Papers: A Multiplicity Of Voices: Encouraging And
Developing On-Line Collaborative Projects For Schools

Introduction

We know schools work well with museums - it's a natural partnership that strengthens both institutions. We know schools are regular users of museums' on-line provision, from downloadable resource packs to on-line Web quests and games. We also know that getting people to communicate and collaborate with each other, exchanging dialogues and experiences, is a valuable way of fostering constructivist learning. So why don't more museums encourage and develop collaborative on-line projects as part of their on-line learning programmes - and why aren't more schools participating successfully in this kind of venture?

The answer may lie partly in the way that educational theory tends to approach collaborative learning, but it also has its roots in the perception of on-line learning by museums themselves. On a more practical level, the answer may stem from the challenges involved in developing such projects: a collaborative on-line project involves not only the usual challenges that affect the more familiar conception of museum e-learning (which typically includes provision of downloadable learning resources, interactive activities, and on-line spaces for communication) but also the ones that are unique to collaborative learning.

This paper will examine the relationship between schools and museums with regard to e-learning, focusing on a small but increasing number of collaborative projects that have schools working together, learning from each other, or sharing multiple perspectives on-line. Examining recent examples of school-based e-learning projects, the paper will consider the expectations and challenges associated with on-line collaborative ventures (drawing on perspectives from museum, educational, and socio-cultural theory), review the issues surrounding the use of technology to encourage multiple voices and interpretations, and suggest how this knowledge might help museums to encourage and develop successful on-line collaborative projects for schools.

What Is A Collaborative On-Line Project?

For the purposes of this argument, a 'collaborative on-line project' will mean one in which the museum acts as the mediator and the end users - the schools - work in partnership with each other from their respective locations and communicate on-line to accomplish a mutual goal. Examples might include teaming up to complete an assignment, sharing information and opinions about a chosen subject, or exchanging information about the local culture and traditions. One of the main reasons for participating in a collaborative on-line project is to communicate via on-line means with peers or experts who are at a distance and who would not be available to work with locally.

The idea of communicating in order to make or do something together - the 'collaborative' part of the project - separates this type of project from those which involve many schools creating their own work and then posting it on a site that has been created for this purpose, but without working together or consulting with each other during the process. In these cases, the mutual Web site that holds their respective projects is created after the work is finished, so each piece of work is essentially a separate endeavour. The different groups may know of each other's existence, but they do not work together to create their pieces of the project.

Likewise, the term 'collaborative' is sometimes used to denote projects in which the museums themselves have banded together to create a consortium that will carry out a project or create a resource, but this is not the type of agreement that will be covered in this paper. The focus will remain on the collaboration carried out by the end users (the schools), and will show how museums can be the vehicles through which schools can work together.

Schools are ideal audiences for collaborative on-line projects because they have groups of students who may already be accustomed to working together within the classroom. To turn this skill outwards and direct it towards another class can be exciting, stimulating, and rewarding for all. However, museums have not yet reached a level of familiarity with collaborative on-line projects to allow these to be developed for schools. This is partly to do with the way on-line learning is perceived by museums themselves.

Perception Of On-Line Learning: How Museums Give Their Audiences A Voice

When it comes to on-line learning, museums have matured in the ways they allow their audiences to participate. As we have all seen from examples of older museum Web sites, the way in which museums initially approached Web-based learning was to display their collections on-line, disseminating information and curatorial content. This allowed the users to learn more about the collections, but only by reading and retaining information via a one-way stream of communication, without any means to offer their input. Soon afterwards, museums added interactivity to their Web sites, creating two-way communication in which users were able to take a more active role in responding to learning opportunities - for example, through on-line games, tests and quizzes requiring choices, to which the system responds with pre-programmed or automatically generated responses. However, virtual visitors were still isolated from each other when they used these types of interactives.

Realizing that users were attracted to Web sites that allowed them to actively participate in the learning process, museums began to appreciate the potential of multi-directional communication that would allow a multiplicity of voices (Arbach, 2001). This type of communication might lead to countless opportunities for communication and collaboration. Because this kind of communication is less mechanical or automated than the communication in interactivity, it elicits unique and personal responses from real people, leading in turn to enhanced learning experiences.

