Case study report on inclusive Learning 2.0 by Eva Suba At Eden

Links-up identifies ‘what works for whom under what circumstances’ and considers how the outcomes and impacts of using Web 2.0 for inclusive learning can be measured. Finally, on the basis of the ‘lessons learned’ and the pitfalls experienced in developing and implementing Web 2.0-based support for excluded groups, the Report provides practical recommendations for policymakers and practitioners in order to help make future programmes and projects in this field more effective.

ISBN 978-3-902448-28-6

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author(s), and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Links-up – Learning 2.0 for anBeispiele Inclusiveaus Knowledge society – Untderstanding the Pircture MOBILE GEMEINSCHAFTEN – Erfolgreiche den Bereichen Spielen, Lernen und Gesundheit

Against the background of the increasing penetration of social computing and social networking into all aspects of modern life, the Links-up project investigates whether and under what circumstances ‘Web 2.0’ technologies can support lifelong learning for people who experience social exclusion or who are ‘at risk’ of social exclusion.This report, which covers the initial phase of the two-year project, draws together the evidence from research studies, evaluations and case studies of initiatives to present the main features of the ‘landscape’ of ‘Web 2.0 for inclusive learning’.

Learning 2.0 for an Inclusive Knowledge Society – Understanding the Picture

Edited by Guntram Geser, Salzburg Research Authors: Davide Calenda, Clare Cullen, Joe Cullen, Thomas Fischer, Guntram Geser, Renate Hahner, Martijn Hartog, Damian Hayward, Wolf Hilzensauer, Else Rose Kuiper, Veronique Maes, Bert Mulder, Katharina Nasemann, Sandra Schön, Diana Wieden-Bischof

Photos: Fotolia.com © Coka, Franz Pfluegl, Jason Sitt, Miroslav, Mosquidoo, Yvonne Bogdanski

www.links-up.eu

Learning 2.0 for an Inclusive Knowledge Society â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Understanding the Picture

Learning 2.0 for an Inclusive Knowledge Society â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Understanding the Picture Edited by Guntram Geser

Authors Davide Calenda, Clare Cullen, Joe Cullen, Thomas Fischer, Guntram Geser, Renate Hahner, Martijn Hartog, Damian Hayward, Wolf Hilzensauer, Else Rose Kuiper, Veronique Maes, Bert Mulder, Katharina Nasemann, Sandra SchĂśn, Diana Wieden-Bischof

Copyright This work has been licensed under a Creative Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Commons

License:

Project information Links-up Learning 2.0 for an Inclusive Knowledge Society – Understanding the Picture Lifelong Learning Programme Sub-programme: KA3-ICT Action: KA3 Multilateral Projects Project Number: 505544-LLP-1-2009-1-DE-KA3-KA3MP http://www.links-up.eu/ Work Package 2 – Case Study Report on inclusive Learning 2.0 Deliverable 2.1 – Report on in-depth case studies of innovative examples of the use of Learning 2.0 and Web 2.0 for inclusive lifelong learning. ISBN 978-3-902448-28-6

Contact Thomas Fischer Institute for Innovation in Learning (ILI) thomas.fischer@fim.uni-erlangen.de Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Editor Guntram Geser, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria Authors Davide Calenda, Servizi Didattici e Scientifici per l’Università di Firenze, Prato, Italy Clare Cullen, Arcola Research LLP, London, United Kingdom Joe Cullen, Arcola Research LLP, London, United Kingdom Thomas Fischer, Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany Guntram Geser, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria Renate Hahner, Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany Martijn Hartog, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands Damian Hayward, Arcola Research LLP, London, United Kingdom Wolf Hilzensauer, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria Else Rose Kuiper, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands Veronique Maes, Arcola Research LLP, London, United Kingdom Bert Mulder, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands Katharina Nasemann, Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), Friedrich-Alexander-University ErlangenNuremberg, Erlangen, Germany Sandra Schön, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria Diana Wieden-Bischof, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria A digital version of this Summary Report can be downloaded from http://www.links-up.eu/ This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author(s), and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

TABLE OF CONTENT Executive summary....................................................................................................7 1 Theoretical and methodological overview...............................................................9 1.1 Learning, inclusion and Web 2.0..............................................................................9 1.2 Methodological approach .....................................................................................11 1.3 Research questions ...............................................................................................11 1.4 Research methods and case study design.............................................................12 2 Selection criteria and selected cases......................................................................15 2.1 Data collection and analysis...................................................................................15 2.2 Overview of selected cases....................................................................................16 3 Analysis of intervention concepts of Web 2.0 learning and social inclusion.............23 3.1 General observations on the intervention concepts.............................................23 3.2 Tabular overview of the intervention concepts.....................................................24 3.3 Important aspects of the intervention concepts...................................................27 4 Web 2.0 technologies used....................................................................................29 4.1 General observations on technology implementation and use ............................29 4.2 Tabular overview of tools and objectives...............................................................30 4.3 Patterns of technology implementation and use...................................................33 5 Problems encountered and lessons learned...........................................................35 5.1 Observations on major issues faced by the projects.............................................35 5.2 Tabular overview of problems encountered and lessons learned.........................35 5.3 Discussion of the main problem areas and lessons learned..................................43 6 Recommendation for successful projects in Web 2.0 learning and social inclusion...51 6.1 Overcoming resistance of organisational cultures.................................................51 6.2 Meeting user needs and requirements in e-skilling & inclusion............................51 6.3 Promoting open Web 2.0 based educational practices in schools........................52 6.4 Using appropriate e-learning & inclusion methods...............................................52 6.5 Driving participation on community websites.......................................................53 6.6 Securing sustainability and impact........................................................................54 7 The case studies and the landscape of Learning 2.0 for inclusion............................55 7.1 Introduction............................................................................................................55 7.2 The policy context..................................................................................................56 7.3 The theoretical context..........................................................................................60 7.4 The practices context ............................................................................................63 8 A â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;theory of changeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interpretation of the results...................................................67 8.1 Introduction: Theory of change and impact assessment.......................................67 8.2 Evidence on impacts...............................................................................................68 8.3 Summary of impacts: general theory of change analysis......................................71 9 Literature and sources...........................................................................................73

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and aims of Links-up Links-up is a two-year research project that is co-financed by the Lifelong Learning programme of the European Commission. The project started in November 2009 and is carried out by an international project team: The project co-coordinator University of Erlangen (DE), Arcola Research LLP (UK), European Distance and eLearning Network (UK), Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft (AT), Servizi Didattici e Scientifici per l’Università di Firenze (IT) and University of the Hague (NL). The overall aim of Links-up is to combine and enhance the know-how of existing projects in the field of inclusion with learning 2.0 in order to promote better future e-inclusion projects and policies. More specifically, Links-up will | collect and analyse information on projects that are using Web 2.0 tools and methods for learning and social inclusion, | implement an “Innovation Laboratory” for “Learning 2.0 for inclusion” to support knowledge-sharing between different existing initiatives, | develop new approaches and tools building on the gathered expertise, and | test identified success factors in five learning experiments examining whether and in what ways they improve the efficiency and effectiveness of current learning 2.0 approaches for inclusion. This research work reflects the increasing interest in the opportunities offered by “Web 2.0” for supporting innovative ways of learning, especially for those who are “hard to reach” or “at risk” of social exclusion. Links-up relates to, and aims to support, a number of current policy initiatives. On the European level this includes the EU i2010 initiative (2005)1, the Riga Declaration on e-inclusion policy goals (2006)2; the Lisbon Declaration on e-inclusion (2007)3; the European Commission’s Communication “Ageing Well in the Information Society” (2007)4 and the “e- inclusion: be part of it” initiative5.

i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm [2010-09-15]

Riga Declaration (2006). Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf [2010-09-16]

Lisbon Declaration (2006). An Alliance for Social Cohesion through Digital Inclusion, Lisbon, 28-29 April 2006. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/latinamerica/regional-cooperation/alis/documents/lisbon_declaration_en.pdf [2010-09-16]

EC Communication (2007) 332 final. Online available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0332en01.pdf

e-Inclusion: Be Part of It! Online available at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/bepartofit/index_en.htm [2010-09-10]

Case study report on inclusive Learning 2.0 This report presents an in-depth case study analysis of 24 examples of innovative use of Learning 2.0 and Web 2.0 for inclusive lifelong learning (project deliverable 2.1). A narrative descriptions of the 24 case studies is free available for download from the project website.6 The main objective of this collection and analysis of exemplary projects is to investigate the potential of Learning 2.0 to support the social inclusion of groups at risk of exclusion from society. In particular, problems encountered and lessons learned by the projects are summarised, and a number of practical recommendations provided on how to realise successful projects in Web 2.0 learning and social inclusion. The projects studied are also set within the current “landscape of Learning 2.0 for inclusion”, i.e. the contexts of policy, theory and practices. Thus the extent to which the cases support the major policies in the field, the conceptual thinking around social inclusion and the needs of excluded groups is evaluated. Moreover, the projects are reflected upon from the perspective of a “theory of change” approach taking account of the evidence on impacts they provide.

http://www.linksup.eu or directly available http://tinyurl.com/linksup-cases

1 THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW 1.1 Learning, inclusion and Web 2.07 ‘Inclusion’ is a complex concept, not least, because it is intimately associated with its opposite – exclusion. As Glass (2000) observes, there is frequently a confusion in the literature between trying to measure social exclusion and trying to measure the effects of policies aimed at eliminating it. The elimination of exclusion – inclusion – needs to address complex multi-dimensional phenomena. As the European Commission (2004) defined it, exclusion is ‘a process whereby certain individuals are pushed to the edge of society and prevented from participating fully by virtue of their poverty, or lack of basic competencies and lifelong learning opportunities, or as a result of discrimination. This distances them from job, income and education opportunities as well as social and community networks and activities. They have little access to power and decision-making bodies and thus often feeling powerless and unable to take control over the decisions that affect their day to day lives.´ The growing ubiquity of ICTs in recent years, as a result of the burgeoning ‘Knowledge Society’, has attracted the attention of initiatives and projects aimed at harnessing technologies to address exclusion and support inclusion. This has especially been the case with regard to ´Web 2.0´, and ‘social networking’ technologies, with their potential to support far greater social interaction than before. As a range of studies have demonstrated (see Redecker et al., 2009); the Web offers a lot of possibilities for self-expression and people are able to participate, e.g. to gain information, to communicate and to collaborate in many different ways. For example, with the use of web 2.0 technologies, blind people are able to participate by using a braille display, a device which transforms the information on the screen into embossed printing. Also, migrants can use online tools to enhance their second language abilities with informal learning activities. Nevertheless, the ´digital divide´ between better-educated and higher-status groups and involuntary off-liners or people with low digital literacy still exists and limits the possibilities of participation. A recent report by the Oxford Internet Institute observed that: “technological forms of exclusion are a reality for significant segments of the population, and that, for some people, they reinforce and deepen existing disadvantages” (Helsper, 2008). There is strong evidence to suggest that significant numbers of people remain at the margins of the ‘knowledge society’ – not least because the complexity and diversity of their lives, and their roles in a ‘technologically rich’ society, remain poorly understood (Facer & Selwyn, 2007). Digital inclusion itself is therefore a new field for inclusion initiatives, concerning e.g. the accessibility of web resources or digital literacy of people at risk of exclusion. Against this background, a number of initiatives have been established to support the application of ICTs – particularly Web 2.0 – to inclusion. In tandem, a range of initiatives aimed at awareness-raising and dissemination of good practices in the field have been implemented, including, several awards schemes. For example, the European e-Inclusion Award8 was established in 2008 in the following categories: ageing well, marginal7

The following text is a slightly revised version of parts of Schaffert, Cullen, Hilzensauer & Wieden-Bischof, 2010, pp. 57–64.

European e-Inclusion Award – http://www.e-inclusionawards.eu/ [2010-05-18]

ised young people, geographic inclusion, cultural diversity, digital literacy, e-accessibility, and inclusive public services. Altogether 469 European institutions had applied for the e-Inclusion Award in 2008. To build an overview of the results and lessons learned in the projects, the European Commission initiated a study (Osimo, De Luca & Codagnone, 2010) on projects and initiatives in the whole field of inclusion by private and non-profit European organisations. The majority of case studies are in the field of e-accessibility (ibid, p. 10). Another study, published in 2008, gives an overview on the different fields of action and examples of einclusion in Austria (The Federal Chancellery, 2008). Furthermore eLearning Papers No. 19, a publication of elearningeuropa.info, has published a number of articles on inclusion and digital technologies (eLearning Papers, 2010). Learning with ICT is to be seen as a key driver for inclusion. It is increasingly argued that Web 2.0 can empower resistant learners and groups at risk of exclusion by offering them new opportunities for self-realisation through collaborative learning, and by changing the nature of education itself. This owes much to a notion that has come to the fore in recent thinking on learning – the idea that education is now focusing on ‘new millennium learners’ (NML), and that the future of learning is inextricably bound up with these learners. NML – those born after 1982 – are the first generation to grow up surrounded by digital media, and most of their activities dealing with peer-to-peer communication and knowledge management are mediated by these technologies (Pedró, 2006). For example, it is easier to take part in open learning initiatives, profit from open educational resources and new tools that allow easy communication and collaboration for learners. There seem to be fewer boundaries to take part in these opportunities compared with formal education settings, where social milieu, family background, healthiness, socio-economic possibilities and the accessibility of educational institutions as well as the geographic location e.g. urban areas, are still the most important factors for (non) participation. Yet, as noted above, the evidence base for these conclusions is fragmented and contested. There is also counter evidence that Web 2.0 can reinforce exclusion and reduce learning outcomes. For example, it seems that people with better education and socioeconomic backgrounds profit more from the new learning and participation opportunities than others. This effect – those who have more will get more – is called Matthew’s effect based on a popular citation from the bible. Therefore, a sceptic view on projects within this field is needed. Critical questions comprise: Is learning 2.0 really supporting inclusive life-long learning? Can isolated experiments be mainstreamed and is learning 2.0 fundamentally changing the educational landscape? Until now, there have only been a few studies that bring together experiences in this field. For example, the aim of the project ´E-learning 4 E-inclusion´ is “to build a community for those with valuable expertise regarding the use of eLearning for digital inclusion” (Casacuberta, 2007, 1). Another contribution which focuses on inclusion projects dealing with learning and Web 2.0 is called ´e-learning 2.0´ (Downes, 2005) or in short ´learning 2.0´. As a part of a wider project about learning 2.0 initiatives and their effects on innovation (see Redecker et al., 2009) a study based on case studies of eight projects on learning 2.0 for inclusion was implemented by Cullen, Cullen, Hayward and Maes (2009). Within this study, the described initiatives focus on learners ‘at risk’ of exclusion from the knowledge-based society. For example, the alternative online-school “Notschool” focused on young people for whom 'school does not fit'. Another example “MOSEP”,

which developed training materials for trainers using the e-portfolio method, addressed the growing problem of adolescents dropping-out of the formal education system around Europe (Hilzensauer & Buchberger, 2009). The study delivered an overview about approaches and experiences within eight case studies concerning the innovativeness, the barriers and success factors of the initiatives. Building on the results of the above mentioned study by Cullen et al. (2009), the Linksup project has been developed. Links-up will collect and enhance the know-how of selected European projects in the field of inclusion through learning and Web 2.0. The project aims at delivering recommendations for better projects and policies in the special field of inclusion through learning 2.0. This report is one important step in achieving this.

1.2 Methodological approach From a methodological point of view, Links-up's recommendations will be derived through a four-step-process: Step 1: The project consortium will describe and analyse case studies of existing projects in the field of inclusion through learning 2.0 using a detailed tool-kit for case studies. Step 2: In five ´innovation laboratories´ Links-up partners will observe new Web 2.0 usages within existing projects using ‘action research’. Action Research (Pedler, 1997) focuses on gathering and analysing data to assess the nature and scope of changes brought about by an innovative intervention – in these cases the use of Web 2.0 to supplement existing learning practices. Observations made by the project manager and by participants will be collected, selected and reflected on. The data collection and analysis will be linked to specific hypotheses posed by the initial Links-up research analysis. For example, the action research will test the hypothesis that ‘motivational resistance to participation in Web 2.0 learning environments can be reduced through peer support – especially with older learners’. On the basis of the action research results, a list of recommendations will be developed as a guideline to make better projects and policies in the future. Nevertheless, the first part of our investigations will be an analysis of case studies.

1.3 Research questions The overall research questions of Links-up are based on the assumption that, the usage of Web 2.0 supports inclusive lifelong learning. Links-up will therfore explore three main issues: | Is Learning 2.0 really supporting inclusive life-long learning? | Can isolated experiments be mainstreamed? | Is Learning 2.0 fundamentally changing the educational landscape?

