Supportive systems for continuous and online professional development

eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 1 Nº 22 • December 2010 • ISSN 1887-1542

Supportive Systems for Continuous and Online Professional Development

Ove Jobring

Gothenburg University, Alexanderson Institute (Sweden)

Ingemar Svensson Upendo Enterprise, Think-tank OmBildning (Sweden)

Summary

Due to the development of social media and online environments, educational systems’

content and form change. At the same time, demands for the individual professional to keep

him- or herself continually updated and employable are on the increase. In this article, we

develop an alternative to established education and forms of training in the shape of a

Supportive System. Even today, new forms of social media and online environments are

constituting such supportive systems for individual learning – but could be developed using

institutional input. System development whereby individuals’ qualifications can be developed

qualitatively and enduringly can guide and make things easier for people who are

consciously aspiring to enhance their competence and proficiency through informal ways of

working in online environments. In the article, we show how such an online system differs

from previous educational forms, putting forward an outline of a supportive system. The

purpose of the article is to outline the fundamental features of an online system that offers a

continuous and supportive process for developing occupational groups’ qualifications

whereby qualifications stand for a combination of knowledge, proficiency, and competence.

The interwoven individual development processes taking place in an online environment

have a special characterization which constitutes an essential prerequisite for developing a

supportive system. We highlight 4 differences between formal educational systems and

Supportive Systems which have to be taken into account in order to design a system rooted

in online environments and social media. These differences are; 1) From pre-produced to

user-generated content, 2) from individual subject motives to joint qualification interests, 3)

from limited duration to continuous and enduring activity, 4) from subject and thematic areas

to a broad perspective on the participants’ skills.

On the basis of the four prerequisites, some fundamental features of a supportive system are

outlined. The system is based on existing forms of online environment but which are further

developed and supported methodically and systematically. A Supportive System can consist

of a combination of individual PLEs (Personal Learning Environments) which are coordinated

via a shared Online Learning Communities (OLC) or PLN (Personal Learning Network). A

developed methodology based on circular ways of working supports processes in the various

media and works towards progressing the individual’s development.

Keywords: Informal learning, Competence, Proficiency; Skills, Design, Supportive systems


Introduction and background

Recently, the forms and prerequisites of competence development have changed. Traditional

competence development for professionals is primarily structured within established forms of

organisation and education. The same applies to its implementation. The ICT-based e-learning

variant has often been a reproduction of traditional education. Evolution is necessary in order to

correspond to current demands and prerequisites.

An initial departure point is the trend on the national and organisational levels which entails that

the individual is responsible, to an increasing degree, for his/her competence development,

especially in situations where organisations/employers and society previously had the

responsibility for, and created clear guidelines for, the professional’s knowledge and

competence development.

As Ulrich Beck (2002) and several others have shown, individuals’ scope for action has been

broadened by a raft of significant changes in the family structure, in education, and on the

labour market, which has created, and which contributes towards providing people with, a

multiplicity of opportunities and choices. This broadened scope of opportunities contributes

towards people feeling a greater responsibility for managing their own life choices. This has

been described as the individualization thesis.

The consequence is that people are being made responsible, to an ever greater degree, for

their own development, especially in situations where, previously, organisations, employers,

and society were responsible and previously provided guidance and road maps for the

development of professional knowledge and proficiency. The trend is from system responsibility

to individual responsibility. This change entails a need for continuous, constantly existing

support for the individual’s development, which helps the individual to navigate his/her learning,

work, and life environment.

Our second departure point is the increased use of social media and online environments such

as blogs, photo/film sites, social media like Twitter and Facebook, web communities, and

Personal Learning Networks (PLNs). The increased level of participation on the net creates a

need for coordination for the users. The technical solution is called the Personal Learning

Environment (PLE) and is described in the Horizon report as one of the most important

development trends on the net (New Media Consortium 2010).

