theory and Practice. In: Hug,
T., Lindner, M., Bruck, P.A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Microlearning 2006
Conference (Innsbruck, June 8 – 9, 2006). Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Micromedia Flow Experience Design 55

Lindner, M. (2006), Human-centered Design for ‘Casual’ Information and Learning in

Micromedia Environments. In Holzinger, A. et.al. (Eds.) M3 - Interdisciplinary
Aspects on Digital Media & Education. Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium of the
WG HCI&UE of the Austrian Computer Society (ACS), pp. 52–60.

Manovich, L. (2000), Beyond Broadband: Macromedia and micro-media. In: Lovink, G.

(Ed.) (2000), net.congestion reader. De Balie: Amsterdam.

URL:
http://www.manovich.net/docs/Mass.cro_micro.doc (digital version)

McLuhan, M. (1964), Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw-Hill: New

York, NY.

Nakakoji, K., Yamada, K., Yamamoto, Y., Morita, M. (2003), A Conceptual Framework
for Learning Experience Design, in: C5 Proceedings of Conference on Creating,
Connecting and Collaborating through Computing (Kyoto, Japan; January 2003),
Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.

URL:
http://www.kid.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~kumiyo/mypapers/C5.pdf

Schick, C. (2005), What are the true qualities of mobility? Entry in Weblog “Lifeblog”,
09/06/2005.
URL:
http://cognections.typepad.com/lifeblog/2005/09/what_are_the_tr.html

Seven, R. (2004), Life Inter-rupted, Pacific Northwest. The Seattle Times Magazine
(11/28/2004).
URL:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2004/1128/cover.html

Sohlberg, M. M., Mateer, C. A. (1989). Introduction to cognitive rehabilitation: theory and

practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Skogen, M. G. R (2005), Simplicity in Complicated User-Interface Applications. Paper for

Nordcode05, 4th Nordcode Seminar and Workshop "Common Denominators"
(Trondheim, May 18 – 20, 2005).

URL:
http://www.ivt.ntnu.no/ipd/nordcode05/papers05/nc05-Skogen.pdf

Stone, L. (2006), Keynote to the conference ETech 2006. Transcription by Nat

Torkington, entry in weblog “O’Reilly radar”, 03/12/2006.
56 Foundations and Basics: Martin Lindner

URL:
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/03/etech_linda_stone_1.html

Tams, J. (2006), Introduction to Casuality. Presentation for Casuality Europe ’06 – A

Conference for Casual Game developers, Publishers and Distributors (Amsterdam,
February 7 – 9, 2006).

URL:
http://europe.casuality.org/preso_2006/jessica_tams_Casuality_Europe_2006.ppt

Vander Wal, T. (2006), The Come To Me Web. Entry in weblog “Personal Infocloud”.
URL:
http://www.personalinfocloud.com/2006/01/the_come_to_me_.html

Vander Wal, T. (2003), Welcome to the Personal Info Cloud Entry in weblog “Personal
Infocloud”.
URL:
http://www.personalinfocloud.com/2003/10/welcome_to_the_.html

Williams, E. (2005), Ten Rules for Web Startups. Entry in weblog “Evhead”, 11/27/2005.
URL:
http://www.evhead.com/2005/11/ten-rules-for-web-startups.asp

Williams, R. (1974), Television: technology and cultural form. New York: Schocken,
1975.

Weinberger, D. (2002). Small Pieces, Loosely Joined. A Unified Theory of the Web.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
 The Seven C’s of Educational Topic Maps:
Towards Open Microwebs for (Language) Learning
(Paper)

Lars Johnsen
University of Southern Denmark (Denmark)

Abstract: With the increased use of microcontent in learning and teaching environments, models
and technologies for integrating learning microcontent are needed. In this article, it is argued that
Topic Maps may be utilized for this purpose. In particular, it is demonstrated that topic maps can
function as open, layered subject-centric microwebs for (language) learning especially if certain
requirements – the seven C’s – are met. These requirements are explained and exemplified.

1 Introduction

With the increased use of microcontent in learning and teaching environments, more
metaphors, models and technologies for categorizing, organizing, integrating and
managing learning microcontent will undoubtedly emerge in the years to come. Although
microcontent is said to be self-contained and able to “travel alone”, there is more to
microcontent for learning than just that. Microcontent for learning has a purpose; it is
“about” something or somebody; and it is frequently linked, implicitly or explicitly, to other
content elements or information resources.

There are of course ways and methods to capture information about microcontent. The
obvious one is to apply metadata, especially metadata based on standards such as
Dublin Core and LOM. Most metadata categories, however, are “object-oriented” in the
sense that they primarily convey information about the content as a resource and only to
a lesser extent provide insights into the nature of its subject matter.

A more subject-oriented approach to content organization and classification is found in

the paradigm of Topic Maps. Topic Maps (in upper case) is a standards-based model for
connecting knowledge structures to dispersed and often heterogeneous information
resources. Topic maps (in lower case) are concrete manifestations of such a model:
digital collections of topics representing and connecting things, or “subjects”, in some
universe of discourse (persons, events, concepts, documents, web pages, etc.). As a
technology, Topic Maps is supported by various query languages, tools and products.
58 Applications and Practices: Lars Johnsen

Topic maps are often employed as a kind of superimposed semantic metadata layer for
indexing and navigating web resources, but topic maps may also, under the right set of
circumstances, be conceived of as learning materials in their own right. In fact, as is
demonstrated below, it may be argued that topic maps can function as open, layered
subject-centric microwebs for learning.

Figure 1: Topic maps and resources

2 Educational topic maps

Topic maps designed for learning may be said to have three overall goals. Firstly, they
must convey information about a certain domain or field (subject matter); secondly, they
must do so in a manner that supports understanding and learning (communication) and
thirdly they must be constructed in such a way as to facilitate reuse, interoperability and
integration.
The Seven C’s of Educational Topic Maps 59

These objectives may be translated into several requirements – the seven C’s – that
educational topic maps should attempt to meet.

Concepts: As concept acquisition is central to many learning processes, educational

topic maps should, if possible, contain conceptual systems that reflect knowledge
structures in the chosen domain. In topic maps, concepts may be given one or more
names, in one or more languages, and they may be connected in more or less complex
ways. They can be organized in hierarchical structures or linked in associative networks
using named relations, so-called associations.

Content: Content must be included to provide information about subject matter as well as
to initiate relevant learning activities (problem solving, exploration, discussion, etc.). In
settings where microlearning is intended this content should, needless to say, consist of
elements of limited size, volume, or duration. Content may either be attached to
concepts, or concept structures, or exist as first-class citizens in the topic map.
Examples of content attached to concepts might include definitions, explanations or
subject properties like age, colour or weight while content in the form of documents,
podcasts and video clips might well be represented as independent topics. But any
content item can become a topic through reification: for instance, a definition of a
concept may be turned into an independent topic and subsequently enriched by
additional content, say, a comment or a picture. Content is either external to the topic
map itself or present internally as brief text fragments or strings.

Cohesion & Coherence: Information items must be connected in a manner that supports
their communicative goals. Cohesion and coherence are both notions taken from text
linguistics and signify ways to achieve unity and flow in spoken or written discourse.
While cohesion is about texture in documents and discourse, coherence denotes
semantic unity between spans of text. One way of enhancing cohesion and coherence
between dispersed content items in a topic map is to explicitly mark up the
communicative, or rhetorical, relations that exist between (some of) these items. For
instance, one may indicate that text B summarizes text A, that podcast X elaborates the
definition of concept Y and that the video clip P provides evidence for statement Q.

Contexts: Views and perspectives should be placed on concept structures and content to
indicate pedagogical and didactic contexts. It should be clear what subjects and levels a
certain content item is relevant for, what learning mode or activity it supports and so on.
In Topic Maps, there is a mechanism, called scope, which can be used directly to
indicate these contexts. Scope is a set of user-defined topics that can be applied to
concept and content structures to specify where these structures are said to be valid.

Connectivity: A key objective of the Topic Maps paradigm is to be able to connect, or

collect, dispersed content or disparate resources that are “about the same”. To
accomplish this, the Topic Maps model includes a system meant to signify the identity of
60 Applications and Practices: Lars Johnsen

subjects. A main distinction is made between addressable subjects and non-addressable

subjects. Addressable subjects are resources that can be referenced directly, normally
web pages or parts of these. Here the resource is the subject, as it were. Addressable
subjects are identified through a subject locator, typically a URL. Non-addressable
subjects, on the other hand, are entities that cannot be referenced directly such as
persons, concepts and events. Their identity may be indicated indirectly, though, for
example through Wikipedia pages or more stable, standardized resources. A published
description of a non-addressable subject is known as a subject indicator, or descriptor,
and the actual address of this subject indicator as a subject identifier. While subject
indicators are meant to be readable and interpretable by humans, subject identifiers and
locators are utilized by computers for processing purposes. One very important form of
topic map processing is merging. Merging is the process of aggregating collections of
topics, and more importantly perhaps, amalgamating topics about the same subject. For
creators of educational topic maps merging is an absolute bonus as it facilitates
decentralized design and development.

Compliance: Topic maps for learning must conform to various standards, guidelines and
formats. Firstly, they must be technically compliant with a recognized format to ensure
interoperability. There are several formats around for representing topics maps: some
are compact text formats, some XML-based. Some are based on standards, some are
not. Secondly, a topic map should, if possible, adhere to some underlying schema or
ontology constraining the range of topic, content and relation types allowed in the topic
map. Finally, educational topic maps ought to be linked to a license in order to clarify
copyright issues.

The seven C’s may be placed in a matrix structure to illustrate how they are (loosely)
related to the objectives of topic maps for (micro)learning:

Table 1: Matrix structure

In the matrix the overall goals are shown as headings in the three columns. The two
rows may be said to indicate different angles of looking at topic maps for learning. The
first row is fundamentally about topic maps as information systems (“looking inside”)
The Seven C’s of Educational Topic Maps 61

whereas the second row relates to their surrounding environment (“looking outside”). So,
for example, cohesion and coherence are properties of the internal structure within an
educational topic map whereas concepts and contexts signify relevant objects and
scopes outside of it.

Topic maps as microwebs for learning

Features inherent in the Topic Maps model such as reification, subject-centeredness,
scoping and merging provide some useful mechanisms for organizing and integrating
microcontent for learning. Significantly, they facilitate the construction of microwebs with
multiple learning paths, levels and perspectives. Interacting with a rendered topic map,
learners can browse and explore annotated systems of concepts in several levels
ranging from fairly general domain concepts to very specific subordinate concepts. They
can access microcontent items filtering out those felt to be irrelevant for the task at hand.
And last but not least, learners may delve, or zoom into, layers of content incrementally
uncovering more and more details about the topic being studied.

Naturally, ease of navigation is not all. To support learning effectively, the actual content
also needs to be designed carefully. To ensure consistency, say, one may choose to
follow, more or less strictly, the guidelines of Structured Writing (see Horn 1989, 1993
and 1998). In Structured Writing, content is divided into small, consistently designed,
chunks called information blocks. An information block is a piece of content with one
salient communicative goal or instructional purpose. Information blocks are categorized
into seven main classes, or information types, depending on what sort of information
they are intended to convey to the reader. For instance, an information block may
contain procedural, conceptual or structural information, each type being associated with
certain design patterns.