Other research questions providing additional input to the study are: | What kinds of Learning 2.0 applications are currently being developed and implemented to support lifelong learning and social inclusion? | What are their characteristics, in terms of technical configurations; learning scenarios; pedagogic methods; institutional arrangements?

| What kinds of new digital skills are emerging as a result of the use of Learning 2.0 applications? | What other, non-digital key competences for lifelong learning, are being supported by Learning 2.0 applications? | In what ways are Learning 2.0 applications equipping users with skills that will increase their labour market opportunities? | What examples of good practice can be identified and how can these be used to support future policy and practices in the field?

1.4 Research methods and case study design The research design of this study is a slightly modified approach of the approach developed for Cullen et al (2009). The methodological approach adopted follows accepted models and practices used in case studies (Yin, 2002), but incorporates additional elements chosen to suit the particular focus of this study – particularly the research questions outlined above – and the environment in which Learning 2.0 initiatives operate. Six of these additional methodological elements applied were: | Behavioural additionality analysis (Georghiou & Clarysse, 2006) – a method used to measure both individual and aggregate changes in learning and social interaction behaviours, using self-reported measurements; | Theory of change analysis (Chen, 1990) – an approach used to identify both the explicit and implicit paradigm of change that lies at the heart of an innovation – in other words the transformative model that is embedded within it; | Cultural logic analysis (Habermas, 1981) – a ‘discursive’ approach used to supplement the ‘theory of change’ analysis and aimed at de-constructing the conceptual and theoretical paradigms underlying the initiatives, their ‘vision’ of Lifelong Learning, Learning 2.0 and e-Inclusion and their intended outcomes; | Pedagogic audit – a tool for assessing learning outcomes (see as an example the Australian Flexible Learning Community, 2004); | Digital skills audit – a method focusing on capturing the extent to which Learning 2.0 applications are developing and supporting e-skills over and beyond the basic ICT skills typically aimed at in conventional digital literacy programmes; | Social capacity audit – an instrument designed to assess the effects of participation in Learning 2.0 initiatives aimed at promoting social inclusion on promoting individual capacity and social participation (see Freire, 1970 and Horton & Freire, 1990). The case study methodology design is based on five inter-connected stages: (a) logistics, (b) positioning and profiling, (c) data collection, (d) analysis, (e) synthesis. Table 1 summarises the objectives of each phase together with the methods and tools used to implement it.

Phase

Objectives

Methods and Tools

Logistics

Establish protocols for implementing case studies

Case study procedures

Identify key informants and data sources. Contact key ‘gatekeepers’. Arrange site visit

Logistics audit

Desk research to collect preliminary data on the case

Case profile template

Situate the case in its cultural and organisational lifeworld

Environmental Audit

Collect preliminary data on key research questions with main informant

Key informant Interview schedule

Collect data generated through utilisation of platform and tools

Guideline for automated data collection

Collect data on user experiences

Self administered user questionnaire

Collect in depth data on user experiences

User interview schedule

Collect group data on user experiences

Focus Group Guidelines

Observe how the initiative operates on the ground

Observation Guideline

Analyse content produced by the initiative

Content analysis Guideline

Assess key outcomes and impacts for individual users

Behavioural additionality analysis template

Compare intended outcomes with actual outcomes

Theory of change analysis template

Evaluate the ‘vision’ of the initiative

Cultural logic analysis

Assess learning outcomes

Pedagogic audit

Assess innovative e-skills outcomes

Digital skills audit

Integrate the results of the data collection and analysis to answer key research questions

Case Summary template

Positioning and Profiling

Data Collection

Analysis

Synthesis

Table 1: Case Study Design (see Chen, 1990)

2 SELECTION CRITERIA AND SELECTED CASES 24 cases were selected for a detailed analysis. The detailed narrative description of each case is free available for download from the project website9. The selection of cases reflected the following priorities: | Different Learning Settings – include formal and non-formal learning settings; different target groups, in particular ‘at risk’ and ‘hard to reach’ groups; training situations (i.e. workplace, at home; distance or face-to-face), training needs (i.e. general, vocational, leisure; re-skilling, up-skilling) and interactions (i.e. learner-teacher, learnerlearner, teacher-teacher), organised learning (i.e. in schools, universities, training centres); | Different Social Computing Applications – include a variety of uses of social computing applications in learning contexts, involving wikis, blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking, editing and networking tools, virtual realities/immersive technologies, as well as networking, sharing, reviewing, commenting, collaborative knowledge creation, editing or publishing; | Maturity and Potential of the Initiative – include initiatives that provide examples of sustainable development; | Geographical Distribution – include a range of different geographical locations and cultural environments.

The procedure adopted for case study selection was as follows: | A first list of potential projects within the field of inclusion and learning 2.0 was compiled by our partner Arcola Research LLP, through intensive research for cases and projects from a diverse range of European publications and repositories. | The partners additionally looked for interesting projects within their language area. This was a very productive step as the partners found a lot of projects from outside the UK: Typically they are described and documented in their native language without an English translation (which is normally only needed in European collaboration's or in UK). | Afterwards, the partners selected possible projects (with the help of the criteria described above) and contacted project managers of potential case studies. | Depending on the interest and agreement of the projects the final list of case studies was discussed and decided by the project partners.

2.1 Data collection and analysis As noted above, the study approach incorporates a multi-methodological design involving the use of different data collection methods (quantitative and qualitative) and a diverse range of actors that consider each of the examples from different perspectives. As a result, data collection varies from case to case in terms of the type of data collected, the range of actors represented, the balance between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ data. However, the case study procedure involved synthesising and interpreting the results using a common template in order to promote standardisation and support crosscase comparisons. This approach was successfully used (Cullen et. al., 2009), and we slightly modified templates and procedures due to the partners' needs. 9

http://www.linksup.eu or directly available http://tinyurl.com/linksup-cases

2.2 Overview of selected cases10

Scope of Inclusion

Ageing well (e.g. generation 50+)

Marginalised people (e.g. educational – school drop out, gifted people, illness, economic, labour market, social exclusion risks...)

Geographic inclusion (e.g. regional focus, non-urban or rural area)

Cultural diversity (e.g. migrants, ethnic minorities)

Digital literacy (e.g. all population groups)

ALPEUNED

Assistive Technology Wiki

Avatar@School

BREAKOUT

Conecta Joven

Cyberhus

EduCoRe

FreqOut!

HiStory ICONET

Mixopolis MOSEP

Mundo de Estrellas

Nettilukio

Notschool

Pinokio rePlay

Roots & Routes

Savvy Chavvy Schome Park Seniorkom.at

TRIO

Web in the Hood

XenoCLIPse

Table 2: Classification of the cases according to the different categories of e-Inclusion

Table 2 gives an overview of the cases and shows the variety with respect to their ´scope of inclusion´. The classification of inclusion scenarios is based on the categories of the einclusion awards11. Table 2 shows that in this sample most of the projects focus on the inclusion of marginalised people. Other important dimensions are cultural diversity and digital literacy, whereas ageing well and geographic inclusion are (intentionally) less present. 10

A detailled description of each case can be downloaded from the project website: http://www.linksup.eu or directly available http://tinyurl.com/linksup-cases

http://www.e-inclusionawards.eu/

Target groups

Young kids

Teenagers12

Students13

(young)14 Adults

Seniors

ALPEUNED Assistive Technology Wiki

Avatar@School

BREAKOUT

Conecta Joven

Cyberhus

EduCoRe

FreqOut!

HiStory ICONET

Mixopolis

MOSEP

Mundo de Estrellas

Nettilukio

Notschool

Pinokio

rePlay

Roots & Routes Savvy Chavvy

Schome Park

Seniorkom.at

TRIO

Web in the Hood

XenoCLIPse

Table 3: Target groups addressed

Table 3 shows that all age groups are well represented, although most cases include the category teenagers. Obviously, Web 2.0 strategies focus more on the Net-Generation as well as on the adolescence. Most projects have more than one target group, which offers a variety of implementation scenarios as well as transferability of results.

Persons between the ages of 13 and 19.

This category includes young people who attend a regular school or university curriculum.

FreqOut! As well as Roots & Routs targets young people aged 13-25 years old.

Learning activities

formal15

non-formal16

informal17

ALPEUNED

Assistive Technology Wiki Avatar@School

BREAKOUT

Conecta Joven

Cyberhus

EduCoRe

FreqOut!

ICONET

Mixopolis

MOSEP

HiStory

Nettilukio

Mundo de Estrellas

Notschool Pinokio

rePlay

Roots & Routes

Savvy Chavvy Schome Park Seniorkom.at

TRIO Web in the Hood XenoCLIPse

Table 4: Category of the Learning Activities

Most of the learning scenarios focus on informal learning outcomes, often in combination with either formal or non-formal aspects. Although informal learning activities are hard to categorise, the cases focus on the indirect acquisition of skills by Â´doingÂ´ something with the internet (in different settings) or by using Web 2.0 technology. The documentation and reflection upon these activities allow for informal learning outcomes.

Formal learning is learning that takes place within a teacher-student relationship and educational setting (e.g. school).

Nonformal learning is organized learning outside the formal learning system. For example: learning by coming together with people with similar interests and exchanging viewpoints, e.g. in a youth organisation.

Informal learning occurs in everyday life, e.g. situations at work, conversations, playing, etc.

Inclusion objective

Educational Re-insertion

Supporting Disability

ALPEUNED

Assistive Technology Wiki

Digital Literacy

Overcoming Low ICT Use

Addressing Social Isolation

Avatar@School

BREAKOUT

Conecta Joven

Cyberhus

EduCoRe

HiStory ICONET

Mixopolis

MOSEP

Nettilukio

Notschool

Mundo de Estrellas

FreqOut!

Pinokio rePlay

Roots & Routes

Savvy Chavvy Schome Park

TRIO

Seniorkom.at

Web in the Hood

XenoCLIPse

Table 5: Inclusion objective

With regards to the inclusion objectives, the cases are quite heterogeneous. Most of the projects provide strategies against social isolation, accompanied with other measures. Often the inclusion objective is combined with an educational focus, where up-skilling and competence development are key. Also some cases with a focus on inclusion of people with disabilities are included in the sample.

Tables 6 and 7 below present the fields of intervention combined with the different categories of learning activities and age groups:

Young kids

Teenagers

Students

Ageing well (e.g. generation 50+)

(young) Adults Seniorkom.at

Seniors HiStory Seniorkom.at

Avatar@School BREAKOUT Avatar@School Marginalised people (e.g. educational â&#x20AC;&#x201C; school drop out, gifted, illness, economic, labour market, social exclusion risks...)

BREAKOUT Cyberhus Mundo de Estrellas rePlay Web in the Hood Pinokio

Cyberhus Assistive Technology Wiki

FreqOut! ICONET MOSEP Nettilukio Mundo de Estrellas

ALPEUNED

Conecta Joven

TRIO

EduCoRe

ICONET

FreqOut!

Conecta Joven TRIO

Roots & Routes

Notschool

TRIO

rePlay Roots & Routes Schome Park

Geographic inclusion (e.g. rural area)

Nettilukio FreqOut! ICONET Mixopolis

Cultural diversity (e.g. migrants, ethnic minorities)

Pinokio

Nettilukio

Savvy Chavvy

Pinokio

Web in the Hood

Roots & Routes Savvy Chavvy

Conecta Joven Mixopolis

FreqOut!

XenoCLIPse

Roots & Routes

Conecta Joven

XenoCLIPse

Schome Park XenoCLIPse Digital literacy (e.g. all population groups)

FreqOut! Web in the Hood

Web in the Hood XenoCLIPse

Conecta Joven

FreqOut!

HiStory

Seniorkom.at

Web in the Hood

Table 6: Addressed age groups and fields of inventions of the case studies

formal Ageing well (e.g. generation 50+)

non-formal

informal

HiStory

Seniorkom.at

Seniorkom.at ALPEUNED

Marginalised people (e.g. educational â&#x20AC;&#x201C; school drop out, gifted, illness, economic, labour market, social exclusion risks...)

Avatar@School

Cyberhus

EduCoRe

ICONET

FreqOut!

MOSEP

ICONET

PINOKIO

Mundo de Estrellas

Nettilukio

rePlay

Notschool

Roots & Routes

rePlay

Schome Park

Roots & Routes

TRIO

Schome Park

Assistive Technology Wiki BREAKOUT Conecta Joven Cyberhus EduCoRe FreqOut! ICONET MOSEP Mundo de Estrellas rePlay Roots & Routes Schome Park

Geographic inclusion (e.g. rural area)

Nettilukio

ICONET

Mixopolis

FreqOut!

Nettilukio

Mixopolis

Pinokio

Nettilukio

Pinokio

Roots & Routes

Schome Park

Savvy Chavvy

XenoCLIPse

Schome Park

Conecta Joven

Cultural diversity (e.g. migrants, ethnic minorities)

XenoCLIPse Conecta Joven FreqOut! Digital literacy (e.g. all population groups)

XenoCLIPse

FreqOut!

HiStory

Seniorkom.at

SeniorKom.at

Web in the Hood

Web in the Hood XenoCLIPse

Table 7: Addressed learning and field of interventions of the case studies

3 ANALYSIS OF INTERVENTION CONCEPTS OF WEB 2.0 LEARNING AND SOCIAL INCLUSION The diverse project descriptions presented in the Links-up project contain theories and models of change. The expectation is that introducing some innovative components into a social environment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in our cases Web 2.0 tools and methods â&#x20AC;&#x201C; will promote different behaviour of individuals, social groups or organisations, achieving beneficial impact and change. These changes include re-engagement in learning and greater achievement of learners, which may lead to improved employment prospects. Projects using Web 2.0 supported learning for social inclusion can be viewed according to a macro-model and a micro-model of change. In the example above, the micro-model is about the learnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s re-engagement and achievement (how can this be realised more effectively) linked with a socio-economic macro-model that requires people with certain qualifications and aspirations (how to provide the economy, business and other sectors with knowledgeable and dedicated workers). Similar models already exist for issues of social anomy (e.g. deprived communities) and social exclusion (e.g. of ethnic minorities and migrant communities). In these situations, the intended impact of using Web 2.0 tools and methods is to strengthen communities and promote social inclusion. However, processes of social learning also play a key role (e.g. activities that vitalise a social community, help develop mutual understanding among social groups, etc.). The models inform interventions aimed at tackling problems in learning and social inclusion and realising favourable impacts and changes in attitudes, knowledge and behaviours. In the sections below, we analyse the intervention concepts of the projects studied. The intervention concept of each project comprises the problem addressed, the target group(s), the intervention using Web 2.0 tools and methods, and the intended impact of the intervention. The sections below are structured as follows: 1. provides general observations on the intervention concepts of the projects studied; 2. presents a tabular overview of the intervention concepts; 3. discusses and illustrates important aspects of the concepts.

3.1 General observations on the intervention concepts Problems addressed: The main problems requiring intervention are understood to be lack of competences and participation in social life, i.e. social inclusion which requires active engagement by the individuals and social groups themselves. In particular, engagement in education, vocational training and lifelong learning in many social groups is seen as a core issue. Equally, acquisition of e-skills as a basis for employability and participation in the information and knowledge society is also presented as highly important. Furthermore, better counselling in critical situations as well as for vocational orientation and job finding is seen as a vital need. There is also a trend for developing innovative approaches that challenge established ways of providing public services. Such approaches should allow for re-evaluating education and new scenarios of schooling, as well as new methods in crime prevention and offender rehabilitation services.

Target groups: Groups that stand out as intervention targets are ´hard to reach´ learners in deprived communities, including ethnic minorities and larger groups of migrants. Young people are a prime target for interventions because they are seen to be át risk´ (including át risk´ of offending), often present the necessary skills for a career in creative industries, and may strengthen their community by becoming role models of achievement and a voice for their interests. Other intervention targets are children, students and adults with disabilities or medical conditions. Intervention approaches: A ´blended´ approach is the most common form of intervention. The main reason for this is that in many interventions, target groups face barriers to learning which need to be overcome, such as poor e-skills, lack of motivation and trust. A ´blended´ approach also allows for developing social relationships and exchange of experiences among participants (community building) that can be supported, facilitated and enhanced by using Web 2.0 tools. Ónline only´ approaches are used in contexts where there is an established portal or community website and users can be expected to have sufficient e-skills already. Intended impacts: Re-engagement in learning, vocational training and lifelong learning, as well as improving employability and social inclusion are the strongest themes presented by the sample of case studies, as with a majority of similar projects across Europe.