In parallel with the emergence of online environments, there is active development in fields

such as Open Educational Resources - (OER) and Open Course Ware - (OCW) (OECD 2007).

The combined development of online environments and OER/OCW provides people with the

support to control, on their own, their competence development using the resources and

communication opportunities which they encounter on the Internet, not least by means of

creating and maintaining a personal page as a PLE. The European Commission points out that

an increasing share of learning occurs at the workplace, in non-formal contexts and in leisure

time - often through new ICT-based learning tools and methods (European Commission

2008b). The online environments inspire traditional tuition with new forms of education and

reduce the differences between the formal educational systems and informal learning which, by

extension, leads to increased demands for innovation within the educational systems.

For many individuals, participating in online environments has an actual and proven

significance for the participants’ professional and competence development. Research findings

have been compiled by Ala-Mutka (2009) who has shown that learning is frequently not an


explicit goal of participating in an online environment. Investigations show examples of

innovative aspects in the online environment with the potential to strengthen endeavours for

lifelong learning such as the occurrence of learning and individual development via a range of

different types of activities like stories and self-reflection, and through various forms of mutual

exchange between the participants.

According to our first departure point, changed working and societal conditions have entailed

increased demands for constantly existing support for the individuals’ development, making it

easier for the professional and providing opportunities to navigate his/her learning, work, and

life environment. The development and the increased use that occur via online environments

such as LinkedIn partly offer such support – not least with regard to its participants exchanging

experience and monitoring both the wider world and development. In practice, the evolution of

modern media partly constitutes a supportive system which continuously supports the individual

participant’s improvement and wherein individuals’ qualifications can be developed qualitatively

and make it easier for people who are consciously aspiring to enhance their competence and

their skills by means of informal ways of working in online environments.

The purpose of the article is to outline the fundamental features of an online system that offers

a continuous and supportive process for occupational groups’ qualification development

whereby qualifications stand for a combination of knowledge, proficiency, and competence.

In this article, we concentrate on online-based supportive systems. However, similar

developmental tendencies can been seen in traditional adult education where terms like coach,

process supporter, and competence broker are common and are supposed to offer a more

customer-centric support to co-workers and professionals at companies (Jobring & Svensson

2009). The underlying reasons for this trend are probably the same as for the online-based

operation’s evolution, but manifest themselves differently in the physical world.

Departure points for a supportive system

A major part of the change in online-based educational methodology is taking, and has taken,

place within the field of e-learning and external studies. The crucial part of method development

has naturally concerned formal education focusing on a specific subject and an expected

progression in learning. Recently, however, a number of researchers have been influenced by

the evolution of the informal learning taking place on the net, pointing to new approaches to

developing formal learning and education (Fejes 2004, Pea 2004, Wilson et al. 2006, Sclater

2007, Fini et al. 2007).

One development strategy that occurs is, thus, seeking to make the formal educational forms

more informal. Our crucial focus and departure point, however, is not formal education. We

instead approach the field from the online environment as our departure point. We are then

able to discern two development strategies regarding how to increase the formal significance of

the informal learning occurring via online environments. The most frequent strategy is to

develop the forms of validation. The European Commission has conducted, here, a significant

endeavour which has resulted in, among other things, the European Qualification Framework

(EQF) (European Commission 2008a).

A second strategy for creating a supportive system influenced by various forms of informal

learning is to develop methods or models that combine online environments with some form of

institutional input. Ala-Mutka (2009) hints at this development strategy in her report, being of


the opinion that it is a challenge to develop scalable and sustainable models for qualitative and

enduring learning in an online environment. Recently, other researchers proposed models of

development through Innovative teaching and supporting models and microlearning

(Hernández-Serrano & Jones 2010, Buchem & Hamelmann 2010).

There is a given contradiction in attempting to reconcile bottom-up and self-organised

phenomena like online environments with institutional forms and top-down activities. We are of

the opinion, however, that it is an urgent task to seek to assume such a challenge and, in this

article, we emphasize the prerequisites underpinning such a system.