Open topic maps – and how to populate them

Since topic maps can be merged, they lend themselves to a Web 2.0 learning and
teaching environment with its emphasis on openness, sharing and reuse. Accordingly, it
seems to make a lot of sense to make topic maps available as open educational
resources to be freely exchanged, merged, enriched and repurposed by interested
parties.

Creating open topic maps can obviously be done from scratch. A more realistic option,
perhaps, is to include existing open microcontent, which is increasingly becoming
available and accessible on the web. A prime example of this is content published in the
Connexions project, a project at Rice University, USA, aimed at developing and
distributing free and reusable learning material for all levels of the educational system.
Teachers, college professors and even students are encouraged to supply learning
62 Applications and Practices: Lars Johnsen

modules to a common repository and to share and reuse educational resources, both
content and software, under a Creative Commons license.

Learning modules in Connexions are constructed and marked up using an XML-based

language called CNXML and published on the Connexions web site as structured
XHTML pages. This makes extraction and harvesting of embedded microcontent
possible and in many cases relatively straight-forward. With a free lightweight tool like
XML Notepad 2007 and some XSLT-scripts, the average topic map creator can not only
extract selected content elements like definitions, examples and terms from the
Connexions web pages, but also populate his or her topic map with metadata about the
individual modules: who is the author, what is the module about, what types of links and
multimedia objects does it contain, which license applies to it, etc.?

Furthermore, it is likely that Connexions learning modules will prove even more valuable
as providers of open microcontent in the future, the reason being that user-defined
semantic mark-up will probably be added to the next version of the CNXML language.
This in turn means that more complex semantic microstructures may be harvested from
Connexions pages and mapped onto topic maps.

Open microwebs for language learning

One area where educational topic maps may have a role to play is within the field of
language learning and teaching.

Traditional language learning resources such as dictionaries, grammar reference works,

handbooks, computer-based learning programs and annotated text corpora are replete
with all manner of microcontent (in the broadest sense of the word): information about
lexical items (pronunciation, meaning, inflection, translation, etc.), definitions of
grammatical concepts, rules of thumb, sound files, exercises and what have you. And
add to this the vast mass of authentic examples of language use available on the web.

However, the problem is not only that much of this content is scattered across
information products, genres and technologies but also that much of it only occurs in
closed silos from which information extraction and harvesting is difficult, sometimes
impossible. In addition, most of the content is not truly open in the sense that it can be
freely copied, reused or repurposed.

More integrated or holistic language learning resources – and hence – applications could
no doubt be built, if open microcontent could be aggregated into what we might call
microwebs for language learning. Ideally, these webs should integrate lexical, textual
and multimedia content; they should allow for adaptability in information presentation and
design; and they should be extensible, reusable and interoperable. Rolling dictionary,
grammar reference work and handbook into one could be one ultimate goal – and slogan
– of such an effort.
The Seven C’s of Educational Topic Maps 63

The construction of a “Unified Language Learning Architecture (ULLA)” based on Topic

Maps entails some kind of ontological framework or, at the very least, a set of
taxonomies for naming, classifying and describing concepts and microcontent relevant to
the language learning domain.

The architecture would have to contain one or more taxonomies for specifying lexical
content. Various standards can be looked at for inspiration. One is the Open Lexicon
Interchange Format (see http://www.olif.net); another is STANLEX, a Danish standard for
describing lexical data across repositories (see DS 2394-1).

Another component which would need to be in place would be a system for capturing
domain concepts, their meaning and interrelationships. One possibility is to adapt the
model from SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System), a simple, yet flexible,
system to organize concept systems in the Semantic Web.

Finally, a set of categories are needed to designate prevalent “learning objects” (figure,
podcast, definition, rule, example, exercise, etc.) and the various communication
sequences or structures that these resources may occur in (A follows B, B summarizes
C, C restates D, D elaborates on E, etc.) Here the text-theoretical framework of
Rhetorical Structure Theory may provide the inventory of relations needed (see Mann
and Thompson 1988).

In Figure 2 below, a small slice of a “lexical” microweb for Danish learners of English is
illustrated. This example focuses on the lexical item “novel”. It is shown that “novel” is an
instance of a count noun, which in turn is a subclass of noun. A definition is furthermore
attached to the topic of noun to explain the meaning of the term. The actual expression
“novel” is set to be within the scope of “English”. The noun “novel” is connected to two
lexical items in Danish: the proper translation, or equivalent, “roman” and the false friend
“novelle” (word that looks similar but has another meaning). Both “novel” and “roman”
are linked to the concept of “novel” which has a subject identifier pointing to the
Wikipedia page about novels. (Some details are left out here: most importantly, topics
should be endowed with subject identifiers or subject locators to facilitate merging, etc.).
64 Applications and Practices: Lars Johnsen

Figure 2: A small microstructure of lexical content

3 Concluding remarks

In sum, Topic Maps seems to be a promising model and technology for organizing and
integrating microcontent for (language) learning, not least open microcontent. To exploit
the potential of the model, however, more tools for ordinary users are needed. In
particular, there is a lack of free, configurable and easy-to-use tools for querying and
viewing topic maps. If this issue is not addressed, Topic Maps risks ending up as a
technology being chiefly used in large, well-funded but confined e-learning projects and
not as a common framework for developing and sharing educational resources at a
grass root level.

References

Dicheva, D. & Dichev, C. (2006): TM4L: Creating and Browsing Educational Topic Maps.
British Journal of Educational Technology - BJET, 37(3) 391-404

DS 2394-1 (1998): Leksikalske datasamlinger. Indholds- og strukturbeskrivelse. Del 1:

Taksonomi til klassifikation af oplysningstyper. Dansk Standard
The Seven C’s of Educational Topic Maps 65

Johnsen, L. (2003): Designing Adaptive Documentation with XML: From Formal to

Rhetorical Markup. Best Practices, June, Vol. 5

Johnsen, L. (2005): Information Maps Meet Topic Maps. From Structured Writing to
Mergeable Knowledge Webs with XML. In: Madsen, B.N. & Thomsen, H.E. (eds.):
Terminology and Content Development. Litera.

Horn, R.E. (1989): Mapping Hypertext. Analysis, Linkage, and Display of Knowledge for
the Next Generation of On-Line Text and Graphics. Lexington: The Lexington
Institute

Horn, R.E. (1993): Structured Writing at Twenty-five. Performance and Instruction, p. 32

Horn, R.E. (1998): Structured Writing as a Paradigm. In Romiszowski, A. & Dills, C.

(eds.): Instructional Development: State of the Art. Englewood Cliffs: Educational
Technology Publications

Hug, Theo, Lindner, Martin & Bruck, Peter A. (eds.) (2006): Microlearning: Emerging
Concepts, Practices and Technologies after e-Learning. Proceedings of
Microlearning 2005. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press

Mann, W.C. & Thompson, S.A. (1988): Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional
theory of text organization. Text 8(3), pp. 243-281

Nordeng, T.W., Guescini, R. and Karabeg, D. (2006): Topic Maps for polyscopic
structuring of information. Int. J. Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong
Learning. Vol. 16, Nos. 1/2, pp. 35-49

Park, J. & Hunting, S. (2003): XML Topic Maps. Creating and Using Topic Maps for the
Web. Boston: Addison-Wesley
 Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems
(Paper)

Eva M. Unterrainer
University of Innsbruck (Austria)

Meinrad E. Welte
University of Innsbruck (Austria)

Abstract: This paper focuses on a number of flashcard-based learning systems and provides a
brief overview of their functions. The authors initially describe their mode of operation and, after a
description of every tool, subsequently compare the tools with each other. The results of this
summative evaluation are presented in a matrix. The authors arrive at the conclusion that all
learning tools offer the repetition of vocabulary and other content. Furthermore every learning
system allows the creation of customised flashcards. Nevertheless, the majority of the learning tools
show development potential. For this reason, the “ideal” learning system is delineated at the end of
the paper.

1. Introduction

This paper aims to evaluate flashcard-based learning tools. According to Wikipedia, a

flashcard is “a card that is used as a learning aid. One writes a question on a card and
an answer overleaf. Flashcards can bear vocabulary, historical dates, formulas or any
subject matter that can be learned via a question and answer format.” (Wikipedia, 2008).
This evaluation will concentrate only on electronic flashcard systems which run on PCs
or mobile devices such as mobile phones, PDAs, etc. and are preferentially based on
Sebastian Leitner’s principle.

In this context, Microlearning comes into play. According to Hug, Microteaching “means
teaching a small group of peers for a relatively short period of 5 to 15 minutes and then
giving [...] feedback on the performances. Microlearning [...] means the microteaching
experience as a learning experience and a very effective method of learning for students
[...]” (Hug 2006, 8). In other words, we focus on learning small units in an informal
learning context in a short time (Hug 2006, 9). Learners should be able to access the
Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems 67

chunks of learning content anytime and anywhere (cfr. Gabrielli, Kimani & Catarci 2006,
45).

We will start by presenting our mode of operation and methods. The evaluated learning
tools are then described and afterwards shown in a matrix. At the end we will discuss the
various systems in the form of a summative evaluation and try to illustrate the “ideal”
learning tool.

2. Methods

In a first step, we searched for learning systems via the Internet and in journals available
online. The learning systems had to fulfil the following requirements:

• They are established,

• Suitable for mass users and based on a client-server,

• They have a commercial character, and

• The software can be downloaded and installed for free.

The process of looking for these tools took a lot of time at the beginning of our project.
Some tools could be excluded immediately, others had to be considered more carefully
in order to decide whether they were “worth” consideration or not. In some cases, the
learning tool could not be classified even after a detailed contemplation of its
corresponding website. Unfortunately, we were unable to find a tool which fulfilled all of
the principles mentioned above.

As already noted, we occupied ourselves with a certain number of electronic learning

software. For the summative evaluation of these tools, we followed the criteria of Gediga
and Hamborg (2002, quoted in Salschek et al. 2007). In other words, the programmes
were compared, evaluation criteria were drawn up, and suggestions for improvement
were worked out. Comparison tools known from different computer magazines were
used as templates. Further criteria were derived from the functionalities of the various
programmes; i.e. they were generated retroactively.
The evaluation was carried out externally, without a contracting entity. In other words,
the evaluation featured a personal separation between the evaluators and software
producers (Wottawa & Thiera 1998, 34-35; Hagleitner, 2008).

To gather information about the learning tools, we had a close look at the website of
every tool which was more or less informative and we tried the demo versions (if
available).
68 Applications and Practices: Eva M. Unterrainer, Meinrad E. Welte

The following section will present the learning software individually and juxtapose it in the
matrix (cfr. Figure 1). In other words, the matrix summarises the results and compares
different functionalities of the various programmes.

3. The evaluated learning systems

Four learning systems – Memorylifter, VTrain, Langenscheidt, and Anki – run only on the
PC (cfr. 3.1); Open Window, Knowledge Pulse, and PocketLearn can be used both on
PCs and mobile devices, while StudyCell only works on mobile devices. The latter
systems are presented in one group in section 3.2 and in the matrix.