3.2 Tabular overview of the intervention concepts The table below provides an overview of the intervention concept of each project studied. The concept comprises the identified problem, the target group(s), the intervention using Web 2.0 tools and methods, and the intended impact of the intervention. Details about the particular Web 2.0 tools used are provided and analysed separately in the next chapter. Problems & target group addressed

Web 2.0 supported intervention and intended impact

ALPEUNED

Equal learning opportunities and social inclusion of distance learning students with disabilities

Promote peer communication and counselling in forums on the distance learning portal to address problems of disabled students and increase social inclusion

Assistive Technology Wiki

Improvement of ICT and e-learning opportunities for disabled adults and children through cooperation in a dedicated membership organisation

Allow for active online participation of more members on the organisation’s website to create momentum and receive new ideas and support

Problems & target group addressed

Web 2.0 supported intervention and intended impact

Avatar @School

Aggressive social exclusion (e.g. bullying) requires competence in conflict mediation of students and teachers

Provide a virtual environment as a safe place for role-playing in conflict situations and learning about how to behave and mediate in such situations

BREAKOUT

Need of new approaches in youth crime prevention and offender rehabilitation services

Allow for Web 2.0 based communication in “action learning” of students at risk, teachers, probation services and youth offending teams to prevent offending behaviour

Conecta Joven

Vocational training and lifelong learning opportunities for marginalised social groups of adults to allow for employability and social inclusion

Provide hands-on ICT training combined with online learning and exchange of experiences to keep learners engaged and socially connected

Cyberhus

Meaningful leisure activities and counselling for kids and teens “at risk”

Provide a save on-line environment where kids and teens can connect, learn together and get support by skilled counsellors in critical situations

EduCoRe

Support employability and participation in society of people that suffer from physical disabilities after an accident or illness

Blended training and counselling approach for people in the physical rehabilitation process (hospital, rehabilitation centre, home) to allow for skills acquisition and social connectedness

FreqOUT!

Promote creative activity, social inclusion, and employability of young people from deprived communities

Blended approach to engage, train and connect talented young people and provide a platform for creative uses of technology, and to encourage opportunities for careers in the creative sector

HiStory

E-inclusion/participation of seniors that is also beneficial for the wider social community and society

Engage seniors to participate in the digital sphere by telling their stories of personally experienced historical events and developments online (active e-citizenship)

ICONET

Recognition of informal vocational skills of students gained in extra-curricular experiences to leverage employability

Develop validation procedures in a train-thetrainer environment and promote adoption of the procedures potentially raising employment prospects of students

Mixopolis

Need of better vocational orientation and job searching for young people with migration background

Attract, inform and connect young people from the target community through an online career orientation portal

MOSEP

Prevent early school leaving and help students to recognise their educational achievements. Support students with preparation for vocational careers

Motivate and train teachers and vocational counsellors to use e-portfolios and online collaboration methods to better inform students about their education and vocational career choices

Problems & target group addressed

Web 2.0 supported intervention and intended impact

Mundo de Estrellas

Increase well-being and learning of ill school-age children in hospitals

Provide the children with an online environment for learning, recreation and social community

Nettilukio

Students and adults who cannot participate in the regular school system (e.g. parents with small children, shiftworker, disabled persons, students living abroad) but want to gain an upper secondary school diploma

Provide a flexible learning environment for self-directed coursework and communication with tutors and peers to prepare for the national exam

Notschool

Re-engage learners and remove barriers to learning for young people who have become disaffected in traditional school environments or excluded from school due to behaviour or other circumstances

Enable personalised and self-directed learning with community support (tutors, peers and other community members) to allow for resilience and educational achievement of students

Pinokio

Addresses the need to promote intercultural dialogue against social exclusion of migrants involving pre-school and primary school children, teachers and parents

Combine story telling (fables) with new media to co-create narratives that enable discussion and better understanding social exclusion

rePlay

Intervention programs for social (re-) integration aimed at marginalised and young people and those â&#x20AC;&#x153;at riskâ&#x20AC;? of offending.

Provide an environment for game-based social learning and integration in centres for young offenders and schools in deprived communities

Roots & Routes

Promote creative activity, social inclusion, and employability of talented young people from deprived communities

Blended approach of face-to-face learning and hands-on development of skills in creative production with online community and presentation of creative products, which may encourage careers in the creative sector

Savvy Chavvy

Strengthen ethnic minorities by encouraging young people to take pride in their culture

Provide a safe, self-managed environment for young people from the Gypsy and Traveller community to connect, share experiences, and tell stories about their culture

Schome Park

Explore new educational possibilities for co-learning and peer mentoring of young people with difficulties in mainstream schooling

Provide a virtual world for open learning practices that challenge traditional teacherstudent roles and assessment of learning, providing a platform to re-evaluate education and develop new scenarios of schooling

Seniorkom.at

E-inclusion of seniors by providing opportunities for recreational, learning and community activities

Engage seniors on a dedicated portal by allowing for meaningful and largely self-organised activities with own contributions

TRIO

Web in Hood

the

XenoCLIPse

Problems & target group addressed

Web 2.0 supported intervention and intended impact

Retention of adults in vocational training and lifelong learning

Provide a regional portal with e-learning courses and communication features that help counter learner drop-out and improve retention

Strengthening deprived communities through e-skilling and community-focused activities of adults

Blended approach of physical meeting places for socialising and online activities for community members aimed to encourage people to care for each other and form stronger community ties.

Strengthen ethnic minorities and migrant communities by encouraging young people to produce their own media images of their culture

Support media production and presentation of young people from the target communities potentially opening up careers in media organisations Table 8: Overview of the intervention concepts

3.3 Important aspects of the intervention concepts Problems addressed At the most general level, the core problem is social inclusion that requires active participation of the target groups addressed. More specifically, lack of engagement in education, vocational training and lifelong learning of people in all age groups is seen as a prime target for intervention. The majority of the case studies addressed this area. Clearly, an inclusive knowledge society cannot be realised if many people do not acquire the necessary e-skills and vocational experiences needed for employability and participation in social and economic life. Additionally, there is a vital need for better counselling services to help people in crisis situations, as well as services offering valuable careers advice. These issues are addressed by some of the projects (e.g. Cyberhus, ICONET, Mixopolis and MOSEP). There are also several projects that respond to the demand for innovative approaches that challenge established ways of providing public services. This includes Schome Park, which aims to develop a new educational format, and Breakout, which tested new methods in crime prevention and offender rehabilitation services. Target groups addressed The major intervention targets are a range of social groups that are understood as “hard to reach” and comprise unemployed low-skilled adults, young people “at risk” that should be re-engaged in learning, and ethnic minorities and migrant communities lacking social inclusion and participation. There is a strong focus on social groups in deprived (urban) communities. Young people are seen as a priority group because of their potential to play a role in strengthening

their communities. They may become role models, encouraging others to respect ethnic minorities and migrant communities, and serve as a voice for their culture and interests. A particular focus of projects in this field is to recruit and train talented young people for a career in the creative industries (e.g. FreqOUT!, Roots & Routes, XenoCLIPse). Other particular intervention targets are children, students and adults with disabilities or medical conditions (e.g. ALPEUNED, Assistive Technology Wiki, EduCoRe, Mundo de Estrellas). Intervention approaches Most projects employ a â&#x20AC;&#x153;blendedâ&#x20AC;? approach, which is adapted for different target groups and interventions: At the base level there are interventions that primarily aim to overcome barriers to social inclusion and learning, and additionally support development of basic e-skills and promote activities on the Web (e.g. Conecta Joven and Web in Hood). A special case is Notschool, an initiative which has developed a whole system for re-engaging school drop-outs in learning, allowing for: self-directed learning without fear of failure or pressure to achieve; connecting with a supportive community (peers, tutors and other community members) and securing formal accreditation and certification of educational achievement. Interventions that focus on young peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; talents and skills enable the acquisition of skills in creative production (workshops, summer schools, etc.), online social networking and presentation of products, potentially opening up a path towards a career in the creative industries (e.g. FreqOUT!, Roots & Routes, XenoCLIPse). Furthermore, there are interventions which prepare teachers and vocational counsellors to use innovative tools for better assisting students in education and vocational orientation and preparation, e.g. e-portfolios (MOSEP) or a method for validating informal vocational skills of students gained in extra-curricular experiences (ICONET). Also of note are examples of interventions that focus on teachers, students and parents to develop awareness and skills (e.g. story telling, conflict mediation) for overcoming social exclusion (e.g. Avatar@School and Pinokio). Approaches that mainly or only use online activities can be found in the context of established online portals, for example, a distance learning university (ALPEUNED), an Internet-based upper secondary school (Nettilukio), a regional portal for vocational training (TRIO), a career orientation portal for students (Mixopolis) or a platform for seniors (Seniorkom.at). Furthermore there are open or restricted community websites that implement Web 2.0 tools to allow more members to share ideas and collaborate on topics of interest (e.g. Assistive Technology Wiki, Cyberhus, Savvy Chavvy). In such cases the target groups are expected to already have sufficient e-skills for accessing information, participating in activities, and communicating with peers or a counsellor.

4 WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES USED This section analyses what technologies, in particular, Web 2.0 tools have been used by the projects. The observations concern what platforms and specific tools are used and what similarities there are in terms of purpose, target groups and whether they use the same or different sets of Web 2.0 tools. The sections below are structured as follows, 1. provides general observations on how the projects are implemented and the range of Web 2.0 tools used; 2. presents a tabular overview of what project objectives were supported by which Web 2.0 tools; 3. discusses some patterns identified in the implementation and use of the tools.

4.1 General observations on technology implementation and use Often several tools have been used – most often communication and collaboration tools such as weblogs, wikis, forums, chat and podcasts. Media sharing platforms such as YouTube, flickr, slideshare are also an important element in many projects. Such tools and popular platforms are seldom combined with “classical” e-learning portals and course programs. The Moodle platform has been used by several of the projects; others used Drupal or a home-grown system (e.g. the social software inspired and highly user-friendly system of “Web in the Hood”). Social networking platforms were used by projects aimed at bringing together creative people from marginalised communities, e.g. Facebook by FreqOUT! and Ning by Savvy Chavvy. Projects also explored how to use virtual worlds, e.g. Second Life by Schome Park and OpenSim by Avatar@School.

4.2 Tabular overview of tools and objectives Web 2.0 tools used

Objective for which the technology has been used (and by whom)

ALPEUNED

Interactive forums on a distance learning portal

Support student peer counselling related to issues of disabled students (Spanish National University for Distance Learning - UNED)

Assistive Technology Wiki

Wiki and media sharing on a Moodle platform; wiki related features included Wetpaint, a „Wiki Weekly Digest“ e-mailed to members, a „Community Spot-light“ introducing a member

Engage members of AbilityNet that focuses on improving ICT for people with disabilities (registered national charity, UK)

Avatar @School

OpenSim virtual world with avatars for role playing of students

Trial a virtual learning approach for conflict mediation in situations such as bullying and other social aggression (EU Socrates project)

BREAKOUT

Weblog, forum and podcasts functionality on a EU project website

Allow for communication among teachers, probation services, youth offending teams and others who work with young people at risk (EU Socrates project)

Conecta Joven

Weblog, forum, co-authoring and media sharing on a regional portal dedicated to adult workplace and lifelong learning

Offer 23 community support centres collaborative and blended learning opportunities aimed to overcome “digital divide” (largescale regional project in Catalonia, Spain)

Cyberhus

Several tools such as weblogs discussion forum, Q&A, instant messaging clients and others, implemented on Drupal

Provide a save online club environment for kids and teens including counselling by volunteers (non profit organisation)

EduCoRe

Weblogs, forum, wiki, implemented on Moodle

Trial e-inclusion of people that suffer from physical disabilities after an accident or illness; e.g. Weblog as learning diary, online collaboration and e-counselling (EU Gruntvig LLL project)

FreqOUT!

Uses a wide range of tools such as weblogs, social networking (Facebook group), YouTube and other content production, sharing and presentation tools

Support creativity projects with marginalised young people (13-25 yrs) in deprived communities (Vital Regeneration, UK, funded by public grants and private sponsorships)

HiStory

Weblogs for writing, aggregating and commenting on personal stories

Trial e-inclusion of senior people who tell their stories of personally experienced historical events and developments, promote inter-cultural/generational exchange (EU Lifelong Learning project)

Web 2.0 tools used

Objective for which the technology has been used (and by whom)

ICONET

Web 2.0 features in a train-the-trainer tool, forums to share ideas and access material for counselling of students

Trial vocational counselling tools aimed at documenting relevant vocational skills of secondary general school students that are not covered in school leaving certificates (EU Leonardo project)

Mixopolis

Wiki, forums, weblogs, chat, poll, social bookmarking and other tools and functionality

Portal for accompanying young people with migration background (but also others) in vocational orientation and job finding (part of the German national “Schulen ans Netz” initiative)

MOSEP

E-Portfolio software (Mahara), Wiki, video podcasts

Train teachers and vocational counsellors on e-portfolio work with students who prepare the next phase of their education or a vocational career (EU Leonardo project)

Mundo de Estrellas

Personal Learning Environment, interactive forums, online games and other features

Support learning and well-being of schoolage children in 32 public health service hospitals in Andalusia (Spain) since 2000

Nettilukio

Learning management system with virtual classroom technology, wikis, forums, weblogs, Skype; recently a virtual conference room for remote participation in a classroom at Otava Folk High School has been added

Allow students and adults who cannot participate in the regular school system to gain an upper secondary school diploma (start funding by ESF, national funding for regular operation)

Notschool

A range of tools such as weblogs, “MySpace” functions (notes, bookmarking, etc.), podcasting; implemented on First Class plat-form; participants also received an iMac computer and a printer (also access to digital media equipment) and internet access at home

Work with young people who have become disaffected in traditional school environments or excluded by behaviour or circumstances from school (UK DfES funded-project)

Pinokio

Weblogs, ebooks, podcasts, slide-share and other tools for producing and sharing stories

Promote intercultural dialogue against social exclusion of immigrants involving pre-school and primary school children, teachers and parents (EU Comenius project)

rePlay

3D game environment for learning situations aimed to prevent anti-social behaviour

Develop and trial a game platform for social (re-)integration of marginalised young people, meant to be used by secondary schools in deprived areas and centres for young offenders (EU FP7-ICT project)

Web 2.0 tools used

Objective for which the technology has been used (and by whom)

Roots & Routes

Weblogs, social networking and multimedia sharing tools; the web tools were used in combination with vocational internships, summer schools and other face-to-face learning opportunities

Engage marginalised young people between 15 to 25 in creative activities, bring them in contact with professionals from the arts and creative sector, and pave a route towards further learning and career development (EU Leonardo project)

Savvy Chavvy

Social networking (Ning based community), weblogs, discussion forums, podcasting and video sharing (via YouTube/Blip.tv); leaders from the online community were trained to administrate and moderate the site

Provide young people from the Gypsy community with a safe place to share stories, podcasts and blogs about their culture (funded and promoted by On Road Media, UK, based on School for Social Entrepreneurs and Unltd awards)

Schome Park

Second Life virtual world, wiki, weblogs, forums, media-sharing (YouTube, blip.tv, Flickr)

Explore new educational possibilities of colearning and peer mentoring in an inclusive community; participants were young people aged 13-17 with difficulties in mainstream schooling (Open University project, UK – funded by the National Association for Gifted and Talented Youth, the Innovation Unit, Becta)

Seniorkom.at

Portal with a broad range of functionality from weblogs to web radio, and ensuring easy access to features and content

Engage senior people in recreational, learning and community activities such as contributing content (articles, photos, videos), keeping a diary, participate in forums and chats, games, etc. and offering news and advice on special themes (funded and promoted by several Austrian senior organisations and media, software and communications providers)

TRIO

Forums and wiki on a Moodle based platform offering e-learning courses

Lower school drop-out rates and increase learner retention through a vocational training portal by allowing communication among learners and tutors (portal funded and managed by the Administration of the Region of Tuscany)

Web toolbox with which people can create their own website in ‘4 clicks’ and then develop their profile, use a logbook, add content, etc.; there is also a module for starting an activity and inviting people to join

Provide e-skills training for adults and help them create their own web pages aimed at promoting social inclusion in the neighbourhood; “animators” connect the people behind the websites (funded by the Commissie dag indeling [NL], Oranje Fonds, EQUAL-ESF)

Web in Hood

the

XenoCLIPse

Web 2.0 tools used

Objective for which the technology has been used (and by whom)

Online course and hands-on training in video clip creation; the videos were made accessible online and a special Web 2.0 element was a geo-referenced directory for people interested in reaching clip producers (e.g. journalists, media companies)

Empower and make visible interests of ethnic minority and migrant communities and promote media careers of students from these communities (EU eLearning project)

Table 9: Overview of tools and objectives

4.3 Patterns of technology implementation and use Use of Web 2.0 tools and features on existing institutional platforms The majority of the projects use Web 2.0 tools in the context of EU projects (e.g. EU Leonardo, Socrates and other) and have set up a dedicated project website. Yet there are also a number of initiatives that use Web 2.0 tools and features on existing institutional platforms, e.g. ALPEUNED, Assistive Technology Wiki, Cyberhus, Mundo de Estrellas, Nettilukio, Seniorkom.at, TRIO. The fact that a platform is already implemented can be an advantage or a hindrance to the full use of a Web 2.0 approach. Open platforms with Web 2.0 tool modules (e.g. Drupal, Moodle and others) ease the setup, customization and interoperability of tools. Other platforms may considerably limit what tools a project can use (and in which ways) and, even, impede a Web 2.0 approach. An illustrative case is Cyberhus, which in 2009 changed to a flexible platform (Drupal) and, as their project manger reported, “saw an explosion in use of our forums and question and answers columns”. Another example may be TRIO: Managed by the Administration of the Region of Tuscany this platform has offered traditional e-learning courses since 1998. TRIO has over 120,000 registered users and provides thousands of hours training each month. TRIO recently moved from a proprietary system to Moodle and implemented forums and wikis. Do similar projects use the same set of Web 2.0 tools? We tried to identify if projects that are similar in terms of purpose and target groups use the same set of Web 2.0 tools. The answer for our sample of projects is “no”. It is more the case that a core set of tools is used by very different projects, although most of the projects want to engage and support people in community building. The core set of tools comprises weblogs, wikis, forums/chat and is used by projects with purposes and target groups as diverse as e-inclusion of people that suffer from physical disabilities (EduCoRe), support of young people with a migration background in vocational advice and finding a job (Mixopolis) and online engagement of seniors (Seniorkom.at).