Four prerequisites of the supportive system

Participation in online environments is characterized by a learning process ongoing over time,

by which the individual’s knowledge, skills, and competence are developed during an

interwoven process. This interwoven development process of skills and knowledge differs

greatly from the procedure normally described as traditional education (Preston 2008).

The interwoven development processes occurring in an online environment have a special

characterization and meaning, constituting an essential prerequisite for developing a supportive

system. In this article, we emphasize four different prerequisites which have to be taken into

account when designing a system rooted specifically in an online environment. The description

of these prerequisites is based on a number of previous research programmes that we have

conducted with other researchers in the field of Online Learning Communities (OLCs) (Jobring

et al. 2005, 2006, 2008, Svensson 2007a, b).

1. The participants’ proficiency

Our aim is a development system where individuals collaboratively develop skills within their

profession by means of, and with the support of, online environments. Being proficient is being

capable; possessing skills and knowledge within a specific profession, a definite occupation or

field. The first prerequisite is especially important for development and the key departure point

is the individual’s combined capability – not a specific, defined theme.

Participants in an online environment develop proficiencies when they are active in an

environment. Using experience of distance tuition online, we have developed a model for the

online proficiency of participants, in accordance with the figure below (Jobring, Svensson,

2009).


Figure 1: Development levels in the online environment

The individual’s development of his/her proficiencies in a community is dependent on a range

of factors such as subjects, tasks, and the culture of the group. The better the level of the

proficiencies in accordance with the figure above, that the individuals have acquired, the better

they will perceive themselves to be learning. Ala-Mutka (2009) too, like Nilsen (2009),

accounts for various qualities and knowledge that participants develop through their

participation in online environments. Through their accounts, in combination with those of other

researchers, it should now be established that the better and more advanced the participants’

abilities are in respect of taking part in online environments – the more it can also be

demonstrated that competence development actually takes place for the participants. The

question is, however, how to use this knowledge in order to achieve more systematic and long-

term competence development – evolution with progress. It is not unproblematic; the fact that

the participants in an online environment are proficient in their ability to deal with the medium

probably entails that they have also developed their professionalism in their respective fields.

However, it is difficult to know specifically in which respects and in which thematic areas or

subjects.

In cases where the intention is to develop methods of e-learning, these are, however, almost

exclusively thematically oriented towards special subjects with the focus on students’ and

pupils’ acquisition of a specific subject. For example, Salmon’s E-tivities (2002) is a method of

supporting, using combined activities, the individual’s development in a specific subject. The

aim per se is not to create and underpin informal learning in an online environment.

Departing from the online environment – and not a specific subject, theme, or field of

knowledge – means departing from a broad, dynamic spectrum of a lot of individual proficiency

and knowledge. The open, dynamic development environment is the online environment’s

major advantage, but also its problem. In the traditional environment, an individual’s education

is based on a subject or specified field. However, in an open online environment, it is difficult to

specifically steer towards a certain subject. If our aim is to develop new forms of continuous

competence development, we see the medium’s major opportunities while also seeing its

difficulties when it comes to developing models for progress-oriented, documented, and

enduring personal development.


Based on reported research findings, our conclusion is that, when developing a supportive

system, a broad spectrum of the knowledge, competencies, and proficiencies that the

participants are developing in an online environment must be encompassed. Maybe it sounds

simple, but it has to be borne in mind that our entire educational system is based on thematic

tuition in subjects and fields of knowledge. When we think and speak about controlled and

organised education and competence development, we almost exclusively mean subject.

Departing from the broader field “the participants’ proficiency” when talking about competence

development is a radical perception which requires a mental ability to readjust and probably a

significant development endeavour aimed at achieving broader understanding.