3.1 PC-based only

3.1.1 Memorylifter 2.0.2

MemoryLifter 2.0.2 is a free application. Its professed target is the transfer of content to
long-term memory. By its own statement, MemoryLifter is geared to Ebbinghaus’ and
Leitner’s learning methods and supplemented by multimedia options. The concept and
didactics of Leitner’s flashcard system are explained. Daily learning sessions of about 20
minutes are recommended. Interested teachers and students are invited to read up on
the programme.

The programme is designed for any kind of content. This content has to be created by
the user herself/himself, which can be done via text, image, audio, or video.

3.1.2 VTrain 5.0

VTrain is a prize-winning shareware with a one-time lincence fee of €19. According to its
own statement, VTrain is geared to Leitner’s flashcard system. Furthermore,
Ebbinghaus’ methods for long-lasting recall are highlighted. VTrain is installed at
approximately fifty universities and hundreds of schools worldwide.

In principle, the software supports any kind of content VTrain offers many ready-made
flashcards in the fields of chemistry, architecture, medicine, media, technology,
psychology, etc.

3.1.3 Langenscheidt 3.0

Langenscheidt is a commercial flashcard system. The one-time fee amounts to €17,90
for the downloadable version or €19,90 for the CD-Rom version. Further software
downloads for PDA, Smartphone, and mobile phones are available. The software offers
28 language packages, such as Chinese, Thai, Latin, and many European languages.
Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems 69

Although not explicit mentioned, Langenscheidt is geared to Leitner’s flashcard system.

Vocabulary can also be trained according to the so-called “Superlearning” approach.
Updates and vocabulary sets can be downloaded for free; content creation, export, and
exchange with other students is possible.

3.1.4 Anki
Anki 0.3.6 was originally designed for students of Japanese, but it can be used for any
kind of content. Anki is a very new and reduced, but intriguing English freeware
programme Its concept and didactics are geared to Leitner’s flashcard system.

3.2 Mobile-based

3.2.1 Open Window

Open Window has been offering prize-winning commercial flashcard products since
1992. Several versions of the current WinFlash software are available: Basic, Classic,
Scholar, and Educator are PC solutions running on Windows 95 or newer. The one-time
licence costs are $19,95 for WinFlash Basic and $39,95 for WinFlash Educator. A server
licence for WinFlash Basic is available at $299,95.

HandyCards is a very reduced mobile flashcard application, available for PDA, PalmOS,
and PocketPC. It is priced at $14,95 as stand-alone software and $9,95 in a bundle with
WinFlash Educator.

WinFlash Administrator is available in addition to WinFlash Educator. The programme is

designed for schools and companies. It offers statistical evaluation of the efforts and
improvements of students and employees. The one-time licence fee is $39,95.

FlashCard Exchange is an online database with 9 million ready-made flashcards. Online

study is possible without any local installation. Members have lifelong access to the
portal for a one-time fee of $19,95 or $14,95 together with WinFlash Educator.

3.2.2 Knowledge Pulse

Knowledge Pulse is client-server based software; this means that course content is sent
from the server that communicates with PC or mobile devices. This server provides so-
called “micro-lessons” “in the form of flashcards with questions to your mobile device
(mobile phone, PC, PDA, etc.)” (http://www.knowledgepulse.com, accessed Mar, 2008).
The number of questions per session can be chosen by the users. The programme
offers the next flashcards depending on the user’s last answers. Knowledge Pulse can
easily be integrated into the daily lives of the learners, as they can e.g. learn some
vocabulary during their breaks.
70 Applications and Practices: Eva M. Unterrainer, Meinrad E. Welte

3.2.3 PocketLearn
PocketLearn is a registered application developed by PocketLearn Inc., Miami, Florida.
PocketLearn is designed to turn mobiles into learning platforms. Both a free and a
commercial version of PocketLearn are available. Content is created and used in the
HTML format. Unfortunately, the website download did not work in order to test free
ready-made learning decks.

3.2.4 StudyCell
StudyCell is a commercial mobile flashcard application. It is designed to use the mobile
phone as a learning platform. The company estimates that 70% of students possess a
mobile phone and therefore they represent the target group of the application. Methods
and didactics are not specified.

StudyCell is designed for learning languages such as Spanish, French, Italian, and
English en-route. Other kind of content is also possible. StudyCell offers ready-made
flashcards for examinations such as CAHSEE (California high school diploma), SAT (US
university acceptance test), “citizenship” tests, etc. Customised flashcards can be
created online and downloaded directly to a mobile.

Costs are not specified on the website, but declared to be project-based. The software
can be used by up to 500 students, with approximate costs of $350.

4. Matrix

The criteria of evaluation are represented on the horizontal axis, whereas the learning
programmes are displayed on the vertical axis.
Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems 71

Figure 1a: Matrix of the learning tools

Figure 1b: Matrix of the learning tools

72 Applications and Practices: Eva M. Unterrainer, Meinrad E. Welte

Figure 1c: Matrix of the learning tools

Figure 1d: Matrix of the learning tools

Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems 73

Figure 1e: Matrix of the learning tools

Figure 1f: Matrix of the learning tools

Figure 1g: Matrix of the learning tools

74 Applications and Practices: Eva M. Unterrainer, Meinrad E. Welte

5. Discussion

No programme was found which fulfilled all criteria mentioned in section 2. The main
difficulty lay in finding client-server-based applications; we therefore speak of “missing
connectivity”. Knowledge Pulse is the only application featuring the client-server function.

Further, we have determined content to be poor, which causes hard work for learners in
order to create content themselves. On the other hand, all programmes allow learners to
customise the applications.

Nearly all learning systems offer the possibility to learn languages or, more precisely,
vocabulary, but no tool refers to the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (cfr. References). By means of this framework, learners can appraise
themselves in order to determine their Common Reference Level (A1-C2) which
facilitates their learning.

Unfortunately, the majority of tools give poor feedback. However, according to

Edmondson/House (2006, 254) learners want to be corrected. We would therefore
welcome feedback containing the solutions, the ratio of right and wrong answers, and
statistics about the learning progress.

Only two learning systems work in accordance with push technology and invite users to
learn. Push technology denotes programmes which self-initiate themselves, thus
enforcing learning (Wienold 2004, 90). The other tools place an emphasis on intrinsic
motivation of learners so that users have to start the programmes themselves; in this
context we allude to pull technology. Pull technology depends on the learners and their
free will, which could lead to poor motivation. Neuhold & Lindner (2006, 21) note that
“people will not want to decide all the time to take a microlearning step or not.”

Moreover, some tools are too complicated to handle and only Knowledge Pulse displays
widget or gadget characteristics.

In comparison with other internet-based tools, nearly all learning systems are not up to
date.

The “ideal” learning tool should be easy to use. Usability and accessability are the key
qualifications of a successful learning system. Medial aid should also be provided as
appropriate and motivating feedback. In accordance with the actual doctrine of grammar
research, the error or mistake should be seen as part of the learning process
(Edmondson/House 2006).
Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems 75

Appendix: Legend for matrix

• Name: official name

• Version: official release number
• Minimum requirements:
o Hardware: minimum hardware requirements
o Software: oldest possible operating system
• Additional: additional required software (e.g. Win NET)
• Disk space: minimum necessary disk space when
completely installed
• Internet:
o Study
• Online: use application via internet access (without local
installation)
• Offline: use application via local installation (without
internet access)
• Topics:
o Focus:
• Languages: special language support (e.g. Japanese
characters)
• General: use for any content
o Flashcards:
• Create: possibility to create own flashcards
• Download: download ready-made flashcards/content
• Costs:
o Software costs:
• Programme: one-time licence costs
• Mobile add-on: costs for mobile extension (e.g. mobile,
PDA, etc.)
• Membership: costs for regular updates and use of online
portal
• Content: additional costs for content (e.g. ready-made
flashcards)
• Didactics:
o Concept: underlined didactic method/concept
• Flashcard: Sebastian Leitner’s flashcard system
o Answer options: kind of answering
• Self evaluation: after given the right answer, user
herself/himself indicates if she/he was right or wrong
76 Applications and Practices: Eva M. Unterrainer, Meinrad E. Welte

• Yes/no: user enters “yes” or “no”, software estimates if

answered accurately
• Text answer: user enters text, software estimates if
answered accurately
• Listening comprehension: user answers to audio
question
• Image recognition: user answers to image/video
question
• Multiple choice: user chooses from a given set of
answers
o Time management:
• Units: temporal structure of learning units
• Countdown: program defines time limits for answer
o Media: possible media formats for flashcards
• Text
• Image
• Audio
• Video
• Audio recorder
o Motivation: programme tries to motivate user
• Push: programme asks for learning (e.g. when other
applications are inactive), as opposed to “pull“, when
learners take the initiative themselves (Wienold 2004,
90).
• Tutor: active request for exercises by a virtual lecturing
tutor
• Incentives: reward effort and improvement (e.g. via
special audio/video effects)
• Statistics: statistic evaluation of effort and improvement
o Effort:
• Number: number of handled flashcards per day
• Time: amount of dedicated time
o Improvement:
• Yes/No: temporally documented right-wrong ratio
• Time per answer: required time to answer
o Grading: performance review via grade or simular feedback
o Illustration:
• Text: statistic reviews via text or numbers
• Diagrams: graphical illustration of statistic reviews
o Output:
Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems 77

• Export (format): export data for further processing

• Usability: 4-ary rating (good, average, bad, not specified)
o Ergonomics:
• Manageability: grade of intuitive handling
• Customisation: grade of individual adaption
• Comprehensability: logic application flow
• Clearness: clearly arranged desktop
o Help/Support:
• Filter/Search: filter and search functions for fast locating
• Help (F1): help function for fast software learning
• Support: assistance via Internet, telephone, etc. (no
rating)

References

Council of Europe (ed.) (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages. Learning, teaching, assessment. URL:
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf (accessed Feb, 2008).

Edmondson, W.J. & House, J. (2006). Einführung in die Sprachlehrforschung. Tübingen,

Basel: A. Francke Verlag.

Gabrielli, S., Kimani, S. & Catarci, T. (2006). The Design of MircoLearning Experiences.
A Research Agenda (On Microlearning). In: Hug, T., Lindner, M., Bruck, P.A. (Eds.).
Microlearning: Emerging Concepts, Practices and Technologies after e-Learning.
Proceedings of Microlearning 2005. Learning & Working in New Media. Innsbruck:
innsbruck universitypress, pp. 45-53.

Hagleitner, W. (2008): Schöpfungsgeschichte einer Lernsoftware: Formative Evaluation

von der Idee bis zur Marktreife. Projected.

Hug, T. (2006). Microlearning: A New Pedagogical Challenge (Introductory Note). In:

Hug, T., Lindner, M., Bruck, P.A. (Eds.). Microlearning: Emerging Concepts,
Practices and Technologies after e-Learning. Proceedings of Microlearning 2005.
Learning & Working in New Media. Innsbruck: innsbruck universitypress, pp. 7-11.