Use of one core tool A couple of projects illustrate that simple tools, as well as more advanced environments, may be used as the core tool: For example, HiStory used Weblogs to engage seniors in history telling; ALPEUNED implemented a dedicated forum on their distance learning portal to support student peer counselling related to issues of disabled students. Among the advanced environments are an OpenSim virtual world with avatars for role playing of students used by Avatar@School, and a 3D game environment developed and trialled by rePlay for purposes such as re-education programmes in centres for young offenders. “Low tech with high touch” Among the outstanding examples are uses of “low tech” (yet still state-of-the-art) tools such as weblogs, social bookmarking and slideshare. For example, Notschool’s success at re-engaging teens in education or Pinokio’s success at engaging kids and parents to work on themes related to the social exclusion of immigrants.

5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND LESSONS LEARNED The projects studied encountered a number of problems and learned some interesting lessons that are of interest to other Web 2.0 based e-learning and e-inclusion initiatives. The sections below present and discuss these problems and lessons learned. They are structured as follows: 1. provides general observations on major issues faced by the projects; 2. presents a tabular overview of the main problems and lessons learned; 3. summarises and illustrates the main problem areas and lessons learned.

5.1 Observations on major issues faced by the projects Organisational cultures: The most fundamental issues have to do with organisational cultures. Projects may face resistance by such cultures to use Web 2.0 communication and collaboration tools. Often a change in mindsets and practices would be necessary in order for Web 2.0 approaches to be successful and beneficial. User needs & requirements: Identifying and meeting the needs & requirements of the target groups is one of the key success factors. Some cases that used Web 2.0 tools for e- inclusion were seemingly unable to properly identify and address them until later phases of the project. Level of participation: Some projects did not reach the expected level of participation of target groups. Sometimes, project managers had higher expectations about the active participation of the users of a portal or community website. In some cases high motivation and self-organisation of participants can drive an online community, others need moderation by skilled community managers. Measuring learning gains and securing formal certification: Projects that use Web 2.0 approaches usually imply that students have more freedom than in a traditional learning environment. However, there are considerable issues with regards to assessment and formal recognition of learning outcomes. Project-to-project work with difficult to reach communities: A number of cases demonstrate critical issues with regards to sustainability and impact of initiatives that work with hard to reach social groups under the pressure of sourcing and maintaining funding Working with socially excluded groups: Successful work with social groups such as ethnic minorities and migrants requires buy-in and self-organisation of leading members of the excluded groups. Availability of ICT: Last but not least, there are issues relating to out-dated ICT in some places (e.g. schools), lack of access to ICT by people in deprived areas, and the need for more adaptable and easy-to-use tools.

5.2 Tabular overview of problems encountered and lessons learned The tabular overview below notes the specific context and focus of each project (e.g. EU project focused on particular objectives, regional e-skills initiative, etc.), and summarises the Web 2.0 elements, the main problems encountered and most important lessons learned by each project.

ALPEUNED

Context / focus

Web 2.0 elements / main problems encountered / most important lessons learned

Initiative of the Spanish National University for Distance Learning (UNED) aimed at supporting peer counselling of students with disabilities

Web 2.0 elements: The university implemented interactive forums on the distance learning portal to allow for peer communication and counselling. Problems: Student motivation and engagement was felt to be low. Only 482 disabled students out of a total of 4026 enrolled were interested and visited forums. Lessons learned: There was much â&#x20AC;&#x17E;chattingâ&#x20AC;&#x153; (e.g. about the university administration) which was not moderated and channelled towards productive ends.

Assistive Technology Wiki

Membership organisation (registered national charity, UK) that aims to improve ICT for people with disabilities and supports e-learning opportunities for disabled adults and children

Web 2.0 elements: The organisation implemented a wiki and media sharing to allow for active online participation of more members. Problems: The level of participation was much lower than expected, most content was generated by only a few members. Lessons learned: Web 2.0 applications do not necessarily drive participation. Diverse interests of different potential users must be taken into account and their needs and requirements addressed thoroughly.

Avatar @School

EU Socrates project focused on conflict mediation in situations such as bullying and other forms of social exclusion

Web 2.0 elements: An OpenSim virtual world with avatars was used as a safe place for pupils to role-play in conflict situations and learn about how to communicate in and mediate such situations. Problems: Some technical problems in schools that lacked up-to-date computers or had restrictions due to internet firewalls or filters. Lessons learned: An application such as Avatar@School should be used as part of a wider social integration strategy.

BREAKOUT

Context / focus

Web 2.0 elements / main problems encountered / most important lessons learned

EU Socrates project focused on crime prevention and offender rehabilitation

Web 2.0 element: The project used applications such as weblogs, forums and podcasts to promote communication among students at risk, teachers, probation services and youth offending teams. Problems: Resistance of organisational cultures to adopt the project approach („action learning“) – lack of sufficient participation on the collaboration platform. Lessons learned: Established practices of hierarchic organisations are difficult to overcome. Yet, Web 2.0 applications can provide an environment for students at risk that is external to their normal patterns and vehicles of social interaction and they may engage in a self-help support culture.

Conecta Joven

Large regional project in Catalonia aimed at e-inclusion of marginalised social groups involving 23 community support centres focused on adult workplace and lifelong learning

Web 2.0 elements: The project provides hands-on ICT training and blended learning opportunities with Web 2.0 features. Problems: Difficulty of attracting funding to secure sustainability and potential extension of the activities to other localities. Lessons learned: The key success factor of the project is voluntary participation of young trainers and motivators and continuity of their work on the local level.

Cyberhus

Non profit organisation that provides a safe online club environment for kids and teens including counselling by volunteers

Web 2.0 elements: The online environment offers a wide range of tools such as weblogs, discussion forum, instant messaging and others. Problems: Good online counselling (e.g. on how to face problems in school) required better and different interaction tools. Lessons learned: Implementation of a flexible platform and tool set allowed enriching the interaction with the youngsters.

EduCoRe

Context / focus

Web 2.0 elements / main problems encountered / most important lessons learned

EU Gruntvig project focused on people that suffer from physical disabilities after an accident or illness that threaten their employability and participation in society

Web 2.0 elements: A set of Web 2.0 tools (e.g. blog, wiki, forum) allowed a blended training and counselling approach for people in the physical rehabilitation process (hospital, rehabilitation centre, home). Problems: Initial training content and setting was not appropriate for patients with physical disabilities; some scepticism amongst medical staff. Lessons learned: User needs & requirements must be analysed thoroughly and organisational contexts fully taken into account.

FreqOUT!

Initiative managed by the independent charity Vital Regeneration that works with deprived communities in boroughs in London (funded by public grants and private sponsorships)

Web 2.0 elements: Use of several tools for communication, social networking and content sharing and presentation. Problems: Project-by-project based work with hard to reach social groups under the pressure of funding programmes. For example, longer intervention is often needed to reach, train and engage creative people from deprived communities. Lessons learned: Strong barriers to learning require differentiated methods of involvement; importance of demonstrating impact to sponsors and mainstreaming of successful projects.

HiStory

EU Lifelong Learning project focused on e-inclusion of senior people who tell their stories of personally experienced historical events and developments

Web 2.0 elements: Primarily weblogs for writing, aggregating and commenting on personal stories. Problems: Some reluctance of seniors to commit to personal contributions with ICT; difficult to customise tools (e.g. multilinguality). Lessons learned: Good guidance and support is necessary, e.g. workshops with seniors to explain the project approach, step-by-step guide on how to use tools.

ICONET

Context / focus

Web 2.0 elements / main problems encountered / most important lessons learned

EU Leonardo project aimed to develop and promote tools for evaluation of informal vocational skills of students gained in extra-curricular experiences

Web 2.0 elements: Web 2.0 features in a train-the-trainer tool, forums to share ideas and experiences. Problems: Scepticism about adoption of the interview and validation tools in routine practice. Lessons learned: Adoption of the tools and recognition of validated informal skills by potential employers will require changes in mindsets and practices.

Mixopolis

Portal of the German national Schulen ans Netz initiative that wants to accompany young people with migration background (but also others) in vocational advice and finding a job.

Web 2.0 elements: Portal with several communication and networking tools (e.g. wiki, forum, poll, social bookmarking). Problems: Attracting and retaining users from the target groups. Lessons learned: Need to systematically involve third parties and multipliers such as schools, migrant organisations, youth centres and others.

MOSEP

EU Leonardo project focused on teachers and vocational counsellors working with students who prepare the next phase of their education or a vocational career

Web 2.0 elements: E-Portfolio software (Mahara), Wiki and video podcasts for train-thetrainer approach. Problems: Different educational cultures and requirements of participating institutions, tutors and learners necessitated developing a broad picture of possible e-portfolio uses, processes and outcomes. Lessons learned: E-portfolio adoption requires promoting a collaborative teacher role and a change in institutional mindsets and practices.

Mundo de Estrellas

32 public health service hospitals in Andalusia that since 2000 provide ICT to school-age children to allow for learning, social community and wellbeing

Web 2.0 elements: Personal Learning Environment with access to forums, online games and tools for sharing of experiences. Problems: Mainly technical issues and increasing expectations of users of online features, i.e. upgrade infrastructure to provide new applications, services and a wider range of content. Lessons learned: A well-balanced platform offering (i.e. learning, community and recreation), integration within hospital environment, and engagement of families and carers must be achieved.

Nettilukio

Context / focus

Web 2.0 elements / main problems encountered / most important lessons learned

The Internet Upper Secondary School (Finland) that allows people with difficulties to attend a regular school curriculum to gain a school diploma (start funding by ESF, national funding for regular operation)

Web 2.0 elements: Virtual classroom and conferencing, wikis, forums, weblogs (incl. personal learning portfolio and diary). Problems: Some initial problems with the virtual classroom and conferencing technology (loading time, communication features, etc.). Lessons learned: Importance of finding a good balance between self-directed learning and communication with tutors, peers and the wider school community in order to stay in contact and encourage the learners.

Notschool

UK DfES funded-project aimed to reengage young people who have become disaffected in traditional school environments or excluded from school due to behaviour or other circumstances; involves some 500 young people each year

Web 2.0 elements: Several tools for virtual presence, enhancing basic skills and allowing for social community (tutors, peers and other community members). Problems: Intermediaries between home and school must be dedicated to following innovative and unconventional methods. Initial difficulties in assessing measurable learning gains and securing formal certification. Lessons learned: Disengaged students perform better when taken out of a standardsdriven school environment, as there is no fear of failure or pressure to achieve. A constructivist approach with personalised, selfdirected and community-supported learning empowers learners and removes many of the barriers to learning.

Pinokio

EU Comenius project involving preschool and primary school children, teachers and parents to promote intercultural dialogue against social exclusion of immigrants

Web 2.0 elements: Weblogs, ebooks, slideshare and other tools for producing and sharing stories. Problems: Promoting co-creation in a school environment where traditionally the teacher is expected to mediate content and assess learning achievements. Lessons learned: Combining traditional story telling (fables) with new media provides fertile ground for pedagogical innovation, e.g. co-creation of narratives allows for discussing and better understanding of processes such as social exclusion.

rePlay

Context / focus

Web 2.0 elements / main problems encountered / most important lessons learned

EU FP7-ICT project that develops and trials a game platform for social (re-) integration of marginalised young people, meant to be used by schools in deprived areas and re-education programmes in centres for young offenders

Web 2.0 elements: Social interaction mainly within the game and face-to-face with therapist, teacher or social worker, however, online applications such as a discussion forum may be integrated. Problems: Some initial problems were technical robustness and design for boys and girls; possible difficulty to achieve market take-up. Lessons learned: Need for high flexibility of the learning environment, e.g. different user profiles and con-tent related to specific preventive and intervention programs.

Roots & Routes

EU Leonardo project aimed to engage marginalised young people between 15 to 25 in creative activities, bring them in contact with professionals from the arts and creative sector, and pave a route towards further learning and career development

Web 2.0 elements: Weblogs, social networking and multi-media sharing tools supplement and build upon vocational internships, summer schools and other face-to-face learning opportunities. Problems: Engaging the target groups and establishing close connections with vocational training centres and the professional world of cultural and creative production. Lessons learned: Success requires high visibility (branding), ambassadors and multipliers in the communities, and role models for the talented young people.

Savvy Chavvy

Initiative of On Road Media (UK) that provides young people from the Gypsy community with a safe place to share stories, podcasts and blogs about their culture (funded by School for Social Entrepreneurs and UnLtd awards)

Web 2.0 elements: Social networking (Ning), discussion forums and media sharing tools (e.g. YouTube); leaders from the social community administrate and moderate the site. Problems: Initial lack of interest and buy-in by the target community that had faced racism and exclusion on other social networking platforms. Lessons learned: Importance of gaining credibility and trust, finding community â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;championsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, ownership and moderation of the registration-based social networking environment by the community.

Schome Park

Context / focus

Web 2.0 elements / main problems encountered / most important lessons learned

Open University UK project that explored new educational possibilities of co-learning and peer mentoring in an inclusive community; participants were young people aged 13-17 with difficulties in mainstream schooling (funded by NAGTY, The Innovation Unit, Becta)

Web 2.0 elements: Second Life virtual world with several communication and media-sharing features. Problems: Lack of fast internet access and eskills by some members of the target group; educational staff asked for more direction (e.g. clearer alignment to curriculum) and technical support; difficult to monitor and assess learning progress and outcomes. Lessons learned: Open learning models challenge traditional school settings, in particular, teacher-student roles and assessment of learning outcomes. Teachers are likely to fear loosing control and need pedagogical as well technical training to develop collaborative elearning skills.

Seniorkom.at

National portal for engaging senior people in a broad range of recreational, learning and community activities (funded and promoted by several Austrian senior organisations and media, software and communications providers)

Web 2.0 elements: Portal with a broad range of functionality from weblogs to web radio, also taking care of easy and barrier-free access to features and content Problems: Providing, marketing and maintaining many opportunities for e-participation. Keeping the high-level of support by promoters and sponsors. Lessons learned: Strong motivation from, and self-organisation by, the user community is key (â&#x20AC;&#x17E;a web-site of seniors for seniorsâ&#x20AC;&#x153;).

TRIO

Regional vocational training portal funded and managed by the Administration of the Region of Tuscany

Web 2.0 elements: Moodle based platform offering e-learning courses with additional features such as forums and wikis. Problems: Constant concerns are learner drop-out and retention rates in vocational training and lifelong learning. Lessons learned: Communication and collaboration features have been implemented, yet they are more frequently used among tutors. The learners must be motivated and skilled in using the tools as part of the curriculum.

Web in Hood

the

Context / focus

Web 2.0 elements / main problems encountered / most important lessons learned

E-skills training and community building initiative for adults in deprived communities in the Netherlands funded by the Commissie dag indeling, Oranje Fonds, EQUAL-ESF

Web 2.0 elements: A web toolbox that allows easy creation and enrichment of user websites and communication (e.g. a module for starting an activity and inviting people to join). Problems: Social community workers are not necessarily interested in ICT for their clients; also the approach to address all (not only marginalised people) and encourage people to care for each other was much harder to implement than the initiators thought. Lessons learned: The core of the initiative is the „blended“ approach with physical meeting places for socialising and exchanging ideas as well as the online community. The idea that the participants could eventually organise and manage Web in the Hood themselves has not yet been realised. A professional “animator” is still very important to drive participation.