Types of on-line learning experiences that involve open communication between visitors include on-line discussion groups; blogs; live Web chats; facilities to post comments, stories, or images; and collaborative projects. Of these, museums are now making great use of the 'facilities' type of site - such as the Moving Here site (http://www.movinghere.org.uk), which allows users to submit their own personal histories and images of migration to England. Museums also make use of discussion groups; for example, Tate's Webcasting programme allows visitors to communicate with each other on-line through discussion forums (http://www.tate.org.uk/contact/forums/onlineevents/). In many ways, museums are shifting themselves to the role of intermediary while providing more avenues for their audiences' voices to be heard. However, the challenge is to provide an outlet for multiple voices without sacrificing the value and meaningfulness of the submissions. As MacDonald and Alsford have noted,

It is easy to introduce interactivity at relatively superficial levels, but challenging to provide meaningful participation. Nonetheless, a conversational model is what museums need to achieve: a transactional learning situation that is not simply a response to stimulus, but a response that acts on the environment in a way that gives rise to further stimuli. This conversation [could] take place from a remote location (1991).

The path for using collaborative on-line projects as a constructivist learning tool is clearly open to providing this meaningful participation and conversation between parties in order for them to learn from each other.

Collaborative Learning And Enhanced Learning Outcomes

Collaborative learning in the classroom (sometimes called cooperative learning) has been a subject of research in the education field for decades. Anuradha Gokhale, writing in 1995, reported on the effectiveness of collaborative learning in enhancing the learning experience:

Proponents of collaborative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes critical thinking…[S]hared learning gives students an opportunity to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and thus become critical thinkers (1995).

In a comprehensive review of the research on cooperative learning in primary and secondary schools, Johnson, Johnson and Stanne identified eight separate types of cooperative learning, all of which had a positive impact on student achievement (2000). Cooperative learning was found to surpass competitive and individual learning in increasing student achievement, resulting in outcomes such as higher-level reasoning, increased motivation, social and cognitive development, perspective-taking, social support, friendships, reduction of stereotypes and prejudice, valuing differences, self-esteem, and many others (2000). Although the cooperative learning studies were classroom-based and face-to-face, some of these same outcomes can be anticipated in on-line environments where communication among learners is involved.

Indeed, museum education theory is already focusing on this type of outcome in its provision of both on-site and on-line learning opportunities. The constructivist approach, first introduced to museums in 1995 by George Hein and quickly adopted for on-site learning experiences, theorizes that a learner's knowledge is constructed internally (rather than existing independently of the learner) and that learning is the individual's own understanding of meaning (rather than the addition of external increments of information) (Hein, 1995). If, as Martin Weller indicates, in the constructivist model the on-line learner comes to an understanding of a concept through means of dialogue or communication with another individual (2001), then a collaborative on-line learning opportunity will provide similar grounds for participants to experience this understanding in an actively engaged way.

As they begin to embrace the concept of constructivist on-line museum learning, museums have now increased provision for socialising activities, understanding that 'collaboration not only inspires self-discovery but also brings about a heightened awareness of others' ideas' (Parry and Arbach, 2006). However, although several of these multi-vocal methods of on-line communication between museum visitors are being made possible, museums are still not developing many collaborative on-line projects. Some projects approach the idea of collaborative learning, but they do not quite reach the goal of having their participants learn from each other as they work together on-line. Examining a number of these projects, both inside and outside the museums sector, both off-line and on-line, may give us insight into some of the challenges involved when people are brought together to learn from each other, and may help us formulate potential solutions.

Museum Projects That Approach The Idea Of Collaborative On-Line Learning

The National Gallery's 'Take One Picture' schools programme (http://www.takeonepicture.org/), now in its tenth year, is a UK-wide scheme that selects one painting from the Gallery's collection each year to inspire creative teaching across the primary school curriculum. Teachers attend CPD (continuing professional development) courses with education staff at the National Gallery or at regional partner museums. They then work with their own students to devise a project revolving around the painting, so the final results differ widely in subject: projects have ranged from poetry, dance, drama and sculpture to science experiments and ICT. The project follows the same principle as a collaborative project in that the students work together and then display their creation for others to see. The sharing aspect of this project is particularly important, and might include showing work to another class in the school, having a school exhibition, holding a parents' evening or developing a Web site (and in addition, the National Gallery selects projects from different schools to be displayed in an annual 'Take One Picture' exhibition at the Gallery and in an accompanying on-line exhibition). The sharing results in feelings of confidence, self-esteem, accomplishment and pride - teachers have noted that disaffected students have been particularly motivated and stimulated by the creative work on this project. The difference between this project and the type of collaborative on-line project described in this paper is that these students are working within their own class or group rather than with students from another school. Although the sharing is done after the fact and the impact only hits when classes see each other's finished work, the project does encourage the building of a community in that all voices can be recognized. However, it does not go as far as a collaborative project would in ensuring that those voices are recognized during the formative stage of the project rather than only during the summative stage.