Salaschek, M., Holling, H., Freund, P. A. & Kuhn, J.-T. (2007). Benutzbarkeit von
Software. Vor- und Nachteile verschiedener Methoden und Verfahren. In: Zeitschrift
für Evaluation, 2, pp. 247-276.

Wienold, K. (2004). Evaluation onlinebasierter Lehr-/Lernsysteme. Anforderung an

Instrumente zur Evaluation Neuer Medien. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac.
78 Applications and Practices: Eva M. Unterrainer, Meinrad E. Welte

Wottawa, H. & Thierau, H. (1998). Lehrbuch Evaluation. 2., vollständig überarbeitete

Auflage. Bern, Göttingen, Toronto, Seattle: Huber.

URLs used

http://www.memorylifter.com (accessed Jan, 2008).

http://www.openwindow.com (accessed Jan, 2008).

http://www.vtrain.net (accessed Jan, 2008).

http://www.langenscheidt.de (accessed Jan, 2008).

http://repose.cx/anki (accessed Jan, 2008).

http://www.studycell.com (accessed Jan, 2008).

http://www.pocketlearn.com (accessed Jan, 2008).

http://www.knowledgepulse.com (accessed Mar, 2008).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashcard (accessed Jan, 2008).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget_engine (accessed Mar, 2008).

 Has the End of the Chalkboard Come?
A Survey About the Limits of Interactive Pen Displays
in Higher Education
(Paper)

Martin Ebner
Computing and Information Services / Social Learning
Graz University of Technology (Austria)

Walther Nagler
Computing and Information Services / Social Learning
Graz University of Technology (Austria)
(Paper)

Abstract: This paper tracks the question how the usage of an interactive pen display benefits
teaching at universities. The advantages and disadvantages as well as important didactical aspects
that need to be concerned in this context are discussed. First results of a survey on the application
area of interactive pen displays for higher education purpose that was carried out at Graz University
of Technology (TU Graz) in the 2007/08 winter term are reflected. Although the results of the survey
are surprisingly significant in favour of the interactive pen display overall strategies for a widespread
usage at universities are recommended.

1 Introduction

1.1 Teaching and Learning go new ways

Nowadays, Web 2.0 technologies are influencing our daily life (O’Reilly, 2006). New
opportunities such as Weblogs, Wikis or Podcasts help to bring so-called microcontent
closer to the user (Maurer & Schinagl, 2006) (Korica et al, 2006). Learning and teaching
can be realized in innovative and diverse ways (Seitzinger, 2006). Stephen Downes
named learning enhanced by Web 2.0 technologies “e-Learning 2.0” (Downes, 2005),
thus coining a new term in 2005 (Nagler et al, 2006). Since then, several research
projects have been carried out to determine whether there are benefits for lecturers and
students in using such applications (Campbell, 2005). The TU Graz installed a
80 Applications and Practices: Martin Ebner, Walther Nagler

blogosphere (Ebner & Maurer, 2007a), launched Wikis (Ebner et al., 2006) and gain
initial experience in casting lectures and producing podcasts (Ebner et al, 2007b).

However great these possibilities for teaching and learning might be, a large gap has
arisen during this first period of e-Learning 2.0 implementation at TU Graz. On the one
hand, there are lecturers who teach in a very traditional way, on the other hand there are
new web-based technologies. Taking a serious look at a typical large lecture room,
nowadays it has become usual that a chalkboard, an overhead projector, a beamer and
a network connection are provided. But of course such lecture room equipment is not
designed for and is far from being perfect to introduce digital technologies for e-Learning
components.

The two crucial factors for successful e-Learning and use of microcontent in higher
education for lectures with a high number of participants (more than 100 students) are:

1. Ubiquitous and simple technologies: Lecturers must not be handicapped by

new technologies during their usual teaching process. The environment should
be as simple, user-friendly and understandable as possible; otherwise, it will not
be accepted. Time-consuming technologies will disturb the whole process and
therefore be neglected for further use. As Mark Weiser (Weiser, 1991) already
wrote in 1991, “the most profound technologies are those that disappear – they
weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable
from it.”, these can be assigned perfectly to teaching and learning processes.

2. Clear didactical concept: The second crucial factor concerns the question how
new technologies are integrated in teaching and learning scenarios. A clear
didactical approach is a precondition for a successful integration. (Holzinger,
2002)

Based on these premises, the TU Graz decided to initiate a first prototype to investigate
how new technologies can also enhance the teaching process in lectures with a high
number of students.

By installing a pen display which can be compared to a tablet PC (Tront, 2007)

(Anderson et al., 2007) into one of the largest lecture rooms at TU Graz (with a capacity
of about 250 seats), the following central research question has been addressed: “Can
the use of a pen display enhance the teaching and learning processes of a usual lecture
with a high number of students?”

This paper presents the didactical scenario, the real-life setting and the results of a
questionnaire carried out by more than 100 students.
Has the End of the Chalkboard Come? 81

1.2 Don’t just give them a new tool

According to the previous chapter, the didactical concept is one of the crucial factors.
Discussing the fact that the implementation of a new tool for teaching efforts must go
hand in hand with didactical scenarios; otherwise the new tool will hardly be accepted by
teachers and students and cannot be implemented or used in a reasonable way.

There is no inherently perfect teaching tool. The method of teaching should be chosen
by the teacher and not the other way around. It depends on the teacher how to use a tool
best for his/her own ideas. First of all, the teacher must feel comfortable about using the
tool, then he/she will become more creative by using it. Nevertheless, each tool has
specific aims and functions and insofar is limited to its usability per se. Furthermore,
each tool needs a special setting and didactical considerations for its implementation.

In the lecture pertaining to the questionnaire, the lecturer mainly calculated examples
and made drawings. Thus, the didactical suggestion was to execute it more interactively
(Hennessy et al, 2007) with the help of prepared handouts and digital scripts. By using a
pen display, the handling of interactive scripts should become much easier.

1.3 Pen Display versus Chalkboard

The decision to test a pen display at all was preceded by discussions concerning the
expected potential. Are there considerable advantages or is it just a “new toy”?

Comparing the advantages and disadvantages of pen displays and chalkboards, it must
be pointed out that irrespective of the content, the biggest difference lies in the fact of
digitalisation with all its efforts and limitations. The advantages of the chalkboard can be
summarized as being larger and therefore accommodating more details. Unlike the pen
display, the process of creating content takes the same time for the teacher and the
student if there are no prepared handouts. The disadvantages of the chalkboard are
mainly the disadvantages of analogue content; it lacks the capability to save, copy, or
publish content, or reconstruct it once cleared. Furthermore, the legibility decreases with
increasing size of the lecture room. The facts that the teacher in general averts his/her
face from the audience when working with the chalkboard cannot be neglected from the
didactical point of view.

Besides the advantages of digital content (e.g. easy to save, copy, delete, correct or
publish and distribute, as well as rewrite) the utilised pen display is easy to install and
connect to further equipment in the lecture room (e.g. laptop, beamer). It is very user-
friendly and designed for interactivity. However, the surface resolution could be
insufficient for details. Drawing precision is limited by the thickness of the digital ink and
the difference between the position where the pen touches the screen and the position of
the digital ink. Lastly, the speed of lecturing could become too fast depending on the
quality of prepared scripts used for teaching. In case of “too well-prepared scripts” the
82 Applications and Practices: Martin Ebner, Walther Nagler

student may have problems trying to follow the lecturing synchronously and working with
handouts supplied by the teacher.

1.4 The Sympodium Interactive Pen Display

The TU Graz decided on the Sympodium ID370 Interactive Pen Display mainly because
of its 17” large-sized, high-resolution display. The battery-free pen works with
electromagnetic resonance technology. The Sympodium™ is permanently installed in
the lecture room “HS I” of TU Graz with a capacity of 250 people and a height of nearly
7m. The Sympodium™ is placed on a speakers’ desk and connected to the teachers’
table via the Sympodium™ USB cable (GoWire™ SMART Board software auto-launch
USB cable). The USB cable comes with the software that is needed to run the pen
display on a computer or laptop with Windows, Linux or Mac OS. The first time a laptop
is switched to the Sympodium™ by plugging in the USB cable, the software installs itself
automatically and is subsequently recognised. The laptop is regularly connected to a
beamer. The laptop and the Sympodium™ can be run parallel without switching
operations. Any activity that is carried out with the Sympodium™ and the laptop is
displayed on the beamer (see figure 1). The final edited documents can be printed as
PDF files.

Figure 1: Arrangement of the installation – the images of the laptop and the beamer are
symbolic ones

2 The survey

2.1 Facts of the didactical scenario

The Sympodium™ pen display was tested in the lecture called “Structural Design 1” and
in the practical course of the same name. Both the lecture and the practical course were
taught by the same teacher. The content of the lecture imparted analytic methods to
Has the End of the Chalkboard Come? 83

quantify the reactions and internal forces of statically determined systems: beams,
trusses, arches, frames, multiplate systems, 3D-structures and cables. The course
applied the theoretical methods to quantify the reactions and internal forces of statically
determined systems from the lecture "Structural Design 1" by arithmetical examples.
Many drawings and process displays by the teacher in the classroom were required for
these teaching aims (Davis, 2007). Before the start of the lecture, the students had the
opportunity to prepare for the lecture in the classroom by reading and downloading the
original lecture scripts from the corresponding TU Graz TeachCenter1 course (Helic et al,
2005).

The teacher did not get more than a short instruction for handling the major functions of
the Sympodium™ by the Office of Computer and Information Services of the TU Graz.
The pen display was used for each of the 29 lecture units. The teacher mainly worked
with several pen thicknesses and colours, drawing and writing on prepared PDF-scripts
that had been imported to the Sympodium™ presentation software. If needed for further
explanation in addition to the basic script, page options such as cloning (copying) or
fitting in new pages were used just as naturally and quickly as if turning over a book
page.

The lectures were recorded (Ebner et al, 2007c) by recording the sound with a wireless
microphone and screening the laptop display with the software Camtasia Studio 4
(TechSmith) – which results in an identical image of the Sympodium™ pen display. By
recording the process of drawing and calculating, which are fundamental elements of the
lecture, these important components of content development could be preserved. The
pen display enables it and the recording saves it.

Therefore, the documents handed out to the students comprised the original PDF-script,
the PDF-script with the Sympodium™ interactions that had been carried out by the
teacher during lecturing and the recordings in different formats (avi, Xvid, m4v, mp3 and
Flash). These documents were provided for watching and downloading at the TU Graz
TeachCenter (see Figure 2). Figure 3 shows an example of the lecture content.

1
The TU Graz TeachCenter is an e-Learning platform supporting digital teaching and learning activities
at TU Graz. It is based on the so-called WBT-Master system, a platform created by the Institute for
Information Systems and Computer Media (IICM) at TU Graz under the guidance of Hermann Maurer
and Nikolai Scerbakov.
84 Applications and Practices: Martin Ebner, Walther Nagler

Figure 2: Lecture setting; Usage of Sympodium™, live recording of the teacher’s

activities and providing documents at TU Graz TeachCenter
Has the End of the Chalkboard Come? 85

Figure 3: Screenshot from interactive content drawn with the pen on the display, saved
as PDF and distributed over the TU Graz TeachCenter

2.2 The survey’s intention

The survey was carried out for the two lectures described above. The questions
concerning the usage of the pen display were part of a post-test questionnaire. Besides
the pen display, another main focus of the survey lay on the podcast activities offered for
the lecture. On the one hand, the aim was to find out whether the students accepted the
pen display as an instrument for teaching and realised the advantages for the special
needs of that lecture and on the other hand, to identify the experiences of the teacher
working solely with the pen display in the classroom. The teacher was interviewed orally.
The number of students taking part in the survey was 108. The questions centred on:

• How did the usage of the pen display for teaching purposes appear to the
students: “totally wrong”, “I don’t care”, “good idea”, “perfect”?