XenoCLIPse

EU eLearning project aimed to empower and make visible interests of minority and migrants communities and promote media work/careers of students from these communities

Web 2.0 elements: Video clips created by the participants are presented online and a Web 2.0 based directory is offered for people interested in reaching the producers (e.g. journalists, media companies). Problems: Facilitating access to digital production tools and development of media skills and products is only the first step. Lessons learned: Involvement of mainstream media organizations and associations is necessary so that community empowerment has societal impact.

Table 10: Overview of problems encountered and lessons learned

5.3 Discussion of the main problem areas and lessons learned Below we summarise main problem areas of, and lessons learned by, the projects. Selected examples illustrate critical issues. Many lessons learned about success factors may be transferable to other projects contexts. Resistant organisational cultures The majority of case studies present projects that involved individual or a group of organisations from the educational sector, i.e. schools, universities, vocational and adult & lifelong learning centres. Other projects involved rather different organisational cultures, for example, social workers (Web in the Hood), offending and drugs services (Breakout), hospitals and physical rehabilitation centres (EduCoRe).

Some of the projects had to face reactions by the organisational cultures that ranged from active resistance (e.g. against using collaboration tools) to a moderate, and probably realistic, degree of scepticism by the professional staff (e.g. about usefulness of the results in routine practice). The strongest resistance was felt in the Breakout project, which involved organisations that are focused on crime prevention and offender rehabilitation. For example, there were tensions between and within professional groups because of „territorial boundaries“, hierarchy and competition among units. This contributed to a lack of sufficient commitment and participation in the project’s „action learning” approach. The need to instigate change in organisational thinking and practice was also experienced by the Notschool initiative, where intermediaries between the young people and the project team had to commit to following innovative and unconventional methods. A less obvious example is Web in the Hood, which challenged current social work practices (at least in the Netherlands). It could be expected that social work organisations would be very positive about an initiative aimed at increasing e-skills and Web activity of members of deprived communities. However, the experience of this project demonstrates that this is not always the case, or at least not always a priority. Most importantly, Web in the Hood took a different approach to the dominant paradigm. While professional social workers mainly focus on marginalised people, the Web in the Hood addressed everybody and aimed to foster a sense of community spirit and encourage people to care for each other (Kuiper, 2007). Projects that involved educational organisations, e.g. schools, distance learning universities and vocational training platforms also identified issues of organisational culture. Those issues relate to the open educational approaches for which Web 2.0 environments and tools were used. Open learning models challenge traditional school settings, in particular, teacher-student roles and assessment of learning outcomes. A good example is Schome Park, which used a Second Life virtual world to explore new educational possibilities of co-learning and peer mentoring in an inclusive community. Some staff members and students found it difficult to re-imagine teacher-student roles and how education is delivered. Teachers asked for more coordination and pedagogical and technical support. The need to promote a collaborative and co-creative teacher role not only to teachers but also to students, parents and other stakeholders was also expressed in projects which experienced “no resistance”. For example, in the Pinokio project, which involved primary schools that establish a rather traditional image of the teacher. It should be clear that in the school environment, projects often face problems that are associated with timetabling and additional burdens of staff. School staff working under pressure with time constraints are very likely to see new projects as a nuisance rather than a potential benefit.

Key lessons learned: Projects involving organisations such as offending and drugs services may have to cope with considerable resistance by organisational culture and tensions because of professional rivalry, competition for resources, disciplinary differences and disputes.

Introducing an online collaboration platform will very likely have no impact on their organisational culture and practices; only little use of such platforms can be expected. In order to promote unconventional approaches and methods, ingrained paradigms of professional communities must be identified and addressed, whether from medical staff, social workers or teachers. Open educational approaches that use Web 2.0 environments and tools will challenge traditional school settings and teacher-student roles, encouraging much-needed change. Teachers are likely to fear loosing control and need pedagogical as well as technical training to develop collaborative e-learning skills. Measuring learning gains and securing formal certification Some of the projects had to deal with issues of measuring learning gains (e.g. to demonstrate impact) and of securing formal certification of outcomes. These issues are closely related to the objectives of educational institutions and their core role of providing certified qualifications. ICONET developed and promoted procedures and tools that enable validation of relevant vocational skills gained by students during extra-curricular experiences. The project focused on teachers in secondary general schools and careers counsellors. There remained some scepticism about the impact on routine practices, i.e. wider adoption and use of the interview and validation tools. Recognition of learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; informal skills by potential employers also seemed relatively uncertain, e.g. if the formal school leaving certificate was not convincing. Schome Park found it difficult to identify progress in learning in the Second Life virtual world, because the explorative and communicative methods allowed students much more freedom than a traditional learning environment. Teachers asked for more direction (e.g. clearer alignment to curriculum) and worried about how to assess learning outcomes. Notschool also experienced initial difficulties in assessing measurable learning gains and secure formal accreditation. Yet these difficulties could be overcome by developing a scheme of point scoring qualifications that enable initiatives to award certificates recognised by a national awarding body.

Key lessons learned: Projects that use Web 2.0 approaches must address the issue of how to assess learning progress and outcomes. As such, projects are often considered to be pilots, with the expectation that some of the experiences are transferable into routine practice. Yet such practices will not flourish if alignment with curriculum goals is missing, or cannot be adequately assessed. Measuring learning gains is also important in contexts other than formal educational institutions such as social inclusion programmes for deprived communities or social work with talented young people from migrant and ethnic minority groups. While formal certification may not be an issue in such cases, demonstrating some form of impact usually is (e.g. re-engagement in learning, presentation of creative products, etc.). Active participation of target groups Some projects found it difficult to reach the expected level of participation by their target groups.

In the ALPEUNED project, the Spanish National University for Distance Learning (UNED) implemented forums for disabled students to allow for peer communication and counselling. Yet there was a lack of student motivation, only 482 disabled students out of a total of 4026 enrolled visited a forum. There was much „chatting“ which was not moderated and channelled towards productive ends. As the communication also included issues concerning the university administration the “chatting” may also have been unwelcome and a potential threat of community lobbying. AbilityNet implemented Assistive Technology Wiki to allow for active online participation of more members, but the level of participation was rather low; most content was generated by only a few members. TRIO, the regional vocational training portal of the Region of Tuscany implemented communication and collaboration features to counter learner drop-out and increase retention. Yet the features were more frequently used among tutors than students. Mixopolis, a portal of the German national Schulen ans Netz initiative that wants to accompany young people with migration background (but also others) in vocational orientation and job finding also found it difficult to attract and retain the target group in an online community. Seniorkom.at seems to fare much better by not only providing seniors with a broad range of Web 2.0 functionality but motivating and empowering them to self-organise. HiStory faced some reluctance by seniors to commit to personal contributions with ICT, which could be overcome by offering workshops to explain the project approach and how to use tools. Sometimes project managers have too high expectations of active participation by the users of a portal or community website. According to the widely accepted 90-9-1 rule for user participation in online communities, 90% of users do not contribute at all, 9% from time to time, and 1% a lot and account for most contributions. Important is to retain and motivate the 9%, and probably more, of occasional contributors (Nielson, 2006). This may to the “stickiness” of a website. Some further issues in community participation that relate to the special situation of working with groups such as ethnic minorities are addressed in a separate section below.

Key lessons learned: Web 2.0 applications per se do not necessarily drive participation and communication among members of the target community. Existing diverse interests of different potential users must be identified and taken into account and the particular needs and requirements of the users addressed thoroughly. According to the project objectives, third parties and multipliers such as schools, cultural organisations, community and youth centres must be involved systematically. Strong motivation and empowerment of users may help to achieve self-organisation, “stickiness” and growth of an online social community. In most cases, however, support by dedicated “community managers” will be needed. Web 2.0 applications invite “chatting”. This can be a starting point of peer communication and community building, but often there is need of moderation and channelling the communication towards productive ends. Unwelcome and threatening contributions must be dealt with seriously.

User needs and requirements User needs and requirements must be analysed thoroughly. Some cases seemingly were unable to identify and address them until later phases of the project. EduCoRe worked with people in the physical rehabilitation process (hospital, rehabilitation centre, home) and experienced that the initial training content and setting was not appropriate for the patients. Mundo de Estrellas seems to have achieved a well-balanced offering of tools and services for learning, community and recreation of children, integration within hospital environment, and engagement of families and carers only after some trial and error. Online learning and inclusion programmes using Web 2.0 tools and methods will often have to cope with lack of digital literacy of participants young and old. (cf. Breakout, Conecta Jovens, HiStory, Web in the Hood and others). Initial lack of e-skills in any case necessitates a “blended approach”, which also must tackle other barriers to learning and convince people that it is worth the effort. For example, Web in the Hood found that quite some time of their „animators“ is necessary to convince people that they can make websites that support their own activities and are beneficial in their daily life. Young people “at risk” in the first place need a web of supportive social relationships they accept and Web 2.0 approaches may provide elements of such as web. Breakout experienced that young people „at risk“ are unlikely to consult public services (e.g. drug misuse prevention), but a Web 2.0 environment may allow for providing a “self-help support culture” that is external to their normal patterns and vehicles of social interaction. Notschool proved that a constructivist approach with personalised, self-directed and community-supported methods can empower learners and remove many of the barriers to learning. Cyberhus found that providing more and better online counselling (e.g. on how to face problems in school) required a Web 2.0 environment for rich input by, and interaction with, the youngsters.

Key lessons learned: Identifying and meeting the needs and requirements of the target groups is one of the key success factors of projects that use Web 2.0 tools for e-inclusion and learning. The tools as such are not a panacea. The organisational frameworks and working conditions of organisations such as hospitals, offending and drugs services, schools and other institutions of formal education must be taken into account. Such organisations and their staff have their own needs and requirements. Initial lack of e-skills always requires a “blended approach”. In the first place barriers to learning must be addressed and people convinced that engagement in learning and social activity on the Web is worth the effort. If there are already some e-skills, they may still vary considerably (level, selectivity, tools used) because of differences in social background and cognitive factors such as learning styles. Use of a peer mentoring approach can drive learning gains as well as community building.

Because Web 2.0 applications can be used to connect, communicate and co-create they are more likely to meet studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs and expectations of new tools and allow for constructivist pedagogical approaches. A constructivist approach with personalised, self-directed and community-supported learning can remove many of the barriers to learning people young and old experience with formal educational settings. Project-to-project work with hard to reach communities Some projects found it difficult to secure continuous funding to allow for sustainability and potential extension of the activities to other social groups and localities. These are projects that work with deprived communities and are funded by regional agencies, city councils, foundations and individual private sponsors. Conecta Joven focuses on e-inclusion of adults in 23 Catalan community support centres. Young people are trained and then serve as trainers and motivators for the adults. The success of the initiative largely depends on ensuring continuity of the work of the trainers and motivators on the local level. Roots & Routes works with talented young people from deprived communities in the city area of Rotterdam and received funding by the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Art and Culture Service and EU Culture and Leonardo da Vinci programmes. The work follows a mixed approach that combines vocational internships, summer schools, etc. with Web 2.0 elements. Sustainability and impact depends on many factors, in particular, role models of success as motivation for the target communities, participating organisations and funding bodies and sponsors. FreqOUT! runs a similar project-to-project programme and experienced that funding regimes have significant impact: Small funding streams and strict output targets make it difficult to recruit and engage hard-to-reach groups, manage a number of fragmented projects that work with artists, cultural centres and funding sources, and demonstrate the impact of the programme with hard data. Savvy Chavvy provided young people from the Gypsy community with a safe place online to share experiences and creative expressions. The project found it difficult to gain trust and buy-in by the target community. In order to prevent racism, the social networking platform had to be restricted to legitimate users and leaders from the community trained to administrate and moderate the site themselves. XenoCLIPse enabled members of ethnic minorities and migrant communities to produce and present online video clips about their culture. In order to get from community empowerment through media skills to societal impact a strong involvement of mainstream media organizations and associations would be necessary.

Key lessons learned: Funding schemes often lack awareness of the difficulties in developing and sustaining skills development and social inclusion programmes. Longer intervention time and differentiated methods of involvement are necessary to reach, train and engage creative people from deprived communities. Projects with communities that have faced racism and social exclusion in the first place need to build trust and achieve buy-in by leading community members. Web 2.0 environments for such communities require strict management to prevent racist attacks or

being taken over by hardliners of the community that do not commit to the objectives of the project. A series of projects that tend to fragment and become unmanageable needs evaluation and mainstreaming of successful approaches and methods. Regular collection of data on interventions and results over a longer period of time is necessary to allow for demonstrating the impact of skills development and social inclusion programmes. A wider societal impact requires involvement of many organisations and businesses. Media and other organisations of the cultural and creative sector can play an important role as young people are often trained in skills for a job career in these sectors. Issues of technology access and flexibility Several projects faced issues that had to do with technical infrastructure, implementation of new tools and lack of sufficient technical support. The large-scale and long-term project Mundo de Estrellas found it difficult to upgrade ICT infrastructure in the hospitals for providing new applications, services and a wider range of content. Avatar@School reported some technical problems in schools that lacked up-to-date computers and because of internet firewalls or filters. Nettilukio had to overcome some problems with virtual classroom and conferencing technology. HiStory found it difficult to customize their weblogs to allow for multilingual interfaces and contributions. TRIO and Cyberhus needed to implement a more flexible platform to offer new tools for enriching the interaction between users and tutors or counsellors. Schome Park noted that in work with members of deprived communities availability of state-of-the-art computers and fast internet connection cannot be taken for granted. FreqOUT! reported about lack of state-of-the-art technical equipment and support in several of their projects because of low funding. Web in the Hood wanted to make it possible for everybody to create an own website very easily and developed a special web toolbox to achieve this goal. Breakout had to implement a hierarchical website structure in order to comply with demands of high security and confidentiality, but the interface, navigation and low interactivity was felt to be off-putting by young participants. RePlay developed and trialled a high-tech game platform for simulating consequences of offending behaviour. The original plans for the Breakout project included using such interactive games, yet costs were found to be prohibitive. Avatar@School found that the students liked their OpenSim virtual world for role playing with avatars in social conflict situations, yet that the use of such technology should be embedded in a wider social integration strategy.

Key lessons learned: Appropriateness of particular technical tools to the project purposes must be reflected and in most projects the use of ICT can be but one element, e.g. as part of a blended learning approach. Projects that target deprived communities must be aware of lack of ownership or access to state-of-the-art computers and fast internet connection in such communities. Web 2.0 projects that want to use a range of tools in an integrated and scalable manner may have to implement a robust and flexible platform. Hierarchical website structures with off-putting interfaces, navigation and low interactivity or barriers such as internet firewalls or filters can get in the way of Web 2.0 approaches. Large-scale and long-term projects will very likely face issues of technology obsolescence and increased user expectations of connectedness, interactivity and richness in media.

6 RECOMMENDATION FOR SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS IN WEB 2.0 LEARNING AND SOCIAL INCLUSION The sections below provide recommendations on how to realise successful projects in Web 2.0 learning and social inclusion. The set of recommendations is not a comprehensive checklist of “to do’s” or meant as a project management tool. Rather the intention is to emphasise and make productive important lessons learned by a larger number of projects which used Web 2.0 tools and methods for promoting learning and social inclusion of different groups of participants. Many of the projects focused on social inclusion by developing e-skills and Web-based activities as part of a blended approach. Not every e-learning project will have social inclusion as a core objective, but will certainly benefit also from recommendations drawn from such e-inclusion projects.

6.1 Overcoming resistance of organisational cultures Expect facing resistance by organisational cultures to adopt a Web 2.0 approach of open collaborative practices. Dominant paradigms, mindsets and practices of many organisational cultures, in particular, hierarchical and bureaucratic ones, will work against such an approach. Be prepared that among participants who are willing to participate there can be considerable tensions because of professional rivalry, competition for resources among units, disciplinary differences and disputes. Identify objectives and practices of the organisational cultures that could benefit particularly from using Web 2.0 tools. Demonstrating tangible benefits may be the trigger to impact on and achieve some change in organisational cultures. Also secure support by important intermediaries (e.g. school directors or social workers) who should commit to following innovative and unconventional methods.

6.2 Meeting user needs and requirements in e-skilling & inclusion Identify properly the needs and requirements of the primary target groups of the project (e.g. students and teachers; young people “at risk” and their families). Meeting their needs and requirements is the most important criteria of success. Understand and take account of the specific organisational frameworks and working conditions of the involved organisations (e.g. hospital, probation service, school or vocational training centre). Such organisations and their staff have their own specific needs and requirements. Consider thoroughly the appropriateness of particular technologies to the project purposes. In most projects the use of ICT can be but one element, e.g. as part of a blended learning approach. Use a blended approach if there is an initial lack of e-skills by target groups and also other barriers to participation must be overcome (e.g. lack of motivation and trust). Consider also differences in gender roles and patterns of behaviour in ethnic minorities and migrant communities that may determine levels of participation and learning styles.