2. User-generated input

Online environments are characterized by user-generated content where the participants,

through their activity, account for a large part of the content produced within the environment –

irrespective of whether this is messages on Twitter or stories and reports in a community. This

separates online-based learning from other, earlier models of knowledge development.

The opportunity for the user-generated content is based on the unique function that the Internet

has in that an individual with limited resources can post information and material for the many.

With time, techniques and forms of posting and communicating this material have dramatically

been standardised and simplified, resulting in the increased occurrence of this individual

material as in the world of the blog.

A qualitatively informal exchange of experience on the net often generates good, concrete

solutions for the participants, new angles on problems. Such an exchange of experience can

also highlight weaknesses in the group’s level of qualifications by generating questions not

previously noticed, by raising problems, or by proposing new thinking which the informal

exchange of experience is subsequently not really able to deal with.

This can require a theoretical framework and/or a structured and intensified discussion in order

for fresh knowledge or competence, which can be important for the group, to be able to be

released, be tested in an exchange of experience, and be implemented in the desired

qualification. In order to create active processes, there is a need for, even if the prerequisite is

the participants’ interest and commitment, a continuous “supply of nutrition” in the form of a

controlled input. How this occurs, and in which order, is one of the key parts of a supportive

system. A qualification development process thus pre-requires the continuous supply of fresh

input, knowledge-wise, proficiency-wise, and competence-wise. When we approach the

individual development and informal learning that occurs in online environments, and provide it

with a greater formal meaning via a supportive system, the participants’ user-generated content

is an important part of the process.

3. Enduring and without a time limit

The third prerequisite is that the process in an online environment is continuously ongoing. A

traditional educational situation is characterized by the pupil being expected to develop with a

certain and predetermined progress in accordance with a certain development plan over a

determined period of time – but this is not the case in online environments. The environment

can be characterized as enduring in the sense of being persistent, surviving, and with the

intention of lasting over time. An online environment is just its activity and cannot be so much


more. Activities arise and subside, irrespective of where we are in the process, which should

reasonably be regarded as something natural. The day when the activity ceases, the

community and the environment, for natural reasons, will also cease.

Our departure point is that the participant takes part in online environments because something

in his/her life or work situation commits him/her (Carlén & Jobring 2006). Other people have the

same commitment and experience the same thing – those participating in a community thus

share a similar experience and a shared commitment. They have the same motives for action –

reasons as to why they commit to the community. Each participant’s individual reasons for

action are then simultaneously a joint motive for action. Jointly, they create the communities’

purpose, or objective. We can also express this in terms of the sum of all individual motives for

action being the communities’ and online environment’s purpose.

An approach which is based on the participants’ motives for action differs from other

approaches in order to explain and understand the activity in an online environment. In the

more management-focused research into net-based communities, trust between the

participants is often emphasized as an important foundation for developing and maintaining the

activity in online environments (Stuckey 2005). However, we have shown that, in online

environments with strong spheres of interest, e.g. groups consisting of women giving birth to

children at about the same time, and in groups with special needs or illnesses, the trust issue

would seem to be less significant. Trust is created via the strong sphere of interest per se, in

turn creating an environment to underpin and preserve processes (Svensson & Jobring 2009).

The participants’ involvement creates permanence through its activity. The point is that the

result of the participation, regardless of the intention, is permanence. The participants’

expectation is that it is a process going on over time. In normal education, the participants

expect their participation to be of limited duration. However, no one takes part in an online

environment with the notion that the activity will cease at a given point in time – if anything,

quite the reverse. The participants’ involvement confirms the prevailing activity and, in doing so,

the continuous and enduring process.

Understanding and respect for this character - the participant-generated permanence is

rudimentary when developing supportive systems for professionals under the inspiration and

influence of informal learning in online environments.