• Which medium did the student prefer and why: chalkboard or pen display?

• What was the strongest negative aspect of the pen display?

• What was the major positive aspect of the pen display?

86 Applications and Practices: Martin Ebner, Walther Nagler

The questions the teacher was asked concerned the adjustment of the preparation
according to the content itself and the time needed therefor, as well as the live handling
of the pen display in classroom during the lecture.

2.3 Students’ results of the survey

Question 1: If you rethink the whole lecture, would you retrospectively prefer the use of
the Pen Display or the Chalkboard?

Participants (N) Prefer Pen Display Prefer Chalkboard Not specified

108 97 (90%) 1 (1%) 10 (9%)

Table 1: Do you prefer Pen Display or Chalkboard?

The results are clearly outstanding (see Table 1). Nearly 90% of the polled students
prefer the Sympodium™ pen display as opposed to the chalkboard. Only a single
student decided in favour of the chalkboard, 10 skipped the question. Even more
impressive were the responses to the question concerning whether the usage of the pen
display for teaching efforts makes sense or not. With a standard deviation of 0.54, over
62% of students estimate the pen display to be perfectly qualified for this task and 37%
stated it is a good idea to use it in classroom (see Table 2). Again, only one student
thought it wrong to use a pen display for lecturing purposes.

Question 2: The use of the Pen Display for lecturing was …?

Answers: 1 = useless; 2 = I don’t care; 3 = positive; 4 = absolutely useful

Participants (N) Mean Standard Deviation Median

108 3,60 0,54 4

Table 2: The Use of the Pen Display for lecturing was …?

Has the End of the Chalkboard Come? 87

Table 2 shows a very impressive positive result concerning the use of the pen display.
The majority of students deemed the usage “absolutely useful” or at least “positive”. A
further question was added according to their reasons.

Question 3: If you prefer the Pen Display for teaching, please tell us your personal
reason for this decision.

Looking at the answers given according to the most negative and positive aspects, it
must be said that the qualities of a pen display and its handicaps were obvious.
Nevertheless, the students found the more attractive view and better legibility to be the
primary advantages in comparison to the chalkboard. The answers given were quite
multifaceted. Figure 4 shows the answers in detail.

The disadvantages of the pen centred on the circumstance of possible technical

problems with the pen display, laptop or beamer, which in fact occurred one single time
regarding the beamer. Furthermore, some argued that the scripting had turned unclear,
confused, or blurred. Only one student criticised the increased speed of teaching and
another feared the chalkboard to become totally displaced.

Figure 4: Students’ results in detail: advantages of the pen display

88 Applications and Practices: Martin Ebner, Walther Nagler

2.4 Teacher’s survey results

The teacher’s interview arrived at the conclusion that it is very much worth spending
some time on special preparations for the scripts in order to take advantage of the highly
efficient Sympodium™ pen display. The script contained a lot of graphics, basic figures
to go on with drawings on them during the lecturing, as well as instructions for
calculations. The easy (auto-)installation and high usability were regarded as very
positive criteria. Most of the features were self-explanatory and therefore quick to use.
Furthermore, the technical faultlessness was a crucial factor for the utterly satisfying
usage of the pen display. Only the handling of the interactive pen itself required some
habituation time. After all, it remained hard to precisely place and hit a specific point on
the display.

The teacher emphatically expressed that he liked using the pen display and that it
offered a high benefit for his teaching process in the end. Noticed in a subjective
manner, it must be said that once the lecturer became familiar with the pen display –
after the first two lecturers – it seemed like he had never used any other tools for
teaching.

3 Discussion

The first experience with the Sympodium™ pen display resulted in highly positive
feedback on the part of the students as well as the teacher. It was highly accepted by
students although the answers were given seriously and critically. The didactical setting
and the characteristics of the content were adequate for the usage of the pen display.
The facts that were responsible for the successful implementation of the pen display in
lectures are the following:

• A large lecture room requires good legibility of written content, all the way up to
the last chair in the back row

• The content was process-oriented

• The content was interaction-oriented

• The content was well-prepared for the pen display options

• The in-classroom activities were recorded and therefore reproducible and more
comprehensible afterwards

• The students were introduced to the setting

The only realistic limiting factor in the described scenario was the difficulty of precisely
placing the interactive pen on a specific point on the display. This might seem of no great
Has the End of the Chalkboard Come? 89

importance at first sight. In the case of presenting an interactive PowerPoint slide show
or drawing drafts (as was done during the described lectures) it can be neglected. Future
experiences will tell if the Sympodium™ pen display is also helpful for detailed technical
drawings, such as those demanded in lectures such as “Mechanical Drawing” or some
lectures on architecture.

4 Conclusion

It can be concluded that the first attempt to use an interactive Pen Display in a large
lecture room lead to a very positive effect for the daily teaching process. Students as well
as the teacher regarded it as a “very useful” add-on.

From a research point of view, it can be summarized that it was possible to combine new
technologies with traditional teaching methods. Podcasting as well as slide shows
(Almonte & Gilroy, 2005), animations and internet-based resources can be incorporated
into the lecture without major additional efforts or costs. Teachers need not switch
between different media technologies and can concentrate on their lecture content.

The TU Graz will enlarge this initiative and reach out for further improvements. They
include, on the hardware side: what can be done to avoid the displacing of pens and how
can the podcasting be more automated. On the didactical side: how can further new
technologies be integrated into in-classroom activities. Bearing the results of the survey
in mind, it will easily be possible to also embed microcontent such as in-time
contributions from microblogging systems or videos on YouTube into everyday lecturing.

5 Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the team Media of Computer and Information
Services for helping us to install the Sympodium™ pen display in the lecture room and
supporting us during all technical requirements. Special thanks goes to Dipl.-Ing. Helmut
Schober, who tried out the new technology during his lecture. Of course we also have to
thank Mrs. Anna Saranti for reworking the podcasts in the highest quality and providing
them that fast. In the end we are equally indebted to all students who attended the
lecture and gave us feedback about their experiences and opinions.
90 Applications and Practices: Martin Ebner, Walther Nagler

References

Almonte, A, Gilroy, K. (2005). Podcast for Learning. The Otter Group. Cambridge, MA.

Anderson, R., Anderson, R., Davis, P., Linnel, N., Prince, C., Razmov, V., Videon, F.
(2007) Classroom Presenter: Enhancing Interactive Education with Digital Ink.
Computer, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 40, Issue 9, pp. 34-41

Campbell, G. (2005). There’s Something in the Air – Podcasting in Education.

EDUCAUSE Review, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 32-47

Davis, R. (2007). Magic Paper: Sketch – Understanding Research. Computer, IEEE

Computer Society, Vol. 40, Issue 9, pp. 34-41

Downes, S. (2005). E-Learning 2.0. ACM eLearn Magazine, October 2005 (10)
Ebner, M., Zechner, J., Holzinger, A. (2006). Why is Wikipedia so Successful?
Experiences in Establishing the Principles in Higher Education. Proceedings of
I-KNOW 06. 6th International Conference on Knowledge Management, Graz,
Austria, pp. 527-535, ISSN 0948-695x

Ebner, M.; Maurer, H. (2007a). Blogging in Higher Education. In: Proceeding E-Learn
2007. Quebec City, Canada, pp. 767-774

Ebner, M.; Fickert, L.; Nagler, W.; Stöckler-Penz, C. (2007c). Lifelong learning and
Doctoral Studies – Facilitation with Podcasting Techniques. In: Computers in
Education, Conference Proceedings IV. MIPRO 2007, pp. 280-283, ISBN 978-953-
233-029-8

Korica, P., Maurer, H., Schinagl, W. (2006). The growing importance of e-Communities
on the Web. International Conference on Web Based Communties (IADIS), pp. 165-
174

Helic, D., Krottmaier, H., Maurer, H., Scerbakov, N. (2005). Enabling Project-Based
Learning in WBT Systems. In: International Journal on E-Learning (IJEL), Vol. 4,
Issue 4, pp. 445-461

Hennessy, S., Wishar, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, R., La Velle, L., McFarlane,
A., Ruthven, K., Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pegagogical aproaches for technology-
integrated science teaching. Computers & Education, Vol. 48, pp. 137-152

Holzinger, A. (2002). Multimedia Basics. Volume 2: Cognitive Fundamentals of

Multimedia Information Systems. New Dehli: Laxmi-Publications

Maurer, H., Schinagl, W. (2006). Wikis and other e-Communities are changing the Web.
Proceedings of ED-Media 2006. AACE, pp. 2858-2866
Has the End of the Chalkboard Come? 91

Nagler, W.; Korica-Pehserl, P.; Ebner, M. (2007). RSS - The Door to E-Learning 2.0. In:
E-Learning: Strategische Implementierungen und Studiengang. Proceedings, 13.
FNMA Conference, pp. 131-138, ISBN 3-902520-02-08

O’Reilly, T. (2006). Web 2.0: Stuck on a name or hooked in value?. Dr. Dobbs Journal,
31 (7), p. 10

Seitzinger, J. (2006). Be Constructive: Blogs, Podcasts and Wiki as Constructivist

Learning Tools. eLearning Guild Learning Solution Magazine

Tront, J. G. (2007). Facilitating Pedagogical Practices through a Large-Scale Tablet PC

Deployment. Computer, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 40 , Issue 9, pp. 34-41

Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the Twenty-first Century. Scientific American, Vol.
265, No. 3, pp. 94-104
 Mobile Hydraulic Engineering Simulations as
Microcontent
(Paper)

Stefan Walder
Hydraulic Engineering Unit, University of Innsbruck (Austria)

Wolfgang Hagleitner
Research Studios Austria Forschungsgesellschaft
Studio MicroLearning and Information Environments (Austria)

Abstract: This paper analyzes the teaching and learning opportunities provided by mobile
microcontent, using microcontent pertaining to the area of hydraulic engineering education. The first
part of the paper focuses on mobile learning in view of current developments in mobile radio
technology, taking into account recent studies on the subject. The second part of the paper
illustrates the technical process of creating content within an engineering context. Although not
every topic or content lends itself to the creation of animations, hydraulic engineering topics often
deal with dynamic processes and are therefore suited for the development of educational
simulations and animations. The discussed microanimations were developed for mobile use and
were tested on a Nokia N95 smartphone. Lastly, the paper also analyzes the use of QR codes for
online animations.