Be aware that a project in a deprived community cannot expect ownership or access to state-of-the-art computers and fast internet connection by the target groups. Also ICT in schools and other places of learning may be out-dated. Thus appropriate access to ICT must be organised and secured for the duration of the project (and beyond). Be prepared that specific software, equipment for creative work, etc. may be needed and that tools may need to be customized (e.g. to allow for easy use, multilinguality, etc.). Re-evaluate the user needs and requirements in the course of the project. Some important elements may have been overlooked or not fully addressed in the first phases of the project.

6.3 Promoting open Web 2.0 based educational practices in schools Be aware that open educational approaches that use Web 2.0 tools challenge the dominant paradigms and practices of schools, in particular, teacher-student roles. Help teachers re-envision and change their professional role from dispenser of subjectbased knowledge to facilitator (coach, mentor) of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; self-directed and collaborative learning. Address the issue of how to monitor progress in learning and assess learning outcomes allowing for formal certification. Innovative educational practices will not flourish if alignment with curriculum goals is missing and learning outcomes cannot be adequately assessed. Be prepared that teachers will fear loosing control and need institutional commitment and appropriate pedagogical as well as technical support. Demonstrate to teachers how to facilitate successfully self-directed and collaborative learning of students. Also point out how the teachers can benefit new competences and skills they acquire themselves. Make sure that Web 2.0 initiatives are not left to individual teachers and that those who lead by example and share expertise are recognised appropriately. Provide boards and supervisors of educational institutions with suggestions on how to scrutinise whether an institution is employing Web 2.0 approaches. That teachers and students use weblogs, wikis or e-portfolios to document and communicate project results may serve as a good indicator.

6.4 Using appropriate e-learning & inclusion methods Convince people that gaining e-skills and engaging in social activity on the Web is worth the effort (e.g. easier access to vital information and services, connect and learn together with peers, role models for job careers, etc.). Identify already available e-skills and other competences which may vary because of differences in social background, gender, and cognitive factors such as learning style. Combine face-to-face meetings of participants (e.g. workshops, summer schools, etc.) with Web presence and activity (e.g. Weblogs, social networking, media sharing on popular platforms such as YouTube or Flickr).

Use a peer mentoring approach that can drive learning as well as community building. Privilege constructivist approaches of self-directed and community-supported learning that can remove many of the barriers to learning people young and old experience with formal educational settings. Allow for relevant learning experiences, learning in which real world problems are addressed, learners work collaboratively, and learning content and results are reflected critically. Suggest learners to use an e-portfolio or weblog for documenting and reflecting on learning progress and results as well as sharing creative work they are proud of.

6.5 Driving participation on community websites Be aware that Web 2.0 applications per se do not drive participation and communication among members of the target community. Provide for a robust and flexible technical platform particularly if several Web 2.0 tools should work in an integrated fashion and the environment capable to scale and respond to new demands in the future. Consider that different users groups will have diverse interests and want to use the website for different purposes. Do not nourish the notion of “build it and they will come”, rather expect to not immediately achieve a high level of active participation of the envisaged target groups of the website. Gain trust and buy-in by leading members of the target user community. This is particularly important with communities that have faced severe social exclusion (e.g. ethnic minorities or migrant communities). Identify and involve people who are highly motivated to work on certain issues and help them to self-organise with Web 2.0 tools and achieve “stickiness” of the online communities. Empower website users to achieve something themselves and share experiences and own content. Websites that nourish a top-down approach of delivering content (e.g. learning material) typically show little growth in terms of user base and contribution. Provide or train online community managers that are skilled to identify topics of interest, understand online user behaviours, can engage users and moderate discussions. Moderate and channel discussions towards productive ends, e.g. mutual understanding of different concerns of participants, consensus about critical issues, etc.). Address unwelcome and threatening contributions seriously. Provide a safe place for communities that have faced severe social exclusion such as racism. Such websites for social networking and sharing experiences require strict (self-) management and moderation to prevent unwelcome visitors or being taken over by hardliners of the community that do not commit to the objectives of the project.

6.6 Securing sustainability and impact Make clear to policy makers that ICT supported learning and social inclusion allows people to develop competences that are necessary to participate successfully in the knowledge society. Expect that policy makers and funding agencies will lack an understanding of the difficulties in working with hard to reach target groups. Explain what such work demands and provide eye-opening examples of problem situations and how they might be overcome. Be prepared that small funding streams will make it difficult to develop and sustain a learning and social inclusion programme for such social groups. It may be hard to recruit and engage participants, longer intervention time and differentiated methods of involvement may be necessary, and strict output targets not met. Systematically identify and involve third parties and multipliers that are important for achieving the core project objectives. Consider that a wider societal impact requires the involvement of many organisations and businesses. Media and other organisations of the cultural and creative sectors can play an important role, as young people can be trained for careers in these sectors. Regularly collect data on interventions and results (e.g. re-engagement of people in vocational training, participation of talented young people in creative activities, media coverage, etc.) Identify and present role models of success as motivation for the target communities, participating organisations, funding bodies and sponsors. If undertaking a series of different projects that work with several supporting organisations and different funding sources, observe if they become increasingly fragmented and unmanageable. Evaluate the projects and try to mainstream particularly successful approaches and methods.

7 THE CASE STUDIES AND THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 2.0 FOR INCLUSION 7.1 Introduction In this section, we draw together the results of the profiling and analysis of the Links-up case studies in order to summarise their features and characteristics, and set these within the ‘landscape of Learning 2.0 for inclusion’. We re-visit the key dynamics and processes that have shaped this landscape and assess the extent to which the cases covered reflect these dynamics and processes. We consider the extent to which and in what ways the cases support the major policies in the field; the conceptual thinking around social inclusion and the needs of excluded groups. Against this background, we also re-visit the review of the ‘landscape’ of Learning 2.0 as portrayed in the Links-up Report on ‘Review of State of the Art’, which was carried out in work package 1 of the project, and discuss what further contribution the case study analysis has made to our understanding of this ‘landscape’ and what are the remaining ‘gaps’ in our knowledge. The case studies provided in this Report can be seen as ‘exemplars’ of a ‘landscape of Learning 2.0 for inclusion’. The whole description of each of the 24 cases is free available from the project website18. This landscape is embryonic and still-evolving. It represents different views on the causes of social exclusion and different positions on how exclusion can be addressed through the use of ICTs and particularly the use of ‘Web 2.0 for learning’. As noted in our previous review of the literature and research in the field, this ‘landscape’ of ‘Inclusive Learning 2.0’ in Europe is driven by four inter-connected dynamics or drivers, as illustrated in the ‘inter-connectivity map’ show in Figure 1. These drivers are: | the policy fields shaping programmes and interventions in the domain; | conceptual and theoretical work in the field, mainly derived from the academic literature and from research; | the ‘lifeworlds’ of excluded groups, which shapes their situation and needs; | the world of ‘communities of practice’ where programmes and interventions are delivered to support excluded target groups.

http://www.linksup.eu or directly available http://tinyurl.com/linksup-cases

Figure 1: Key drivers in the ‘landscape’ of Inclusive Learning 2.0

7.2 The policy context State of the art First we will present some policy figures: | 75 % of the population aged 20-64 should be employed. | 3% of the EU's GDP should be invested in R&D. | The share of early school leavers should be under 10% and at least 40% of the younger generation should have a tertiary degree. | 20 million less people should be at risk of poverty. There are seven ‘flagship’ initiatives specified to implement the programme, and both education and ICTs are seen as key drivers in these initiatives. Again, several of these flagships directly relate to ICTs, learning and inclusion. These are: | "Youth on the move" to enhance the performance of education systems and to facilitate the entry of young people to the labour market. | "A digital agenda for Europe" to speed up the roll-out of high-speed internet and reap the benefits of a digital single market for households and firms. | "An agenda for new skills and jobs" to modernise labour markets and empower people by developing their of skills throughout the lifecycle with a view to increase labour participation and better match labour supply and demand, including through labour mobility. | "European platform against poverty" to ensure social and territorial cohesion such that the benefits of growth and jobs are widely shared and people experiencing

poverty and social exclusion are enabled to live in dignity and take an active part in society. The main EU E&T policy instrument is the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training ("ET 2020"), which sets key targets for education and training in the EU. The strategic framework takes a holistic approach of education and training, one that explicitly links education objectives to social inclusion, and which highlights the role that can be played by ICTs. ET2020 places ICTs at the heart of its efforts to link education objectives to social inclusion through initiatives that: promote access to quality services, e.g., transport, e-inclusion, health, social services within the sphere of education and training; make effective use of information and communication technologies to broaden and deepen participation of a spectrum of people, particularly young people; make new technologies readily available to empower creativity and capacity for innovation. The education and training policy field is also one of the main sources of funding for programmes and projects aimed at addressing issues around exclusion – particularly through the Lifelong Learning Programme. However, the emphasis placed on excluded people and those at risk varies across the sectoral and transversal sub-programmes of the LLP. Policies specifically targeted at particular excluded groups include ‘youth’ policies, policies for the unemployed and policies for older people. The key EU policy document on youth is the 2009 Communication "An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering. A renewed open method of coordination to address youth challenges and opportunities". The new strategy forms the basis for the ‘Youth in Action’ programme – a major initiative that will take youth policy forward to the year 2013. ICTs are ‘hidden’ rather than ‘up front’ in the Youth in Action programme. Policy for older people is supported through the ‘Active Ageing’ programme. The other EU policy fields where there is a focus on ICTs and excluded people are in employment, social affairs and equal opportunities; health and regional policy. These fields are less widely developed and the attention and resources devoted to ICTs and inclusion at risk varies across them.

The case studies in the policy context Our earlier review of the policy context identified five key transversal themes in which the case studies could be situated: | Job and education mobility: Equipping people with skills to move across European borders and across jobs in line with the ‘flexicurity’ principles appear regularly across the policies and programmes. This entails equipping people – particularly young people with e-skills, education and training in STEM subjects, language and other measures which support job and education mobility. | Modernised education and training systems: there is a policy focus on job and education mobility that emphasizes how education and training systems can support people to enter the labour market in their country of origin or elsewhere (e.g. the Bologna process, ongoing work on a European Qualification Framework, Erasmus programmes etc.). Furthermore, the policies focus improving the quality of education systems and ensuring that young people are equipped with the right skills that

make young people employable now and in the future (i.e. New Skills for New Jobs agenda and ‘flexicurity’). Finally, this also implies provision of apprenticeships, lowering of drop-out rates/increased participation rates and deploying new learning tools. | Modernised employment and labour markets are key to supporting the above and are at the heart of Europe 2020 and the majority of policy documents addressing people’s inclusion in society and the knowledge economy. This indicates a policy logic in which opportunities in life are closely associated with labour market participation. | Cultural dialogue and awareness is at the heart of both education and training policies in the EU as well as culture policies. This component focuses on inter-cultural dialogue and cultural awareness. | E-inclusion has been on the forefront of European information society policies for the last couple of years, but the focus is still mainly on economic aspects of inclusion: access to the ICT infrastructure and e-services as well as e-skills to make people able to participate and contribute to the European knowledge economy. This also supports the other components of the policy typology mentioned above (modernised labour markets, education systems and job/education mobility). The case studies show that the programmes and initiatives currently being implemented in the EU that use Learning 2.0 to support social inclusion are making a contribution to all of these thematic policy areas. However, a number of gaps can be identified. The policy gaps we have identified come in two forms. First, the gaps in the actual provision of EU policies and policy instruments that can support the development and implementation of Learning 2.0 to support social inclusion. Second, the gaps in policy agendas and priorities in the field that are not currently effectively supported and addressed by current practices. In the first case, the following findings can be summarised: | Although EU policy has in recent years become more ‘joined-up’ and integrated, in line with what is known in the theoretical and practitioner field as the multi-dimensional nature of social inclusion, there is still a sense that some areas of policy pursue ‘parallel lines’. Whereas education and training policy links key agendas and goals in learning with inclusion policy, e-inclusion policy and ICT policy, the same cannot be said for employment, health and regional policies. There is a case for more ‘joinedup’ thinking and bridging between these policy domains to help address social inclusion issues. | The knowledge base of ‘Learning 2.0 for inclusion’ is embryonic, evolving, fragmented and contested. Little is known about ‘what works’ and a culture of knowledgesharing has not taken root. Provision exists, for example, within the OMC, for supporting trans-national co-operation between stakeholders in the field. This needs to be built on to support better co-operation, dissemination and knowledge-sharing and the cultivation of a stronger evidence base. This could be done, for example, through publicising opportunities available to support knowledge sharing through the PROGRESS Programme; working more closely with EU-funded European networks to build European resource/knowledge centres on specific priority themes | Securing funding for start-ups and later securing further funding to ensure the sustainability of initiatives is a common problem identified by the cases. The evidence is that the major sources of EU funding in this field – the Lifelong Learning Programme; the ‘Youth in Action’ Programme; the ‘Ageing Well’ programme and the IST programme in FP7 – attach little priority to ‘Learning 2.0 for inclusion’. Dedicated action

lines in this field and in these programmes would greatly increase the likelihood of innovative initiatives being developed and sustained. In the second case, the initiatives currently being implemented in the field suggest that further work could usefully be done to support the following policy priorities and objectives: | EU Strategy for Youth. Action field 1: Education – states that ‘Complementary to formal education, non-formal education for young people should be supported to contribute to Lifelong Learning in Europe, by developing its quality, recognising its outcomes, and integrating it better with formal education.’ The results of the case studies suggests that, at present, initiatives in Web 2.0 for inclusive learning focus on non-formal education as an alternative to formal education, mainly providing support for school drop-outs and those who are not able to attend school. There has been very little work in using Web 2.0 to complement and add value to formal education. In this case Learning 2.0 could provide a valuable contribution to reducing risk of exclusion by improving educational performance. | EU Strategy for Youth. Action field 2: Employment – states that “Employment policy action in Member States and at EU level should be coordinated across the four components of flexicurity in order to facilitate transitions from school to work or inactivity or unemployment to work. Once in work, young people should be enabled to make upward transitions. Increase and improve investments in providing the right skills for those jobs in demand on the labour market, with a better matching in the short term and better anticipation in the longer term of the skills needed”. Again, very little work appears to have been done in using Web 2.0 to develop training that will develop ‘flexicurity’ and to link inclusion objectives to the changing needs of labour markets. | EU Strategy for Youth. Action Field 6: Social Inclusion – aims to “prevent poverty and social exclusion among disadvantaged youth groups and break their intergenerational transmission by mobilising all actors involved in the life of youth (parents, teachers, social workers, health professionals, youth workers, young people themselves, police and justice, employers.” The case studies suggest that much of the current work targets ‘end users’ – i.e. excluded people. Although many initiatives involve ‘intermediaries’ – for example youth workers – their representation is lower than might be expected. In addition, not enough initiatives work with the broader spectrum of inter-relationships between at risk people and ‘mediators’ (family; friends; teachers etc.). | Europe 2020 Strategy – a key target in the strategy is “20 million less people should be at risk of poverty”. The results of the review of literature in the field clearly highlight the significance of poverty as a key structural dynamic in the ‘causes’ of social exclusion. Although poverty is represented in Learning 2.0 initiatives analysed in the case study examples, it is regarded as a ‘mediating factor’ rather than a primary in exclusion. Initiatives directly targeting poverty and using Web 2.0 to address it are not represented.