4. The participants’ shared interest

The fourth and final prerequisite – the shared interest – constitutes a combined unit based on

the three previously-presented prerequisites. As we have previously argued, a community is

carried forward by jointly-acting (though not necessarily together) individuals. Joint action,

however, lacks significance for the creation of the community’s purpose per se, instead gaining

significance by means of preserving the activity and forcing the development of the community.

If the individuals have the same motives for action, this will also constitute the purpose of the

community and the online environment. However, in order to be designated as a community,

there is no necessity to act in concert or together. If we again refer to the text on permanence,

we can say that the similar rationality of action, as a consequence of the similar situational

experience, constitutes the basis for individual participation in a net-based community.

The participants expect the community, one way or another, to realize their requirements while

the community puts demands on the participants’ participation. In this reciprocity, in this


balance between motives for action and community, we also find the community’s permanence.

If there is an imbalance or a lack of concordance between the two, the participant’s incentives

to participate will decrease and vice versa; if the community develops the whole time in

harmony with the participants’ development, then the community will also develop in an

enduring way. The strength of the participants’ shared interest is of fundamental importance for

the enduring development of an online environment.

Summary of prerequisites

In aspiring to develop the bases for a system of support, we have clarified differences that

separate the informal online environment from formal educational environments such as e-

learning – these can be summarized as in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Four differences between e-learning and Supportive Systems

The various prerequisites are dependent on and related to each other. If the intention of a

programme is competence development in a specific subject or thematic area, it naturally also

follows that we focus on the educational material to be included in the programme. The

participants will then not need to have anything in common besides the subject itself – we are

conducting, in other words, distance education.

If the intention is to start out from the informal environment, we also change the departure

points – the question then will be how to create the prerequisites for, as well as advance the

participants’ possibilities of, jointly creating a process which can be goal-related and validated

and can thus be ascribed a value.

The figure describes two extremes – and between these, of course, a range of variants occurs.

A supportive system’s various activities do not need to be located within one or the other

extreme. One possible design for progressive development is to vary different forms over time

– certain sequences might, perhaps, entail traditional distance education followed by

sequences containing more out-and-out online environment activities.


Creating a supportive system – an outline

On the basis of the four prerequisites, we are now able to outline some basic features of a

supportive system. The system is based, of course, on the online environments that already

exist – but are further developed and supported methodically and systematically. A supportive

system can consist of different online environments and a methodology that supports

processes and works towards progressing the individual’s development, something which we

introduce in more detail below.

Media in a supportive system – the PLE and OLC/PLN

User-generated input and the PLE (Personal Learning Environment)

By way of introduction, we mentioned the development of the PLE. As early as 2008, e-learning

papers noted this phenomenon in a thematic issue under the designation the Personal

Learning Environment – PLE (Schaffert & Hilzensauer 2008).

In a PLE, the user is equipped with tools in order to communicate, tag, collect, and update the

content as well as to create and navigate an environment adapted to his/her own needs and

interests. The possibility of tagging, categorising, and publishing works online immediately,

without needing to understand or even concern oneself with the underlying technology,

provides teachers and students with a number of opportunities to develop a personal webpage

in the form of a PLE.

Participants, professionals within the same profession, have the opportunity, via personal web

pages, of monitoring information and communicating via various media that are relevant to

other users in the joint group. A participant in a supportive programme with employees in a

fashion house can, via his/her personal web page, monitor a fashion blogger. The blog

describes something that the participant deems to be of interest to the entire group, creating a

post on the group’s platform. We thus obtain user-generated input.

The OLC/PLN – shared interest

For several years, established journals and conferences have existed in the field of Online

Learning Communities – OLCs (Jobring & Kommers 2008). In the active construct development

that prevails, there has today been some emphasis of, and in some cases a renaming of the

phenomenon as the Personal Learning Network (PLN). Here, a PLN is seen as consisting of

the individuals interacting with and obtaining knowledge from an online environment. The

concept of the PLN is stated by Wikipedia to be based on the theory of connectivism developed

by Siemens (2005) and Downes (2007). Participants create contacts and develop networks

which contribute towards their professional development and knowledge.