1 Introduction

Both technological advancements in the field of mobile radio and the high penetration of
mobile devices are proving unstoppable. According to a recent five-year forecast by
Forrester Research, 38 percent of all mobile phone users in Western Europe will employ
mobile internet services by 2013. The projected rise in user numbers would signify that
the current number will triple and 125 million Europeans will regularly access the Web
via mobile phone (see Poessneck, 2008). These advancements open up a hitherto
barely tapped spectrum of mobile learning- and mobile information management
scenarios and have a profound effect on the entire ICT sector. This situation intersects
current developments relating to two core issues of the information society: on the one
hand, people must learn more in increasingly shorter amounts of time while having less
time at their disposal in general; on the other hand, information is becoming richer,
Mobile Hydraulic Engineering Simulations as Microcontent 93

faster, more direct, and at the same time increasingly fragmented and ephemeral. While
the “demands placed on efficient cooperation and the exchange of knowledge have
risen”, the “overload due to irrelevant information” poses a “major challenge in dealing
with information and knowledge” for many people, in particular in their professional lives
(Berlecon Research/CoreMedia, 2007). These developments constitute both an
opportunity and a challenge for mobile learning. The challenging aspects include the
following issues:

a) timely identification of sustainable trends,

b) sound assessment of the technological and economic potential of these trends,

c) visualisation of potential, creative operation scenarios, application areas and

unsolved problems,

d) connecting new mobile radio technologies with established solutions in a

sensible manner,

e) acquisition of experience to discern the benefits of mobile learning and reinforce

them with empirical facts,

f) development of teaching strategies for mobile learning and mobile transfer of

information, respectively.

2 Micromedia, Microcontent, Microlearning and Microinformation -

Why?

According to current trend research, the added value provided by mobile learning is
gaining increasing recognition (Kuszpa & Scherm, 2005) and even being expanded,
thanks to the advancements in modern mobile radio technology. It is not merely a
question of conveying learning matter, but rather of merging learning, information and
communication. The benefits of mobile application scenarios are exponentiated at the
intersections of these application areas. Such benefits include:

• Temporal and spatial autonomy. Mobile microcontent can be accessed nearly

anytime and anywhere, thereby reducing the time required to retrieve
information. At the same time, micromedia devices (mobile phone,
smartphones, PDAs, etc.) are usually easy to access, which accelerates
immediacy of retrieval – an important factor e.g. in conjunction with mobile time
recording systems.

• Synchronicity – on the one hand, mobile solutions make it possible to provide

many people with relevant information simultaneously; on the other hand,
94 Applications and Practices: Stefan Walder, Wolfgang Hagleitner

mobile scenarios constitute a good supplement to established eLearning

methods or Learning Management Systems (Geser, 2005, p. 35), in some
cases even replacing them altogether (“develop once, deliver many”). Areas of
application include organizations in which a large part of the personnel is active
in the field, e.g. public transport employees or salespeople employed in the
pharmaceutical sector. Such employees can be provided with up-to-date,
relevant information (e.g., information pertaining to competitors, products, or
pricing, as well as corporate-, background- or situational information and
training content, respectively). Furthermore, one can contemplate how to
integrate mobile devices into individual PLEs (personal learning environments)
in a complementary way.

• Retrieval of learning units and information from a context that is relevant to the
content. This is important e.g. in connection with an accurate and rapid
diagnosis of patients. Further areas of application include detailed information
on products, statistics, locations, buildings or cultural sites, which can be
retrieved individually, e.g. using QR codes. Other potential uses include
accessing repair manuals and specific information pertaining to service or
maintenance operations (such as learning on the job or problem-centered
learning), or specialized services in the eGovernment sector. Kuszpa & Scherm
(2005) examined the issue of which content is best for learning on mobile end
devices. Their findings report that “77.3% of respondents ranked specialist
knowledge – such as product information – in first place […]. Learning which
accompanies work processes is rated in a similar manner, being [ranked in first
place] by 71.4%”.

• Combination with new mobile technologies. Location Based Services (LBS) are
considered groundbreaking and look very promising economically. They offer
mobile radio users information pertaining to their current location, such as local
information services, city maps and timetables, recreational- and event-related
recommendations, hotel- and restaurant tips, or cash machine locations
(Turowski & Pousttchi, 2004). During emergencies or disasters, such services
can provide crucial support via their detection capabilities. However,
voluntariness and regulation ability remain important principles in association
with such services.

• Sensible usage of “dead” time periods (e.g. time spent travelling or waiting).
Application examples include on-going training of flight crew and ground
personnel in the aviation sector, which is characterized by unused time slots
and waiting periods. Using Learning Management System interfaces, selected
or customized content can be adapted from a pool of microinformation units.
Mobile Hydraulic Engineering Simulations as Microcontent 95

• Adaptivity. Mobile devices can contain a personal user profile that may be used
for automatic personalization of information and learning content when
combined with an authoring system capable of incorporating, selecting, editing
and individualizing microcontent (Geser, 2005, p. 35), or in combination with
RSS feeds. Aggregated information (see Kerres, 2006) undergoes quantitative
selection and qualitative valorization, supporting effective and efficient
information management.

• High acceptance among youth. Unlike older generations who can be classified
as “digital immigrants”, young people can be considered “digital natives”. Youth
employ micromedia applications with a naturalness that all but begs the use of
such devices in connection with learning and the transfer of information,
coupled with the benefits of communication and integration into peer groups.
Application examples include information related to sports clubs, emergency
services or additive information concerning educational topics (e.g. mobile
Wikipedia, see Figure 1). Such content may be linked e.g. with push systems
providing an active learning incentive and/or with recompensation systems
offering e.g. credit or music activation. The transfer of multimedia microcontent
such as graphics, diagrams, videos or audio files is also becoming less of an
issue in connection with attractive flat-rate models.

Situational, context-related and user-specific preparation of content will constitute a vital

success criterion for the abovementioned uses of mobile micromedia, microcontent,
microlearning and microinformation. On one hand, content must be prepared
intelligently, taking into account the limited possibilities of mobile device displays. A
further quality criterion lies in didactically preparing cutting-edge microcontent in a highly
modular manner (Geser, 2005, p. 39) using information, learning content or
communication excerpted from groups or networks. Such modules can take the form of
simple text blocks, multimedia, games, quizzes or tests, using a scalable level of
interactivity or difficulty. Finally, platform-independence and synchronicity on various end
devices remain important quality criteria for learning: “Don’t develop content specifically
for mobile learning. Code your content in such a way that you can create it once and
consume it in a variety of ways.” (Chris von Koschembahr, 2005).

In the following sections, we would like to present an example for the creative use of
microcontent on micromedia devices. On one hand, it takes advantage of currently
existing technical possibilities, on the other hand, it explores the definition of
microcontent on micromedia devices.
96 Applications and Practices: Stefan Walder, Wolfgang Hagleitner

Figure 1: Mobile Wikipedia. Source: http://de.wap.wikipedia.org/

3 Visualization in Hydraulic Engineering

The realistic presentation of complex phenomena poses a great challenge and is fiercely
disputed by many experts in diverse disciplines. The choice of an adequate presentation
medium is important not only for practical, scientific work but also for teaching and
learning. Physical information which is mainly continuous is difficult to demonstrate using
static possibilities such as standard figures and diagrams. Many details have to be
simplified in order to describe a multi-dimensional system with two-dimensional static
images. These conventional forms of information transfer are well-known from many
traditional textbooks. To describe complex phenomena such as hydraulic flows, movable
images (e.g. animations) can be used in a practical way if certain principles are taken
into consideration (Walder et al., 2007). In the scientific community, the added value of
demonstrative visualization using images, animations, or films is well-known. However,
the technical implementation is faced with certain issues, for example lacking knowledge
of the technology or underestimating the effort involved in the creation of new learning
and teaching material. Therefore, traditional methods are still in use (Mach, 2005). The
vast amount of information makes it necessary to think about the right preparation of
data for the different target groups. Mach (2005) therefore differentiates between a
professional visualization with a technical focus on content and visualization for
presentation with a focus on design. Animations are not always the best way to present
Mobile Hydraulic Engineering Simulations as Microcontent 97

information. It is important to define the aim of an animation and to determine whether

the content requires an animated presentation (Niegemann et al., 2004).

3.1 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

Computational fluid dynamics, generally known by the acronym CFD, are used to
simulate complex flow problems with numerical methods (Ferziger and Prić, 2002). The
increase in processor performance is one factor for the increasing use of numerical
methods in both practical application and in teaching hydraulic engineering. Today, many
hydraulic problems can be simulated and visualized vividly. Flow-3D is the software
employed at the Unit of Hydraulic Engineering, developed by Flow Science Inc., Santa
Fe, California, USA (Flow-3D, 2002). It is used to solve non-linear, partially differential
equations based on the governing laws of fluid dynamics, namely conservation of mass
and momentum The animation creation process is divided into a pre- and a post
processing segment. The calculation of time-dependent flow characteristics forms a part
of the preprocessing. During the postprocessing, the data generated during
preprocessing is visualized. The visualization uses two- and three-dimensional
animations and images. This paper will focus on the animations.

3.2 Simulation
A simulation can be interpreted as an experiment on a model, subject to certain general
conditions. It is thus possible to learn more about the real system. Simulations are mostly
used to analyze the dynamics of real systems. Generally, simulations are based on a
system of differential equations. In hydraulic engineering, these are the governing laws
mentioned previously. Actual physical experiments partly have the disadvantage that
they cannot be done in a short time and with available devices. Nevertheless, if it is
possible to conduct real physical simulations, they can be recorded and the video file can
also be published in the same way as the computer animations mentioned in the
following section. In virtual laboratories, complex phenomena can be analyzed
independently, without requiring a large laboratory hall and technical staff.

3.3 Animation
Animation is the science and method of optical demonstration of measured or simulated
data. The data will become visible. Thereby the form of information (e.g. physical
processes or text) is independent. In general, it is not necessary to animate or visualize
every simulation. Correct interpretation of raw data is usually very difficult. This is one
reason why the use of animations has increased in recent years. The first step in the
animation process involves the production of images which are then composed in a
second step. This constitutes another method used for films and videos in which the
images are recorded continuously. According to Niegemann et al. (2004), reasons for the
use of animations range from decoration, attracting interest, motivation, presentation and
98 Applications and Practices: Stefan Walder, Wolfgang Hagleitner

clarification, to practice. The animations for this contribution aim to motivate students and
present complex content in an adequate form for practicing.

3.4 Interaction
Many different approaches have been used to define “interactivity”. Liu and Shrum
(2002) define “interactivity” as follows “[…] the degree to which two or more
communication parties can act on each other, on the communication medium, and on the
messages and the degree to which such influences are synchronized […]”. Thus, the
user should have the possibility to interact with the system. The lack of interactivity for
students in eLearning environments is mentioned as a disadvantage by Metzger and
Schulmeister (2004). The animations discussed in this paper are very time-consuming
and require a large amount of computing power. Therefore, a set of simulations and
animations with different start and boundary conditions can be preproduced for the
students.

4 Examples for mobile animations

The following two examples illustrate a two- and three-dimensional problem for mobile
hydraulic simulations and animations. In a first step, the possibilities for mobile hydraulic
animations were analyzed. A further step involved the analysis of the possibilities for the
implementation in the teaching process. The simulations were produced with the
numerical software Flow-3D, by Flow Science, Inc.