7.3 The theoretical context State of the art Our review of the literature showed that the theoretical and conceptual knowledge base is contested and contradictory; it is fragmented, and there is a lack of a sound evidence base on ‘what works’. In social inclusion theory, opinion is divided into three camps: the ‘structuralists’, who emphasise the operation of structural inequalities, and the persistence of an ‘e-underclass’; the ‘social capital’ perspective, which emphasizes community resources and the development of community resilience to combat exclusion; and the ‘life politics’ approach, which emphasizes ‘risk’ behaviours and the cultivation of individual resilience. The first perspective has long linked social exclusion to structural factors that lead to social deprivation, albeit often mediated through family practices (Coleman & Hendry, 1999; Schoon & Bynner, 2003) This emphasizes the notion that the risks of social exclusion are multi-dimensional in nature. (Burchardt, Le Grand & Piachaud, 2002) Sustained and repetitive exposure to social and economic ills – poverty; ill-health; upheaval; unemployment – itself saps the collective spirit and therefore ultimately increases the vulnerability of those exposed to social and economic pathologies. (Elstad, 1998; Berkman & Kawachi, 2000) The second perspective shifts the focus from an ‘underclass’ perspective to a ‘social capital’ perspective. The three main authors – James Coleman, Robert Putnam and Pierre Bourdieu – argue in various ways that social capital is achieved through the formation of social relationships built up over time which enable individuals to achieve more than they would be able to achieve if they acted solely on their own (Coleman, 1988); that social capital is linked to a community’s capacity to tackle social and economic problems such as unemployment, poverty, educational non-participation, and crime (Putnam, 1995); and that social capital, or the lack of it, is a tool of cultural reproduction in maintaining inequalities, for example through unequal educational achievement (Bourdieu, 1992). The third perspective, exemplified by the work of Beck, Giddens and Lash, argues that changes in post-industrial society have led to the emergence of ‘risk’ society. As the old institutions of industrial society - family, community, social class - are undermined by globalization, each individual must learn to navigate society for themselves. The most vulnerable groups in this are the old and the young. (Giddens, 1999) On the one hand, this allows unprecedented freedom and opportunities. On the other, self and identity become fragile, and the pressures it generates in terms of having to achieve, conspire to promote sense of failure, marginalisation and, for some, mental ill-health (Rutter & Smith, 1995; EGRIS 2001; Lash 2000; Tulloch & Lupton, 2003). In learning theory, the field has been dominated by constructivism, and a focus on developing collaborative systems that actively engage the excluded as co-producers of knowledge. However, there is a counter-prevailing school which emphasizes context and ‘pragmatism’. Our review of the literature on Learning 2.0 and social exclusion showed that there are two polarized position around how ICTs and Web 2.0 link to social exclusion. The ‘Utopian’ perspective suggests that ‘evolutionary progression’ and the increasing ubiquity of ICTs embedded within everyday social, economic and cultural life, are making the notion of e-inclusion more and more redundant. For example Redecker et al. (2009) cite nu-

merous examples to support the view that projects using Learning 2.0 strategies have a high potential to re-engage excluded groups in learning. However, the ‘pessimistic’ perspective argues that ICT access, use and quality of use is highly correlated with social exclusion. The overall conclusion from research is that we are now witnessing a new ‘exclusion dualism’ where the long-established structural factors associated with exclusion – family background; education; employment; income - are being mutually reinforced through lack of access to ICTs and lack of access to digital skills. For example, the evidence suggests that access patterns for young people are shaped by ‘habitus’ and lifeworld. Eurostat shows, in 2009, that more than 90 % of young Europeans aged 16–24 who accessed the Internet within the past 3 months did so from home and almost 50% from a place of education, whereas a much larger proportion of the older age groups did so from work. This suggests that young people who are homeless, or NEET (not in education and employment) are much more likely to experience a ‘dual exclusion’. Data from EU Kids Online, from Eurobarometer 2009 and from national studies show a clear link between individuals' socio-economic background and their use of the internet. A report by Oxford Internet Institute observed, “that technological forms of exclusion are a reality for significant segments of the population, and that, for some people, they reinforce and deepen existing disadvantages. Technology is so tightly woven into the fabric of society today that ICT deprivation can rightly be considered alongside, and strongly linked to, more traditional twentieth century social deprivations, such as low income, unemployment, poor education, ill health and social isolation. To consider ICT deprivation as somehow less important underestimates the pace, depth and scale of technological change, and overlooks the way that different disadvantages can combine to deepen exclusion”. (Helsper, 2008) There is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that actual usage of ICTs – and increasingly Web 2.0 – reinforces this process of ‘dual inclusion’. (Facer & Furlong, 2001; Facer & Selwyn, 2007) Danah Boyd, for example, argues that, in the USA, utilisation of social networking technologies reflects complex class and status stratifications in American youth. Whereas MySpace is the spiritual home for the culturally and socially marginalised, Facebook attracts “upwardly mobile hegemonic teens”. As she puts it; “MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, ‘burnouts’, ‘alternative kids’, ‘art fags’, punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn't play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm….. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracised at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.” (Boyd, 2007) Livingstone and Helsper (2007) suggest that even though increased access and usage to ICTs will increase opportunities for children, children from affluent backgrounds learn better and faster, so that, in the long run, ICTs actually increase social disparities rather than decrease them.

Figure 2: e-exclusion spectrum

Other studies show that, although social class and income are key determinants in shaping e-exclusion patterns, cultural factors make the picture even more complex. For example, women even in affluent households are less likely to use Web 2.0 because they are socialised into the perception that ICTs are the territory of husbands and sons. (Cramner, 2008) Similarly, the EU Kids Online studies suggest that there is a growing ‘bedroom culture’ for teenagers and solitary use of the internet is increasing, particularly for boys. These findings suggest that the structural determinants of ‘e-inclusion’ are further complemented by cultural and behavioural factors. Figure 2 provides an illustration of how this process might work. At one end of a polarity of e-exclusion are people who are excluded from ICTs by their socio-economic status. However studies suggest that a significant proportion of EU citizens are ‘self-excluding’ – they have no inclination to participate in the ‘Knowledge Society’, or who are ‘uninformed’ about opportunities. At the other end of the spectrum are people who are socially excluded because they are ‘always online’. The case studies in the theoretical context The case studies have not provided much evidence to shed further light on the efficacy of these different perspectives on social inclusion and the role of learning and Learning 2.0 in it. The continuing gaps in our knowledge highlighted by the case studies are: | How initiatives using ICTs and Web 2.0 contribute to the production of social capital and community cohesion. Most of the case studies we analysed focus on individual behaviour changes – even in cases, like TRIO, Conecta Joven and Web in the Hood, that are specifically located within community environments. | None of the cases we analysed consider the ‘life politics’ perspective on social inclusion. The ways in which Web 2.0 changes how ‘identities’ are constructed, and how these link to risk behaviours and risk scenarios, is not covered in the case studies. | Evaluation and assessment methodologies – the evidence base in the Learning 2.0 field is poorly-developed; fragmentary and contested. An evaluation culture has not

yet taken root. Robust and appropriate impacts assessment approaches, methods and tools are unevenly applied. | Much of the knowledge that is derived from the case studies is about ‘excluded groups’. The literature makes a strong case for ‘prevention’ rather than cure. Not enough is known about ‘risk scenarios’ – the factors that make certain groups in certain situations more vulnerable to exclusion, and how ICT is being and can be used to support activities that reduce risk. | What methodologies and tools can be used to engage excluded people more actively in the design and implementation of methods, approaches and tools supporting ‘Learning 2.0’ for inclusion? | The use of 3D and immersive worlds is growing and has produced some positive outcomes. Yet some of the case studies highlight issues about which little is known. These cover: new forms of accessibility issues (since many of these technologies are ‘high-end’ and expensive); issues around accessibility for disabled people; issues around governance and participation of users. | As noted above, the evidence base in this field is poorly developed. More research is needed on how learning and practices can be effectively disseminated and valorised. | The work on NEET and on early-school leaving and how ICTs can address this significant set of issues is currently under-developed.

7.4 The practices context State of the art Our review of the practices carried out in work package 1 showed that five broad clusters of practices can be distinguished. To some extent these represent relatively autonomous Learning 2.0 ‘spaces’, with little overlap between them. They can be defined as follows: | Personalised Learning Environments - the evidence does suggest the embryonic development of ‘PLE’s’. There were a number of initiatives identified in the review that exhibit a highly individualized approach to inclusion through learning, employing social networking technologies to support self-directed learning. | Adult Learning – a primarily institutional learning space that targets adults with low educational levels and status, and which generally supports informal and non-formal learning albeit through formal settings such as training centres. | Special Needs – a significant number of initiatives target distinctive target groups with particular profiles – mainly covering immigrant and ethnic minorities; people with disabilities; ex-offenders. The main inclusion approach aims at social re-engagement, using a variety of Web 2.0 tools and approaches. | Youth at Risk – young people have become the main focus of attention for Web 2.0 for inclusion. The review identified a significant number of initiatives targeting a range of exclusion and at risk scenarios. A common feature of these initiatives is the emphasis on cultivating digital literacies. | NEET – a distinctive sub-category of initiatives aimed at young people are those aimed at young people not in education or training (NEET). What is distinctive about

this cluster is the more intensive use of novel forms of Web 2.0, like virtual reality environments, and the exploration of innovative forms of pedagogy, for example ‘Notschool’, that create new roles for both student and teacher. The case studies in the practices context The case studies analysed in Links-up shed further light on how learning and social inclusion objectives are linked to the use of different combinations of Web 2.0 approaches and tools. Figure 3 summarises how these practices are related together.

Figure 3: Inter-relationships of the case studies

There are four key clusters that reflect how Web 2.0 use is seen as providing solutions to the complex social exclusion scenarios outlined above, and the key policies and measures that are being driven forward at the macro-level to support social and e-inclusion. These are: | Reducing social isolation, | Promoting educational re-insertion, | Improving health and well-being, particularly for people with disabilities, | Improving life-chances and opportunities, particularly in the field of employment. Analysis of the case studies shows that the expected outcomes derived from these interventions focus primarily on increasing various forms of capital: individual capital (for example the acquisition of new digital skills and ‘soft skills’ like team-working); the acquisition of ‘social capital’ (for example increasing the resilience of communities) and the acquisition of technological capital (for example through improving access to technologies). Two dominant implementation activities are carried out by these interventions. The first one involves delivering courses. These cover a spectrum of subjects and content areas – particularly IT skills and digital literacy. The second main category, ‘social interaction’, fo-

cuses on developing and applying ways of getting people to share experiences, knowledge and skills. A number of initiatives support people in ‘telling their stories’. The approach used reflects a number of desired outcomes, such as encouraging sharing and interaction with others; getting people to valorise their life experiences; using their stories to create learning content; dealing with ‘otherness’ and promoting acceptance of diversity. A similar approach can be found with projects that use multi-media within a community context. In this way, dealing with difference and supporting interaction between culturally diverse groups is taken out of the personal space and expanded to the community and societal level. Less frequently found are implementation activities involving awareness-raising, counselling, personal development and networking and good practice sharing. With awareness-raising, the aim is to provide people with information that is seen as essential in providing them with tools to empower themselves, for example their rights under the law. A minority of projects provide specific counselling or personal development. Personal development approaches can be seen in some ways as a ‘social’ variant on counselling, for example, by providing advice and counselling on finances, social behaviour, mental health issues, physical condition, motivation, practical skills and daily activities. Finally, networking and good practice sharing is a small but important category of inclusion strategy operated by projects. The main focus here is not on direct end users, but on making available to the wider user groups and communities of practice resources, and evidence-based knowledge, that can support the development and implementation of actions supporting social inclusion. The inclusion approaches adopted, and the pedagogic models applied, reflect specific ideas about which platforms, and which combinations of Web 2.0 are likely to yield the best results. Virtually all of the cases analysed are web-based, though some use other forms of technologies, such as community-based broadcasting and mobiles. A number of initiatives involve some form of audiovisual media, such as videos and video conferencing. The applications most commonly used are social networking applications like Facebook and media-sharing, like YouTube. Blogs and wikis are becoming more commonly used, as is the use of virtual environments, like ‘Second Life’, to develop innovative approaches to ICT-based support for at risk young people. Most projects use a combination of tools to support an integrated approach to inclusion. Overall, the ‘landscape’ of ‘Inclusive Learning 2.0’ shows many similarities. Indeed, a key finding of the case study analysis is the extent to which initiatives adopt a multi-dimensional approach to the use of ICTs and Web 2.0 to address social exclusion. Many of the initiatives analysed are ‘composite’ entities, drawing funding from a range of sources; incorporating a range of platforms and tools; pursuing a mixed set of inclusion and learning objectives and multi-targeting strategies and implementing an integrated set of services and activities to realise their objectives. This could reflect the increasing recognition in the field that social exclusion is multi-dimensional in nature and scope, and that the needs of socially excluded and at risk people are complex and similarly multi-dimensional and require a holistic and integrated response. The case studies suggest that the main gaps in the provision of programmes and initiatives in the field of ‘Learning 2.0’ are as follows: | There is still a strong focus on developing and implementing initiatives aimed at specific target groups – people with disabilities; the unemployed, and so on. This reflects the persistence of a prevailing view that social inclusion is homogeneous. However, it

is clear from the evidence that social exclusion is complex and multi-dimensional; that people present ‘multiple needs’, and that these needs change over time and in different situations. Initiatives need to be more flexible and responsive to the fluidity of social inclusion. | Very little attention has been paid to the ‘cultural’ dimension of inclusion and learning, beyond the broad identification of macro-cultural concepts for example the prioritization of Immigrant and Ethnic Minorities. Virtually no work has been done, and no initiatives identified that addresses, for example: women’s position of e-exclusion within the household environment; the position of ‘technophobes’ and ‘uninformed’ and ‘disinclined’; how ‘extremists’ – those who are ‘always on-line’ – are affected by immersion in the Web 2.0 world. | Few initiatives address the role of organizational culture within the educational enterprise. There is some evidence, for example, in schools, that organizational resistance is inhibiting the use of Web 2.0 in teaching. There is also evidence that the use of Web 2.0 in the classroom is actually exacerbating differences in educational performance between students from higher status backgrounds and those from lower status backgrounds. | Many initiatives take an individuated approach to inclusion. Few of them, with the exception of TRIO, Web in the Hood and Conecta Joven, consider the broader community and societal issues, and how Web 2.0 can impact on social capital and community cohesion. | As noted above, the role of multipliers, mediators and intermediaries is critical in successful initiatives. Very few projects address the need for training of these key actors. | Many initiatives are ‘insular’ in the sense that they fail to bridge the gap between the inner world of the initiative and the harsh realities of the external environment. For example, initiatives that provide training in e-skills for ethnic minority women can fail when these newly-acquired skills cannot be used within the local labour market because there is no demand for them. There is a need for new initiatives that take into account and address how research and R&D results in the field can be effectively applied to external conditions.

8 A ‘THEORY OF CHANGE’ INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS 8.1 Introduction: Theory of change and impact assessment In work package 1, we developed an approach to assessing the ‘effects’ of initiatives using Learning 2.0 to support social inclusion that was based on a ‘theory of change’ model. Theory of change approaches seek to identify both the explicit and implicit paradigm of change that lies at the heart of a programme or initiative – in other words the ‘transformative model’ that is embedded within it. Theory of change involves unpacking the theory behind interventions - i.e. the intended outcomes – that underpin their ‘vision’ and their ‘intervention logic’ (Weiss, 1995; Sullivan & Stewart, 2006). On the one hand, the theory of change method helps to identify what are the intended outcomes and impacts of the policies and initiatives that are being implemented using Web 2.0 to support excluded people and those at risk. On the other, it represents a methodological strategy that aims to solve some of the problems that crop up in research in trying to establish ‘cause and effect’ in complex and dynamic situations – for example what kind of technology works best in supporting inclusion. It can be defined as a systematic and cumulative study of the links between activities, outcomes and context. It involves the specification of an explicit theory of how and why an intervention is intended to or might have caused an effect. The focus of the theory of change approach is therefore on causal pathways. Theory of change is particularly useful in situations where impacts measurement data is variable, and where evaluations of interventions have not followed ‘experimental’ approaches, for example using ‘control-comparison’ methods. This was the situation with the Links-up case studies. Some of the cases had not carried out impacts assessment at all. In many cases, the impacts assessment is based on ‘self-reported’ data provided by the projects themselves and based on, for example, the subjective opinions of project managers. Following Jan Steyaert (2010), we looked at how the cases are positioned in terms of the approaches taken to impacts assessment in terms of the ‘effectiveness ladder’ model. This has five levels to reflect the ‘robustness’ of the evidence used on impacts assessment, as follows: | Level 0: ‘Marketing information’ – spreading good news about how things are done. | Level 1: Expert opinion; descriptive studies; case studies. | Level 2: Cohort studies – surveys; correlation analysis for example between participation in an initiative and educational performance. | Level 3: Experimental studies – for example user surveys and baseline statistical analysis done before and after the intervention (pre-test/post-test). | Level 4: Randomised controlled trials. In relation to the ‘effectiveness ladder’, the majority of initiatives are placed on the lowest level of the effectiveness ladder – Level 0. This typically involves the use of ‘marketing information’ – spreading good news about how things are done; providing anecdotal evidence of positive outcomes. A small proportion use ‘Level 1’ assessment, which is mainly carried out through ‘external’ evaluation done by experts; through descriptive studies, and through case studies. Around a third use ‘Level 2’ assessment, involving cohort studies – user surveys; correlation analysis of statistical data that measures the re-

lationship for example between participation in an initiative and educational performance. A small proportion use ‘Level 3’ approaches, entailing experimental studies – for example user surveys and baseline statistical analysis done before and after the intervention (pre-test/post-test). One example is ‘Replay’, which carried out extensive before and after testing of the user game. We found no initiative that had implemented the ‘gold standard’ of assessment – randomised controlled trials. Most impacts assessment methods used in the case studies involves carrying out surveys with users. The other two most frequently used assessment methods involved ‘technology utilisation’ data analysis and interviews. The analysis of the use patterns of platforms and tools used to deliver services to young people is a convenient way of finding out how effective the initiative is. A common method is to analyse website visits and hits using ‘Google analytics’ or a similar monitoring tool. Analysis of Web 2.0 tools and applications is also often applied. This involves statistical analysis of participation and utilisation rates in social networking sites, as well as qualitative analysis of applications like podcasts and discussion forums, using techniques like content analysis. For example, Cyberhus registers and analyses each chat session when it is completed. This provides statistics on duration, age, sex, and topic. Most of the cases used ‘triangulation’ – combining a number of methods in order to arrive at a more systematic evidence-based view of impacts. For example, Notschool have developed a very sophisticated monitoring system which enables them to track all progress made by students, from their activity around the site, to emails from their tutors as well as their replies. Annual evaluation includes: analysis of attendance rates; analysis of course completions; socio-economic profiling of participants; user surveys. On the basis of the available data, we present below the results of our analysis of the ‘impacts’ identified in the case studies.