The PLN has obvious similarities with what we have previously described as personal

development and learning in OLCs. The participants contribute and obtain knowledge via

different nodes. In a supportive system, an online-based community – OLC or PLN works like

the shared node. A PLE is the individual’s resource bank and the PLN that of the participants’

in the system. The OLC/PLN then becomes an important part of the individual’s professional

development. The media part of a supportive system would then be based on individual PLEs

which provide an input for the participants and a shared part - a OLC/PLN where continuous

development is supported and experience is exchanged.


The proposal that through a combination of PLE/PLM-OLC create systems for skills

development are presented increasingly frequent, for example by Mott (2010) and is an

important research and development task

Process support and progression

Process support and progression constitute the other principal part of a supportive system and

have the purpose of bringing together the individuals’ PLEs within the shared OLC/PLN. The

issue of supervision is key. In many social media and similar online environments, there is no

direct supervision – examples of such media being Twitter and Facebook.

Possibly, there is some control of activities, but this is not supported by an expert or an

outsider.

The purpose of a supportive system is to methodically and systematically support and advance

the progressive development of the participants’ qualifications. In this case, supervisors are

required but the difficulty of supervising such a learning process is apparent (Björck 2004).

Supporting the process is an advanced task for one person - a process supervisor – but we

also need a subject expert – professional expert – to support the development of the

participants’ knowledge, competencies, and skills. This leadership duo forms an important

component of the development and implementation of a system.

There exists today elaborated methodology, primarily for distance courses. One such method is

problem-based learning which can function as structured process support during certain stages

of a supportive system. PBL methodology has been used in online distance courses given by

Gothenburg University (Gillberg 2004). A variant of this theme is described by Preston (2008),

a method used by teachers in the MirandaNet community, which she calls “Braided learning”.

The development takes place during different phases. During the first phase, the community

deals with creating a shared and braided text on the net which provides scope for multiplicity

and the venting of different opinions. Some of the members act like discussion leaders or

“braiders” and assist in shaping the debate by making summaries during the discussion and,

perhaps, changing its course (Cuthell 2005). The texts are stored, together with forum

discussions and cases studies, on the MirandaNet network.

What Preston (2008) describes using the term “Braided learning” can be described as a circular

method of working whereby the participants’ own contributions are dealt with, commented on,

written, and used as a basis for development. Methods that advance the participants’

involvement in the form of problem ownership and circular methods of working are, which

should be evident, entirely central to advancing and supporting progressive development

processes in an online environment – as such, they can also be effective methods of ensuring

that informal learning obtains a greater formal content for those participating.

In the figure below, we have summarized our perception of how a supportive system can be

shaped:


Figure 3: Outline of a supportive online system for

ongoing and continuous professional development

Measuring progression and development in the group

In traditional education, a specific subject is mediated or taught. Exams and result monitoring

are, in this case, relatively uncomplicated. But if we replace the subject with a “frame” or a

specific context like an online environment, how will we then be able to know that the

participants are actually developing their professional skills? The problem is that, in an informal

environment, learning occurs on a series of different levels and within a series of different areas

– simultaneously.

In order to answer that question, as mentioned above, the European Commission, through a

number of different development programmes, has supported the development of various

validation tools and methods. It has turned out, however, that these have often been time-

consuming and expensive to implement. On 23 April 2008, the European Parliament adopted

“The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF)” (European Commission

2008a). This is an accessible document developed in order to evaluate participants’ informal

learning. It has been in development since 2004 and is being implemented today by the EU

member countries.

Usually, validation takes place following activity for a period of time or after having finished a

job. We are of the opinion that the EQF, through its formulation in the form of progression from

one level to another, can also be used as an instrument and a basic “EQF programme plan” in

order to advance an actively ongoing process in online environments. The participants know

which knowledge/skills/competencies they have and they know what their goal is in

participating. We see before us a progressive, continuous, and enduring process, composed in

accordance with a qualifications increment in line with the 8 stages of the EQF.