The advantage of animations lies in their ability to illustrate complex phenomena in a

realistic way, to describe dynamic processes dynamically, to look under the water
surface, and to visualize flow parameters continuously. Furthermore, the animation can
be stopped at any time or repeated continuously.

4.1 Flow over a weir

Hydraulic structures constitute the main focus of hydraulic engineering education. The
flow over a weir, as shown in Figure 2, is a three-dimensional problem within a complex
dynamic process. During the animation, many interesting hydraulic phenomena can be
explained very easily and in a realistic manner, which is not as easy to accomplish using
static figures.
Mobile Hydraulic Engineering Simulations as Microcontent 99

Figure 2: Mobile 3D animation of a flow over a weir in different time steps

4.2 Wave propagation

A primary application in the area of hydraulics lies in the demonstration of various flow
conditions. In general, static images are used for teaching purposes. By using new
technologies and numerical flow animations, it is possible to describe phenomena
dynamically. Normally, the problem is three-dimensional but in order to take a look under
the water surface, it is appropriate to use a two-dimensional animation. The spreading of
waves and water velocity can be seen very well in the two-dimensional animation in
Figure 3. By using colour scaling, it is possible to clearly distinguish different flow
characteristics.

Figure 3: Mobile 2D animation of a critical flow condition in different time steps

4.3 Quick Response (QR) Codes

Quick response codes, generally known by the acronym “QR codes”, contain short
information such as text messages, e-mail addresses or web addresses. Using a QR
code reader on the mobile phone, it is possible to scan the QR code with the integrated
camera and quickly obtain the deposited information. Exhausting typing on the mobile
phone is thus no longer necessary. Regarding hydraulic engineering content, QR codes
offer the possibility to quickly and easily generate an animated visualization instead of
standard static images on a mobile device. Kaywa, a Swiss company for mobile internet
100 Applications and Practices: Stefan Walder, Wolfgang Hagleitner

technology, has developed the Kaywa reader for Europe in cooperation with 3GVision
(Kaywa, 2008). Both the software for the mobile phone as well as the QR code generator
for non-commercial use can be downloaded free of charge. For the distribution of the
mobile hydraulic simulations, the QR codes were tested with a Nokia N95 smartphone,
see Figure 4. To this end, a QR code was generated with Kaywa’s QR code generator
(http://qrcode.kaywa.com/). In the present case, the web address to the online version of
the three-dimensional animation of the flow over the weir constitutes the information
behind the two-dimensional code.

Figure 4: QR code generated with Kaywa (left) to obtain an online mobile 3D simulation
of a flow over a weir (right)

5 Conclusion

This paper presents the combination of hydraulic engineering animations and the use of
mobile devices. Due to the dynamic nature of water, animations are suitable not only for
practical- and research work but also for teaching and learning. The animations can
easily be transferred to mobile devices, as shown in the two examples above. Therefore,
every student can have his/her own virtual pocket laboratory and repeat the animation
anytime and anywhere. A QR code for easy distribution of information, in this case a
three-dimensional animation, was tested successfully.

This example demonstrates one of the by now abundant possibilities of imparting

traditional and non-traditional learning content and information. Application opportunities
such as these are now more viable than ever. According to the previously cited trend
analyses, the business sector exhibits the greatest potential regarding the use of mobile
Mobile Hydraulic Engineering Simulations as Microcontent 101

learning. Other areas of application include corporate training, higher education and
adult education. Besides fluency in languages, the imparting of specialist knowledge in
the professional field is regarded as sensible. However, mobile learning is also
associated with disadvantages, which are very similar to those of conventional
eLearning. These disadvantages include a) learners having issues with motivation, self-
discipline and autonomous/self-organized learning, b) users still requiring an affinity for
technical devices, and c) the impersonal, isolated form of learning. Technical issues such
as display sizes, storage space or data transfer, as well as the issue of high costs have
meanwhile faded into the background. An issue that has not been addressed above, but
which is of increasing importance in the context of mobile learning, is the evaluation of
mobile learning (Hagleitner, Drexler & Hug, 2007) and the transfer of mobile information
on the one hand, and conversely, the use of mobile devices for the purpose of evaluation
and data collection. This will be addressed elsewhere.

References

Berlecon Research / CoreMedia (2007): Enterprise 2.0 in Deutschland - Verbreitung,

Chancen und Herausforderungen. Eine Studie im Auftrag von CoreMedia,
durchgeführt von Berlecon Research, Coremedia.

Ferziger, J.H. & Perić, M. (2002): Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. 3rd
Edition, Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 423.

Flow-3D (2005): Users Manual, version 9.0, Flow Science, Inc., p. 581.

Geser, G. (2005): Trendradar: E-Learning. Zentrumsprojekt. Digital Content Engineering.

F & E- und Marktoptionen. Studienergebnisse Teil IV. Salzburg NewMediaLab, p.
35.

URL:
http://pp.newmedialab.at/fsDownload/dce-studie_iv_trendradar_elearning_050226.p
df?forumid=275&v=1&id=310684 (accessed April 2008).

Hagleitner, W.; Drexler, A.; Hug, T. (2006): Evaluation of a prototypic version of

Knowledge Pulse® in the context of a management course. Paper presented at the
MApEC (Multimedia Applications in Education Conference), in September 2006.

Kaywa (2008): Vom Code auf Papier zum Inhalt im Mobiltelefon, QR-Codes für
europäische Handys.

URL:
http://blog.kaywa.com/files/Kaywareader-short-PR.pdf (accessed April 2008).
102 Applications and Practices: Stefan Walder, Wolfgang Hagleitner

Kerres, M. (2006): Potentiale von Web 2.0 nutzen. In: Andreas Hohenstein & Karl
Wilbers (Hrsg.) Handbuch E-Learning, München: DWD.

Koschembahr, C. v. (2005): Trend Mobile Reality (A Tale of Two Experts)

URL:
http://www.learningcircuits.org/2005/apr2005/0504_Trends.htm (accessed May
2008).

Kuszpa, M.; Scherm, E. (2005). Mobile Learning – Modetrend oder wesentlicher

Bestandteil lebenslangen Lernens? Discussion Paper No. 380, FernUniversität
Hagen.

URL:
http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/BWLOPLA/ME/Mobile-Education.de_Kuszpa_2005.09
_Survey-Hagen.pdf (accessed May 2008).

Liu, Yuping & L. J. Shrum (2002): “What is Interactivity and is it Always Such a Good
Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of
Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of Advertising, 31 (4), pp. 53-64.

Lutz Poessneck (2008): Starker Anstieg der mobilen Internet-Nutzung vorhergesagt.

URL:
http://www.silicon.de/mobile/wireless/0,39039018,39188596,00/starker+anstieg+der
+mobilen+internet_nutzung+vorhergesagt.htm (accessed May 2008).

Mach, R. (2005): Visualisierung in Wasserbau und Wasserwirtschaft – Bilder als

Schnittstelle zum Verständnis?. In: Wasserwirtschaft, 10/2007, pp. 10-15.

Metzger, Ch. & Schulmeister, R. (2004): Interaktivität im virtuellen Lernen am Beispiel

von Lernprogrammen zur Deutschen Gebärdensprache. In: Handlungsorientiertes
Lernen und eLearning. Grundlagen und Praxisbeispiele, Mayer, H.O. & Treichel, D.
(Hrsg.), Oldenbourg Verlag: München, Wien, pp. 265-297.

Niegemann, H.M.; Hessel, S.; Hochschied-Mauel, D.; Aslanski, K.; Deimann, M. &
Kreuzberger, G. (2004): Kompendium E-Learning. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, p.
432.

Turowski, K.; Pousttchi, K. (2004): Mobile Commerce – Grundlagen und Techniken.

Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.

Walder, S.; Kapeller, G. & Rutschmann, P. (2005): Computeranimationen im Wasserbau

– Erfahrungen in Forschung, Praxis und Lehre. Informieren mit Computeranimation,
Zusammenfassung der Beiträge zum Usability Day V, Kempter, G. & Dontschewa,
Miglena (Hrsg.) Pabst science publishers, pp. 174-180.
 Teacher Trainees as Learning Object Designers
(Paper)

Çetin Güler
Hacettepe University (Turkey)

Arif Altun
Hacettepe University (Turkey)

Petek Aşkar
Hacettepe University (Turkey)

Abstract: This paper reports on the integration process of learning object development in the
Design, Development and Evaluation of Educational Software course at the Department of
Computer Education and Instructional Technology. A total of 52 students in 11 project groups
participated. The course was offered in a blended learning environment and each group gained
hands-on experience in designing and deploying their own content. A 4-step design process was
adopted, which included Preparing Content, Content Packaging, Deployment of the Packages, and
Repository and Reuse. By the end of the course, teacher trainees produced and published their
own content and assessed their experience as unique and sustainable for further engagement.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, profound changes are taking place in the area of information technologies
and education. The rapid and accelerated progress in technology is one of the major
sources of change. These changes make it necessary to reconsider the function and
nature of education as well as educational settings. There is no doubt that teachers, also
called change agents, are at the core of having these changes realized in schools.
Nations are already effectuating necessary adaptations to their policies and curricula in
order to make these changes smooth, sustainable and effective.

Turkey has a centralized educational system; In 1990, the Turkish government took the
initiative to introduce computers in secondary schools. In 1991, computer-aided
instruction was included in the national curricula as part of national policy. As part of this
decision, a need to train teachers was apparent. Therefore, teachers were trained as
104 Applications and Practices: Çetin Güler, Arif Altun, Petek Aşkar

“computer coordinators” through an in-service training. First, volunteer teachers from

different teaching backgrounds were selected by a nation-wide examination. Those who
passed the exam were given a 400-hour in-service training at various universities. These
in-service training programs were continued until 1998 (Akbaba-Altun, 2006).

Between the years 1998-2000, the Ministry of National Education had an agreement with
commercial firms to equip all schools throughout the country with IT tools. As reported by
Akbaba-Altun (2006), the Ministry of National Educational has appointed the municipal
National Education Directorates (NED) to continue with in-service trainings. Meanwhile,
in order to train teachers for schools, departments of computer education and
instructional technologies have been established in the colleges of education at
universities.

The College of Education at Hacettepe University runs a four-year bachelor program on

computer education and instructional technology (CEIT), established in 1998. The
graduates become computer teachers in primary and secondary schools and work as
instructional designers and programmers at educational departments in commercial
software companies. The BS program is organized around the fields of computer
science, educational science and instructional technology. Some of the courses related
to instructional technology are: Computer-based Education, Use of Internet in Education,
Distance Education and Design, Development and Evaluation of Educational Software
(DDEES).