8.2 Evidence on impacts As noted above, the impacts assessments carried out by the initiatives selected for case study analysis vary considerably in approach, relevance and credibility. Many of them employed ‘self-assessment’ approaches and methods, rather than more objective ways of evaluating evidence. Against this background, we have applied ‘triangulation’ to the data drawn from the initiatives survey. This involves cross-checking of data to search for regularities in the research data. We have distinguished between the outputs, outcomes and impacts of initiatives in our approach to reviewing the ‘effects’ of initiatives. We have also reviewed the ‘expected’ outcomes and impacts as set against the actual outcomes and impacts as reported by the initiatives themselves. Our analysis suggested two dominant implementation activities carried out by projects. The first one involves delivering courses, for example Conecta Joven. These cover a spectrum of subjects and content areas – particularly IT skills and digital literacy. The second main category, ‘social interaction’, focuses on developing and applying ways of getting users to share experiences, knowledge and skills. Some of the cases – for example HiStory and Pinokio- support people in ‘telling their stories’. The approach used reflects a number of desired outcomes, such as encouraging sharing and interaction with others; getting people to valorise their life experiences; using their stories to create learning content; dealing with ‘otherness’ and promoting acceptance of diversity. A similar approach can be found with projects that use multi-media within a community context – for example ‘Web in the Hood’. In this way, dealing with difference and supporting interaction between culturally diverse groups is taken out of the personal space and expanded to the community and societal level.

Less frequently found are activities involving awareness-raising, counselling, personal development and networking and good practice sharing. With awareness-raising, the aim is to provide people with information that is seen as essential in providing them with tools to empower themselves, for example the products and training available for disabled people, as illustrated by the Assistive Technology Wiki. Counselling services are either on-line one-to-one services providing support on things like self-harm, or services where ICTs are used to supplement other counselling methods, like group therapy, for example Cyberhus. Personal development approaches can be seen in some ways as a ‘social’ variant on counselling, for example EduCore. On terms of expected short-term outcomes, one group of cases aim to support inclusion through developing technical skills, primarily through providing courses, for example ICONET and Conecta Joven. Another group focus on addressing social isolation. These cover a range of risk scenarios – from the estrangement of immigrant and ethnic minority groups from their ‘host’ culture through to issues associated with young people who have problems in going to school, for example Notschool. A third group aims to improve the social skills of participants, through team-working and social interaction, for example Avatar@School. A fourth category anticipates increasing participants’ chances of success in the labour market, for example FreqOut!. The actual short term outcomes reported by initiatives are difficult to quantify, since data are not readily available across cases. That said, the main areas in which positive outcomes were reported by the initiatives were as follows: | Re-engagement in education and training – some initiatives reported that participants had taken up further study. | Social skills and social interaction – some initiatives reported improvements in participants’ social skills and social engagement. | Physical, psychological and emotional well-being – most projects reported improvements in user confidence and self-esteem. | Technical skills and digital literacy – most of the projects reported improvements in the acquisition of technical and ICT skills. | Employment – a small number of initiatives reported that participants had gone on to find work.

Examples of the outcomes reported include: | Schome Park – a virtual world for young people who have dropped out of the education system showed clear evidence that users developed their knowledge age skills throughout the project and included communication, leadership, collaborative learning, creativity, development of analytical skills. | Notschool – the alternative on-line school has successfully enabled 98% of young learners to re-engage in learning. Other evidence suggests: increasing in motivation to learn; increasing confidence and self-esteem; developing advanced technical skills; acquire qualifications. | MOSEP – an initiative using Web 2.0 to develop the competences of trainers engaged in supporting the inclusion of young people with poor education through e-portfolios reported that teachers and trainee teachers involved in the project were able to develop their own e-portfolios and help their students create e-portfolios. Students in-

volved in the partner institutions learned how to collect and organise evidence for their e-portfolio, make choices about what to select and omit, as well as reflecting on and evaluating their own work as well as the work of their peers. 93% of students felt ‘proud’ of their E-Me portfolio, 81% felt that it helped them to ‘record what I have learnt and done’, 64% ‘enjoyed’ working on their E-Me and 67% felt that they would continue using and developing their E-Me without school involvement. | Avatar@School - aims to develop capacities in conflict mediation for young people through the use of a 3D virtual platform as well as increasing ICT skills and indirectly improving intercultural and language skills. In general, according to the project managers the project seems to have achieved its aims. School peer mediation and virtual role plays have proven to be excellent learning methods if combined together. In total, 94% of respondents said that they had a “very good” (36%) or “good” (58%) impression. | BREAKOUT – an initiative aimed at reducing youth offending – reports that the areas in which BREAKOUT has worked particularly well, and has had a ‘High impact’ for users include: raising awareness amongst young people of key issues around crime, drugs and how they effect life choices and life chances; providing e-skills and social skills training to serving inmates in prisons via a blended e-learning model. Areas where BREAKOUT has made a moderate contribution include: Contributing to improving offenders’ personal relationships, for example by raising self-esteem and social skills; contributing to improving the effectiveness of service administration. The expected longer-term impacts reported by initiatives reflect three main visions: the vision of social cohesion and social capital; the vision of improving lifelong learning and the vision of increasing employment. These goals are consistent with current EU policies, as reflected in EU 2020; the ET 2020 agenda and the renewed Lisbon goals. Less highly prioritised are impacts in ICT access and skills; crime reduction; health improvement; reducing homeless and the integration of immigrants and ethnic minorities. Virtually all of the cases had no evidence to assess whether these long-term impacts are being realised. In almost all cases, the projects reported that ‘it was too early to say’. However, a number of the initiatives reported evidence of ‘potential impacts’. For example, the Notschool project reports that 50% of students entered into further education, 26% entered college related employment and 18% entered full time employment. This suggests that the initiative has contributed investment to young people’s future. The FreqOut! project reports anecdotal evidence of ‘breaking down the barriers between different groups’, e.g. inter-generational; gang cultures.’ However, the initiatives survey identified a number of barriers to realising objectives. The key problems are: | Getting target groups motivated and then retaining their interest; | Accessing intermediaries with the skills necessary to deliver objectives; | |Securing funding and ensuring sustainability; | Technical problems, associated with: poor equipment; technical support; the rapid obsolescence of ‘high end’ technologies; | Getting young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to engage with other young people from different cultures; | Managing initiatives and promoting good governance;

| Getting innovative and unconventional educational and training initiatives accredited.

8.3 Summary of impacts: general theory of change analysis In this final section, we provide an integrative summary of the impacts identified from applying the ‘theory of change’ approach to the case study analysis using a ‘logical model’. This presents the overall linkages across the case studies as a whole between: | Objectives and goals, | The activities planned or being implemented to achieve the objectives and goals, | The expected outputs associated with the activities, | The expected outcomes and impacts realised by using the outputs, | The indicators used to measure the outcomes and impacts, | The means of verification – the data collected to verify indicators.

Key objectives / goals Reduce isolation

Key activities

Key outcomes

Key expected impacts

Awareness-raising and Improve social skills and Integration of isolated communication social interaction and IEM Counselling & Personal development

Increase social cohesion and social capital

Social interaction Educational re-insertion

Training Counselling & Personal development

Improve well-being

Increase employability

Re-engagement in edu- Supporting and improvcation and training ing lifelong learning

Counselling & Personal Improve social skills and Improve health development social interaction Social interaction

Improve physical, psychological and emotional well-being

Training

Improve technical skills Increasing employment and digital literacy

Counselling & Personal development Find new employment

Table 11: Summary of case study results based on ‘theory of change’ analysis As table 11 shows, the case studies have identified four main clusters of objectives of ‘Learning 2.0 for inclusion’. These are associated with a set of implementation activities that are to some extent common across the different objectives clusters. The four sets of objectives are in turn linked to four main sets of outcomes and expected impacts. However, the case study analysis suggests that most initiatives have not clearly identified the indicators and means of verification that are required to assess the extent to which and in what ways these outcomes and impacts are being achieved. Therefore these aspects are not included in the table.

9 LITERATURE AND SOURCES | Australian Flexible Learning Community (2004). Skills Audits – Examples. Online available at: http://community.flexiblelearning.net.au/ProfessionalDevelopment/content/ article_5531.htm [2010-10-15] | Berkman, Lisa F. & Kawachi, Ichiro (Eds.) (2000). Social Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press | Bourdieu, Pierre (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Edited and introduced by J. B. Thompson, translated by G. Raymond and M. Adamson, Cambridge: Polity Press. | Boyd, Danah (2007). Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace. Apophenia Blog Essay, June 24, 2007, http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html | Burchardt, Tania; Le Grand, Julian & Piachaud, David (2002). Degrees of exclusion: Developing a dynamic, multidimensional measure, pp. 30-43 in Hills, Le Grand and Piachaud (Eds.). | Casacuberta Sevilla, David (2007). Digital Inclusion: Best practices from eLearning. eLearning Papers, no. 6. Online available from http://www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=10635&doclng=6 [2010-04-20] | Chen, Huey-Tsyh (1990). Theory Driven Evaluation. Newbury Park, Sage. | Coleman, James S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. In: American Journal of Sociology: Vol. 94, Issue Supplement, pp. 95-120. | Coleman, John C. & Hendry, Leo B. (1999). The Nature of Adolescence. 3rd edition. London: Routledge. | Cullen, Joe; Cullen, Clare; Hayward, Damian & Maes, Veronique (2009). Good Practices for Learning 2.0: Promoting Inclusion. An In-depth Study of Eight Learning 2.0 Cases. JRC Technical Note 53578. Online available from http://ipts.jrc. ec.europa.eu/ publications/pub.cfm?id=2600 [2010-04-20] | Downes, Stephen (2005). E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine. Online available from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?article=29-1&section=articles [2010-04-20] | EC Communication (2007).Ageing well in the Information Society. Online available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0332en01.pdf | EGRIS: European Group for Integrated Social Research (2001). Misleading trajectories: Transition dilemmas of young adults in Europe. In: Journal of Youth Studies, 4(1), pp. 101-18. | e-Inclusion: Be Part of It! (2007). Online available at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/bepartofit/index_en.htm [2010-09-10] | Elstad, Jon Ivar (1998). The psycho-social perspective on social inequalities in health. In: Bartley M., Blane D., Davey Smith G. (Eds.). The Sociology of Health Inequalities. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 39–58. | eLearning Papers (2010). eLearning Papers Nr. 19 – April 2010. Online available from http://www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?lng=en&page=home [2010-04-27]

| European Commission (2004). Joint Report on Social Inclusion Brussels. Online available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/final_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pdf | Facer, Keri & Furlong, Ruth (2001). Beyond the myth of the ‘Cyberkid’: young people at the margins of the information revolution. In: Journal of Youth Studies, 4(4), pp. 451-469. | Facer, Keri & Selwyn, Neil (2007). Beyond the Digital Divide: Rethinking Digital Inclusion for the 21st Century. Bristol: Futurelab. | Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder. | Georghiou, Luke & Clarysse, Bart (2006). Behavioural Additionality of R&D Grants Introduction and Synthesis. | Giddens, Anthony (1999). Runaway World. London: Profile Books. | Glass, Norman (2000). Social exclusion: concepts, measurement and policy. Paper delivered at the seventh annual Cathie Marsh Memorial Seminar jointly hosted by the Royal Statistical Society and Social Research Association, 2000 | Habermas, Jürgen (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action, London: Beacon Press. | Helsper, Ellen J. (2008). Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute. | Hilzensauer, Wolf & Buchberger, Gerlinde (2009). MOSEP - More Self-Esteem with My E-Portfolio Development of a Train-the-Trainer Course for E-Portfolio Tutors. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. Online available from http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/820 [2010-04-20] | Horton, Myles & Freire, Paulo (1990). We make the road by walking: conversation on educational and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. | i2010 initiative (2005). A European Information Society for growth and employment. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm [2010-09-15] | Kuiper, Else R. (2007). Web in de Wijk – Web in Neighbourhoods. Online available at: http://www.epractice.eu/cases/WebindeWijk [2010-10-17] | Lash, Scott (2000). Risk culture, pp. 47-62. In: Adam, B., Beck, U., van Loon, J. (Eds.). The Risk Society and Beyond. London: Sage. | Lisbon Declaration (2006). An Alliance for Social Cohesion through Digital Inclusion, Lisbon, 28-29 April 2006. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/latin-america/regional-cooperation/alis/documents/lisbon_declaration_en.pdf [2010-09-16] | Livingstone, Sonia & Helsper, Ellen J. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. In: New Media & Society, 9(4), pp. 671-696. | Nielsen, Jakob (2006): Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute. Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, October 9, 2006. Online available at: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html | Osimo, David; De Luca, Annalisa & Codagnone, Cristiano (2010). e-Inclusion initatives from private and non-profit European entities. Online available from

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/einclusion_initiatives_in_europe/index_en.htm [2010-04-20] | Pedler, Mike (1997). What do we mean by action learning? A story and three interpretations. In: Pedler, M. (ed.) Action Learning in Practice, Hampshire, England, Gower Publishing, pp. 61-75. | Pedró, Francesc (2006). The new Millennium Learners: Challenging our Views on ICT and Learning. OECD-CERI. Online available from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/1/38358359.pdf [2010-04-20] | Peña-López, Ismael (2007). “Web 2.0 and Telecentres for e-Inclusion”. ICTlogy, #50, November 2007. Barcelona: ICTlogy. | Putnam, Robert D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In: Journal of Democracy: Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78. | Redecker, Christine; Ala-Mutka, Kirsti; Bacigalupo, Margherita; Ferrari, Anusca & Punie, Yves(2009). Learning 2.0: The Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe. Final Report. Seville: Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Online available at: http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/Learning-2.0.html [2010-04-20] | Riga Ministerial Declaration (2006). Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf[2010-09-16] | Rutter, Michael & Smith, David (Eds.) (1995). Psychological Disorders in Young People: Time Trends and their Causes. London: John Wiley and Sons. | Schaffert, Sandra; Cullen, Joe; Hilzensauer, Wolf & Wieden-Bischof, Diana (2010). Inclusion through Learning and Web 2.0 - A New Project for Better Policies and Initiatives. In: V. Hornung-Prähauser & M. Luckmann (Ed.), Die lernende Organisation. Vom Web-2.0-Solisten zur Web-2.0-Jazzband, Salzburg: Salzburg Research, p. 57–64. | Schoon, Ingrid & Bynner, John (2003). Risk and resilience in the life course: Implications for interventions and social policies. In: Journal of Youth Studies, 6(1), pp. 2131. | Steyaert, Jan (2010). Where the worlds of e-inclusion and evidence based practice meet. In: Engelen, Jan et. al. (Eds.): Proceedings of the INCLUSIO 2010 Conference, “Social Media for Social Inclusion of Youth at Risk”, Catholic University of Leuven, 1314 September 2010, pp. 151-159. | Sullivan, Helen & Stewart, Murray (2006). Who owns the Theory of Change? In: Evaluation, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 179-199. | The Federal Chancellery (2008). E-inclusion in Austria. Fields of action and examples. Online available at: http://www.austria.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=34376 [2010-0427] | Tulloch, John & Lupton, Deborah (2003). Risk and Everyday Life. London: Sage. | Weiss, Carol H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: J. P. Connell et al. (Eds.). New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. | Yin, Robert K. (2002). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Third Edition. Applied social research method series Volume 5. Sage Publications. California.

ISBN 978-3-902448-28-6

Links-up – Learning 2.0 for anBeispiele Inclusiveaus Knowledge society – Untderstanding the Pircture MOBILE GEMEINSCHAFTEN – Erfolgreiche den Bereichen Spielen, Lernen und Gesundheit

Learning 2.0 for an Inclusive Knowledge Society – Understanding the Picture