The idea behind linking the EQF to a supportive system is being able to use a universal,

generally accepted, and clearly graded qualification standard against which the participants’

qualification development can be validated. Evaluation of the participant’s level can be

conducted using a “peer to peer” procedure and in dialogue with occupational experts and

process leaders.


CLOSING WORDS

A supportive online system for ongoing and continuous professional development as a method

of qualification development is new and radical. It departs, both in form and content, from the

traditional competence development concept, entailing that it must be carefully established with

both the organisation/industry and with the occupational group.

The system's benefits and its implications is a faster adaptive process based on continuous

involvement and a higher degree of customization through circular way of working. It implies a

faster and more efficient individual development process. Its basis is the group's common

interest and the system can therefore not replace traditional approaches but is an urgent option

along with existing educational system.

Primarily, it is about building and creating trust in a vision of a long-term, continuous and largely

self-governed learning which is superior to traditional further education models and which

strengthens the organisation, the occupational group, and the participating individual. Such

vision-creating work takes time and requires great openness to new or complementary ideas

originating from both organisational management and from the occupational group in question.

References

Ala-Mutka. K., (2009) Review of Lifelong Learning in Online Communities, EU-Joint research center

IPTS.

Beck., U., Beck-Gernsheim, E., (2002) Individualization Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and

Political Consequences, Sage Publications (CA), London

Björck, U. (2004). Distributed Problem-Based Learning. Studies of a Pedagogical Model in

Practice. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Buchem I., Hamelmann H., (2010) Microlearning: a strategy for ongoing

professional development, eLearning Papers, • www.elearningpapers.eu • 1 Nº 21 • September

Carlén, U., & Jobring, O. (2005). The Rationale of Online Learning Communities. The International

Journal of Web Based Communities (IJWBC), Vol.1, No.3 pp 272-295

Cuthell, J. P. (2005). Beyond Collaborative Learning: Communal construction of knowledge in an online

environment. INSTICC, Miami, Web Information Systems and Technologies.

Downes, S., (2007). An Introduction to Connective Knowledge in Hug, Theo (ed.) (2007): Media,

Knowledge & Education - Exploring new Spaces, Relations and Dynamics in Digital Media Ecologies,

International Conference.

European Commission, (2008a). European Qualification Framework (EQF), 2006/0163 (COD)

European Commission (2008b). Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the

Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, of 22 May 2008 on promoting creativity

and innovation through education and training, (2008/C 141/10)


Fini, Antonio, et al. (2007) Towards e-learning 2.0, EDEN

Fejes, A. (2004). New wine in old skins. Changing patterns in the governing of the adult learner in

Sweden. International Journal of Lifelong Education 24(1), 71-86.

Gillberg, G. (2004) Nätbaserad handledning [Net-based facilitating] in Jobring, O. (Ed.). (2004).

Lärgemenskaper på Nätet - en introduktion [Learning Communities on the Net – an Introduction].

Studentlitteratur, Lund

Hernández-Serrano, M. & Jones B., (2010) Innovation, informational literacy and lifelong learning:

creating a new culture, eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 1 Nº 21 • September

Jobring, O., & Carlén, U. (Eds.). (2005). Att förstå lärgemenskaper och mötesplatser på nätet

[Understanding Learning Communities and Meeting Places on the Net]: Studentlitteratur.