In another type of project, schools meet on-site and act as partners within a museum or gallery situation. For example, the Ragged School Museum in London established a Museum Club that served two primary schools in the local area of Tower Hamlets (http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/studysupport/casestudies/raggedmuseum). In the second phase of the project, children from the two primary schools came together to visit museums and participate in art workshops, writing sessions, and a final school assembly. Children stated that they had been glad to work with the other school because they had been able to make friends and they had learned to share more and work better in groups. The Museum Club project successfully put together two schools in an in-gallery setting rather than an on-line one, although perhaps the collaboration (working together) element was rather less about reaching a common goal than working together in order to learn how to work with others.

The two examples seen here do not focus on the on-line aspect as a key tool in communication, since these two projects were devised mainly for on-site or off-site (but not on-line) means; they do, however, show that museums already understand the value of collaboration as a constructivist tool to enhance the learning experience. For examples of collaborative on-line learning projects directed at schools, let us turn to some non-museum examples from the education sector.

Non-Museum Projects That Approach Or Achieve Collaborative On-Line Learning

Some of these educational projects, such as the CIESE (Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education) Collaborative Projects for Schools (http://www.k12science.org/currichome.html), use the word 'collaboration' to mean data collection. Information from an individual or class is contributed to a database of information, which is then recalculated to take into account the new information. For example, CIESE runs a collaborative project entitled 'Down the Drain' (http://www.k12science.org/curriculum/drainproj/), where students share information about their water usage and then compare their results with the averages already calculated on the site. This project does not rely on communication with any other schools, but rather on the cumulative effect of the numbers that they add to the database. Similar projects include the Global Grocery List Project (http://landmark-project.com/ggl/), which asks students to calculate and submit average prices for grocery items in their locality, and the Weather Watch project (http://www.cyberbee.com/weatherwatch/), which asks students to track local weather patterns and enter them into the database of international weather conditions. This type of project can engage and excite students because their contributions make a difference to the end numbers or conclusions. Nevertheless, it does not allow them to take ownership of the project and have contact with other schools.

Another type of collaborative project in the education sector invites students from different schools to work together to write a story on-line. In the West Berkshire LEA (Local Education Authority), sixteen schools participated in the 'E-Books Project' for a week (1-4 March 2004) as a World Book Day initiative, each school writing one chapter on its allotted day and passing the story on to the next school to create the next chapter. New chapters were published on-line each day so that the progress of the stories was seen by all participants. Five e-books were completed during the week (http://www.berkshire-els.gov.uk/ members/readevel/ wbd2004/04ebook1.html). This approaches collaborative learning in that participants from different groups need to work together in order to complete the e-book, but this method does not allow for give-and-take between groups; each group only participates once and does not communicate with the other groups as part of the process of writing.

The Flat Stanley Project (http://flatstanley.enoreo.on.ca/) is the longest-running example of a collaborative learning project that achieves true collaboration between groups, both on-line and off-line. This international literacy and communications project has run for ten years, beginning by pairing together primary schools and now branching out to include other groups such as Cub Scouts and Girl Guides. The project is based on a children's book in which the title character, Flat Stanley, is crushed by a bulletin board, and because of his resulting 'flatness' can be posted by his parents in an envelope to visit places around the world. Participants in the Flat Stanley project first register their names on a list. They then select a partner from the list to correspond with, and if that partner class agrees to the venture, they arrange mutually convenient dates, deadlines and work. The selection process is completely autonomous; teachers make the choice based on the city, country, or region they and their class would like to explore. During the project period, the two classes send each other Flat Stanley paper dolls with accompanying letters, diaries, journals, cut-out costumes, stories, and souvenirs from their locations, sometimes via email - bringing to mind an updated version of pen-pals. Children learn reading, writing and communication skills while sharing their similarities and differences with a new group. Since there is no organizing body - just the main Flat Stanley Web site from which the project participants can obtain hints and tips - the participants are responsible for the management of their own partnerships. The learning outcomes achieve collaboration because of the give-and-take element of the project, in which all students are learning from each other and engaging in dialogue.