UNDP (1994) defined capacity building as “the ability of individuals, organizations and
societies to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve goals”. WSIS (2005)
noted that capacity building “…gave strong encouragement to properly-resourced
national strategies for ICT integration in education”. According to the new view on the
global information and knowledge paradigm, everybody, especially change agents,
needs to adopt innovations. In other words, it is necessary to train teachers and
headmasters in new skills related to the recently encountered situation and technologies.
Moreover, the Ministries and district education offices need material assistance as well
as training and guidance to re-establish functioning. Yet, it is equally necessary to
question the way in which we train prospective teachers. This need requires lifelong and
efficient time and resource (information and knowledge) management. Therefore, at the
department of CEIT at Hacettepe University, we have redesigned the DDEES course to
give a breadth of hands-on experience in incorporating learning object design and build
an LO repository in a project-based methodology from a blended learning approach. This
paper reports on and discusses real-life practices with prospective computer education
teachers provided with the tools to create a community for themselves together with their
peers. By providing a blended learning environment, it is believed that both prospective
teachers and practicing teachers will meet online to create a community for themselves,
which is an important indicator for the creation of self-sustainable communities.
Teachers Trainees as Learning Object Designers 105

2. Blended Learning and DDEES

Blended learning is defined as a method of educating at a distance that uses technology

(high-tech, such as television and the Internet or low-tech, such as voice mail or
conference calls) combined with traditional (or, stand-up) education or training (Smith,
2001). The aim of using blended learning approaches is to find a harmonious balance
between online access to knowledge and face-to-face human interaction.

DDEES is one of the 4th-year spring term courses. The main objective of this course is to
provide students with the concepts and principles of project management, design,
development, implementation and evaluation of the software created for various
educational environments, and to carry out an educational software project. It consists of
6 main subjects: Project Management, Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation,
and Evaluation.

In its blended learning approach, the DDEES course consists of two environments. The
first one is a face-to-face classroom environment; the second one is a web environment.
All students attended 4 hours of classes, of which 2 hours took place in class and 2 in a
computer laboratory to access web-based courses on the Internet. Besides these course
hours, the students also had a chance to access these materials during extra hours in
the laboratory. Assessment of the students is conducted through written and oral exams,
laboratory assignments, term projects, project presentations, and group work. As a result
of their cooperative project development process, each group created their own artefacts
in the form of learning objects (Donmez & Askar, 2005).

3. Learning Objects and Design Process

Learning objects can be defined as resources that are reusable, digital, help to reach a
learning objective, and contain metadata that is easy to create, manage, maintain and
store. Several processes are needed in order to convert the “educational software”
paradigm into a learning objects paradigm. In practice, these learning objects are packed
into archive files and recalled from LMSs (Learning Management Systems) or LCMSs
(Learning Content Management Systems).

Designing for learning objects included a four-step process: content preparation,

packaging, deployment, and content storage in the repository.

Preparing Content: The change agents are in charge of instructional technologies in K-

12 institutions. This means they are responsible for any course held in K-12 institutions
106 Applications and Practices: Çetin Güler, Arif Altun, Petek Aşkar

in terms of integrating technology into the teaching-learning process. Therefore, during

their undergraduate education, teacher trainees have to prepare many different projects
in different disciplines in order to get a grasp of instructional design and development.
Naturally, this course is not designed to create a complete warehouse for all disciplines.
Rather, the purpose is to train teacher trainees to get a feel for the way in which the
design process covers content preparation. During their 3rd year, the same students had
taken an instructional design course, during which they were also trained in content
design During content preparation, they are requested to apply their earlier instructional
design knowledge to content preparation in a project. As an implicit goal, it is hoped to
give teacher trainees a first-hand experience of preparing content to be re-used and
stored in a resource warehouse.

One of the earlier concerns of teacher trainees regarded the issue of how to
contextualize and operationalize the transition from designing as a unit or course to
learning objects. Most of them struggled to understand the notion of designing for
learning objects. During this phase, we used several metaphors to help them prepare
their content. Until they were shown the packaging process, this process seemed to be
quite vague.

Content Packaging: In order to reuse existing resources, these resources (or prepared
content) must be properly packaged. It is crucial to include packaging in the course
syllabus, since it is through the packaging process that we are able to transport the
prepared content. In order to package the sources, we decided to use RELOAD
(Reusable eLearning Objects Authoring & Delivery), an open source software package
used for packaging contents across various standards (such as Learning Design,
SCORM 1.2., etc.). RELOAD uses IMS specifications and SCORM packaging. Basically,
the content is imported by RELOAD, then its navigation options and metadata values are
determined manually. Finally, the content returns into an archive file with a zip extension.
Teachers Trainees as Learning Object Designers 107

Figure 1: A sample screenshot of the packaging editor

Deployment of the packages: Once the students create their content and package it
according to SCORM specifications, the next step in the design process is the
deployment of these packages. This process affords teacher trainees a hands-on
opportunity to observe how their packages behave when loaded into a web player. As a
web player, we used the Blackboard LMS Import SCORM module. This module supports
importing pre-packaged SCORM-compliant content and plays the content according to
the sequence defined in the editor. RELOAD also provides an open-source SCORM
player; however, we have purposely chosen Blackboard since it stores all user
information in its database and students are accustomed to its interface from their other
courses.
108 Applications and Practices: Çetin Güler, Arif Altun, Petek Aşkar

Figure 2: A sample screenshot of a project

Figure 2 shows the content of an imported package featuring the solar system. The
navigation is organized in a hierarchical manner, starting with “General Information”,
“Rotations”, “Eclipses” etc. The navigational branches are collapsible or cascaded. In
accordance with the instructional design decision on content sequencing, project
members include an introduction to the subject, several sub-topics as content
presentations, as well as an evaluation and help menu. A number of practice sessions
are embedded within each content fragment. Designing these units as reusable learning
objects give the users an option to choose which packages they would like to include
within the LMS. In other words, organization of the navigation can be arranged while
developing project or packaging content. Some teacher trainees placed particular
emphasis on the fact that this stage helped them to better visualize reusability and
design for learning objects. It is worth mentioning that if packaging is not handled
properly, learning objects are barely explicit. In one of the projects, for example, instead
of following the principles of learning objects, teacher trainees designed their content as
a web page. They used buttons of their own as navigational buttons. Once this project
was packaged and imported into the player, the following view (see Figure 3) was
captured. As inferred from this screenshot, the entire lesson behaves as a single
learning object.
Teachers Trainees as Learning Object Designers 109

Figure 3: A web site package

Figure 3 depicts a project concerning athleticism which is developed exactly like a web
site. The project web site employs different kinds of media such as images, videos etc.
As is known, web sites are among the most common environments in the development
and delivery of educational software. Besides, almost anyone familiar with computers
can use a web site editor to design, author, and develop content. On the other hand, it is
possible to package web sites and use them as a microlearning item or a learning object.
However, it is difficult to separate each component from the content. Thus, reusability
becomes more difficult. When students deploy their projects, they can easily observe the
differences in their decisions through design and packaging processes. These projects
exemplify why the deployment of packages needs to be incorporated into the packaging
process during the design process.

Repository and Reuse: Once a project turns into a SCORM package, it needs to be
stored and be made ready for reuse. Technically, all SCORM packages are supposed to
be usable with any LMSs or LCMSs. In other words, LMSs or LCMSs can be used as a
repository and delivery platform for SCORM packages. Hacettepe University utilises
110 Applications and Practices: Çetin Güler, Arif Altun, Petek Aşkar

Blackboard Academic Suite© as an LMS. The LMS software supports SCORM

packages. It is possible to import SCORM packages with certain instructions. When
packages are imported into the system, they can be labeled by designers. If the
hardware (i.e., the server that the LMS runs on) used by the software has a large enough
storage drive it can then be used as a repository for packages. These stored and
labelled packages are also accessible via the Internet. When a user finds and opens the
package, its content is displayed in a web browser window.

Figure 4: A list of SCORM packages in Blackboard

Figure 4 shows a list of SCORM packages that built on students’ projects and were
stored in the LMS. The depicted list contains 5 items. Each of them is a student project.
As can be seen from the figure, when users click on a “Click to Launch” link, the project
opens in a new window as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Teachers Trainees as Learning Object Designers 111

4. Conclusion, Discussion and Recommendations

In this paper, we proposed a four-step process to train prospective teachers in designing

and delivering learning objects in a blended learning environment. Designing for
reusable learning objects is a tedious process. There is no doubt that technology by itself
will not guarantee the adoption and application of digital tools. On the path towards the
creation of a sustainable community of e-learners, it is necessary to equip prospective
teacher trainees with these tools. Moreover, we need teachers as change agents if this
change is ever to happen. Therefore, we need to handle and incorporate pedagogical
components into the teacher training process.

Designing for learning objects was a new experience for students; however, this course
provided a hands-on opportunity to take part in a project where they observed how it
works in a real setting. They stated that this was a unique experience for them and they
were pleased about what they achieved in the end. They stated that both in-class factors
(video clips, in-class discussions) and web environment factors (the content, forum, talks
with the experts, etc.) brought multiple environments together, adding that multiple
environments had many benefits for them.

It is obvious that knowledge management is also one of the most important issues
across disciplines including instructional/learning technologies. In educational settings,
the terms “microlearning” and “learning objects” have become popular due to their
potential functionalities and implications for e-learning. Therefore, each piece of content
needs to be organized, packaged, stored, and accessed irrespective of time, space, and
software platforms. As more and more teacher trainees start to develop content for
learning objects and contribute to the development of the repository, it will be more
beneficial for the community of teachers in various schools. Having considered reaching
our graduates and reaching out to other teachers through our change agents, we would
like to observe and develop this model further to sustain a community of teachers as
learners, as well.

References

Akbaba-Altun, S. (2006). Complexity of integrating computer technologies into education

in Turkey. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), pp. 176-187.

Dönmez, O. & Aşkar, P. (2005). "A blended learning environment for a course on
educational software in the framewok of project management". Proceedings of the
IADIS International Conference e-society 2005, Malta: 27-30 June 2005, pp. 473-
477.
112 Applications and Practices: Çetin Güler, Arif Altun, Petek Aşkar

UNDP, (1994). Beyond Rethinking Technical Cooperation: New International

Cooperation for Capacity Building in Africa. United National Development
Programme.

WSIS, (2005). Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. World Summit on the
Information Society, WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev. 1)-E.
 CONFERENCE SERIES

Microlearning and Capacity Building

Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner • Microlearning & Capacity Building

A new digital micromedia ecology, and with it new learning strategies, are emerging. The shift Proceedings of the 4th International Microlearning 2008 Conference
to fragmented digital communication and information flows affects all aspects of daily work
and daily lifelong learning. This calls for innovative experiences, processes and technologies:
ubiquitous, personal and dynamic, casual and volatile, but still complex and effective.

What is the impact on educational issues in formal and informal learning environments, in
­vocational training, higher education, and professional training?

To discuss the new challenges and opportunities for individual and organizational capacity buil-
ding, Microlearning 2008 brought together media technologists and academics, visionaries and
practitioners, entrepreneurs and corporate professionals from many countries, disciplines, and
fields of expertise.

The participants brought new visions and analyses, innovative concepts, projects, and best
practice results. The Proceedings of the 4th International Microlearning 2008 Conference
contribute to answering the questions of new media users in seven main subject fields: ­
New Media in Organisations, Classroom Without Walls, Corporate Learning, Mobile Training,
Web 2.0 & Education, Micromedia Environments, Quality and Evaluation.

iup Editors: Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner

ISBN 978-3-902571-60-1