Jobring, O., Carlén, U., & Bergenholtz, J. (Eds.). (2006). Att skapa lärgemenskaper och mötesplatser på

nätet [Creating Learning Communities on the Net]: Studentlitteratur, Lund

Jobring, O., & Bergenholtz, J. (2007). Organisering för kontinuerligt lärande [Organisation for Continuous

Learning], www.proficiens.se

Jobring, O, Kommers, P, (Eds.). (2008). Online Learning Communities in Context, International Journal

of Web Based Communities IJWBC, Vol. 4 - Issue 2 – 2008, Inderscience Publishers

Jobring, O., Svensson, I., (2009) Vuxnas lärande i Sverige. Utvecklingstendenser och visioner, [Adult

Education in Sweden. Trends and Visions], Report in the project ”Nordiska kompetensnätverket " EU

Interreg IV A Kattegatt / Skagerrak

Mott, J., (2010) Envisioning the post-LMS era: the Open Learning Network, Educause Quarterly

Magazine, Volume 33, Number 1

Nilsen M., (2009), Food for Thought. Communication and the transformation of work experience in web-

based in-service training, Thesis, University of Gothenburg. Faculty of Education

New Media Consortium. (2010) Horizon Report, The New Media Consortium

EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative

OECD. (2007) Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational

Resources. Publication: 22/05/2007.

Pea R.D., (2004) The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related

Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity, The journal of the learning sciences,

13(3), pp 423-451

Preston C.J., (2008) Braided learning: an emerging process observed in e-communities of practice, Int.

J. of Web Based Communities 2008 - Vol. 4, No.2 pp. 220 - 243

Salmon, G. (2002) E-tivities, Routledge Falme

Schaffert, S., Hilzensauer, W., (2008) On the way towards Personal Learning Environments: Seven

crucial aspects - eLearning Papers Nº 9 ▪ July

Sclater,N. (2007). Personliga lärmiljöer, virtuella lärmiljöer och formellt lärande [Personal Learning

Environments, Virtual Learning Environments and Formal Learning], Nät och bildning nr 7, 2007,

http://www.cfl.se/natochbildning/


Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of

Instructional Technology and Distance Learning

Stuckey, B. (2005). Growing on-line communities of practice: conditions to support successful

development of Internet-mediated Communities of Practice. Thesis. Research Centre for Interactive

Learning Environments, University of Wollongong, Australia.

Svensson, I., et al. (Eds.). (2003). Folkbildning.net - An anthology about Folkbildning and flexible

learning. CFL and FBR

Svensson, I., Bryant, K., Callerud, C., (2007a). Teachers Learning Community - a participant-governed

net based learning community supporting a continuous teacher training for folk high school teachers and

study circle leaders in net based collaborative pedagogics and methodology. Paper presented at the

EDEN conference in Naples.

Svensson, I., (2007b). Connecting the online study circle and the online learning community in

supporting continuous teacher development. Paper presented at the Online- EDUCA conference in

Berlin.

Svensson, I. Jobring, O. (2009). Connecting the online study circle and the online learning community in

supporting continuous self help for people suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. In ICT Skills

briefing no. 3/09

Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., Milligan, C. (2006) Personal Learning

Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems, TENCompetence Project,

http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/727

Authors

Ove Jobring Dr.

Researcher and Senior Lecturer at the Department of Work Science University of Gothenburg

and senior adviser at the Alexandersoninstitute, Campus Varberg. Founder of the research

group Online Learning Communities (OLC) at the ICT-university in Gothenburg.

[email protected]

Ingemar Svensson

Senior adviser at the University of Gothenburg, Senior consultant at Upendo Enterprise.

External expert at EACEA and at the Swedish International Programme Office for Education

and Training.

[email protected]

http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/727

mailto:[email protected]



Copyrights

The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 3.0

Unported licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and

the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative

works are not permitted.

The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Edition and production

Name of the publication: eLearning Papers

ISSN: 1887-1542

Publisher: elearningeuropa.info

Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L.

Postal address: C/ Muntaner 262, 3º, 08021 Barcelona, Spain

Telephone: +34 933 670 400

Email: [email protected]

Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/


http://www.elearningpapers.eu/

Supportive systems for continuous and online professional development

Education

Transcript of Supportive systems for continuous and online professional development