Similar schools-based collaborative projects or outlets for communication have been created by non-profit organisations such as International E-Mail Classroom Connections (http://www.teaching.com/iecc/), who pair together schools seeking partnerships with others from different cultures or locations, and companies such as ePALS (http://www.epalscorp.com/products/community.html), who provide a multilingual 'Global Network' for communication between schools. Although not many similar examples exist within the museums sector, a small number of projects have achieved the type of collaboration that allows for multiple voices to be heard. To analyse how a collaborative on-line museum project works and to gauge the difficulties in managing such an undertaking, Tate's 'Our Picture of Britain' project will be examined as a case study.

A Collaborative On-Line Museum Project For Schools: 'Our Picture Of Britain'

The 'Our Picture of Britain' project, which formed partnerships between schools for the purpose of engaging each other in on-line communication about their sense of place (http://www.tate.org.uk/learning/apictureofbritain/ourpic), paired together school classes from different regions across the country. For a three-week period in June, 2005, students in these classes communicated via e-mail, writing to each other about the places they live in and sending each other information, images and digital photographs they created to capture the spirit of their region. These included photographs and descriptions of local monuments, sketches of unique local landscapes, artwork relating to local legends, interviews with local people about what it is like to live in their region, and other work related to the place they live.

Over 250 school classes (approximately 6000 children) signed up to participate in the project. By the end of the three-week schedule, 34 classes (representing approximately 1300 children) handed in a final project. This number does not necessarily reflect the total number of participating students and classes, but does show how many reached the final stage of the project. Since this was the first e-project for many classes and the first collaborative project (whether on-line or not) for many others, the final outcome was considered a success.

Several teachers who took part wrote in before, during and after the project with news of the project's progress. Many of their comments were regarding their class's enthusiasm about their partnership with another class. One class said 'We have lots of ideas we want to share.' Another teacher said her class 'loved the idea of e-mailing another class'; similarly, another said that her students were 'really enjoying writing to children that they do not know'. The project also allowed the students to appreciate the differences between their two classes: 'it was very interesting to see what another class is doing and how different their location is to ours'. Teachers of students with special educational needs were particularly pleased with the project as a way to do something new, and expressed gratitude and surprise that there was a way of communicating with others: one teacher who had been 'worried that you couldn't find anyone who wanted us' was excited that a partner class for her students of multiple ages and skill levels was found for her. A small number of participants decided at the end of the project that they would 'be interested in keeping the link with [their] new classes next year'. One pair of schools, who sent each other their physical work to be exhibited, was also planning on visiting Tate together: 'We have decided to send the actual work to each other so that we can have exhibitions of all the pupils' work in our respective schools, and we have talked about a combined visit to the Tate, perhaps early next term.'

Despite the extremely positive results with the classes who carried the project through to the end, the fact that only a small percentage finished the project indicated that several issues had affected it. The difficulties lay both in the use of technology and all its associated challenges, and in the participating teachers' ability to manage their time, coursework, students, and other aspects of their lives. Any ICT undertaking which relies on the ability and willingness of the participating teachers or pupils to communicate with each other on-line will be at risk of losing participants through situations such as difficulties working with technology, varying levels of familiarity with ICT, changes in scheduling, decreased motivation due to lack of face-to-face contact, and other challenges. The next section will examine the two main types of problems experienced in the 'Our Picture of Britain' project: technical issues and the human factor.

Challenges: Technical Issues And The Human Factor

Schools discontinued work on the project for varying reasons. One school dropped out before the project began, the teacher citing her already heavy workload as the cause. A small number of others notified their partners that they needed to drop out as the project progressed, for reasons ranging from bereavement to theft of the school's computers. Some had trouble with their e-mail systems and were not able to send or receive e-mails properly. As the project progressed, partners who needed to discontinue their involvement for a specific reason would inform either the organizer or the partner school, and the school that was left would be paired with another partner if one was available.

Of the types of problems that may hinder a project, the technical elements may be less challenging to circumvent. These are problems either with system operations or with user error. For example, some schools experienced difficulty in receiving each other's e-mails because the high-security privacy policies of their school e-mail systems treated external e-mail addresses as spam; when some teachers used their personal e-mail addresses in order to communicate with their partners, their messages were refused by the system. Once the cause was discovered, teachers were able to switch e-mail addresses and continue communicating via their official school e-mail addresses. As an example of user error, several teachers signed up with e-mail addresses that did not exist because of misremembered addresses, incorrect domain names, or typographical mistakes. These were also quickly rectified, but only when one of the partners actually realized that there had been a mistake in the address. Other problems included the entire server shutting down for a period of time - this happened to several of the schools during the project - or the incorrect attachment of classwork to e-mails, resulting in delays in receiving information. Problems also occurred at the museum end when the automated sign-up system stalled for 36 hours during the registration period, failing to retain any of the information that had been input by anyone signing up during that period. Although the mistake was soon spotted (and duly fixed) because there were no registrations coming in, there was no way to retrieve the lost information. An unknown number of teachers signed up during the system failure without realizing that their sign-up information would not be delivered.

Although frustrating, technical challenges are always a part of on-line projects and can therefore be countered, circumvented, or solved within a reasonable amount of time once they are discovered. Many of the participants successfully dealt with technical obstacles during the course of the project. In order to be expedient in solving problems, sometimes off-line methods of communication were used - telephone calls, for instance, and the regular post - which diluted the original intent of the project (to be conducted completely on-line). However, since these helped in successfully negotiating the difficulties and in keeping the project and the collaboration going, they were seen not as hindrances but as necessary routes for communication.

More difficult to foresee and avoid are the personal elements that may challenge a collaborative on-line project. As with any multi-voiced project, the human factor is unpredictable, but with the added dimension of on-line communication, the participants in 'Our Picture of Britain' were able to communicate only through e-mail. The non-verbal cues that would normally be available in face-to-face communication were therefore lost to them. This seemed to decrease the motivation of some teachers to participate, especially during the planning stages when they were making arrangements with their partner teacher before the students became directly involved.

One type of behaviour in particular is interesting to note. In most cases of dropouts, the reason seemed to have been the unwillingness of some participants to contact their partner to set up the work plan, even though they had received several e-mails from them. In these situations, where one of the partners was keen to participate while the other partner was not, this failure to respond led to disappointment. Although the e-mails had been transmitted properly and it was known that at least some of them had been read because the non-responding partner had begun by replying, the e-conversation dwindled and then ground to a halt when the partner repeatedly did not reply. Most of the participants who dropped out did not notify the project organizer or their partner school - they simply stopped participating. This behaviour was interesting because it did not entail the same kind of courtesy that would probably be extended in a face-to-face situation.

In the same way as unanswered letters or unreturned phone calls, this behaviour was made easier by the fact that the non-respondents were already at one remove: although their names were known and messages had perhaps already been exchanged, it was much easier for them to distance themselves from the situation. Studies of behavioural dynamics show differences between behaviours depending on whether communicators are using FtF (face-to-face) or CMC (computer-mediated communication), and indicate that it is easier for on-line communicators to exhibit reduced feelings of public engagement and a lower tendency to adhere to 'normative social influence,' since their relative anonymity liberates them from the usual social rules (Lee and Nass, 2002). This same dynamic may have caused the abrupt endings to communication in the 'Our Picture of Britain' project. Interestingly, the dynamic works the other way as well: unacquainted individuals communicating on-line for the first time for the express purpose of learning more about each other are more likely to exhibit greater and more direct self-disclosure, forging relationships more quickly than people in the same situation using face-to-face communication (Tidwell and Walther, 2002). This is what happened with the groups who kept up their communication, leading to the success of their partnerships.

How Can We Make It Easier?

Although collaborative on-line projects have the potential to be rewarding, they are also challenging to manage. The 'Our Picture of Britain' project and other collaborative on-line projects of its kind can provide valuable case studies in the attempt to uncover the challenges and risks of a project that brings together multiple participants with different skills, varying levels of familiarity with technology, and other differentiating factors.

As both museums and schools become more familiar with the concept of collaborating on-line to carry out a project - developing more of these projects and participating repeatedly in them - the challenges will become easier to overcome. Some can be circumvented: a 'contract' approach (as suggested to teachers on the Flat Stanley project), in which participants agree to work on the project for a certain period of time and delineate the work to be done, might be useful in reducing dropout rates. A 'withdrawal period' (also a method used on the Flat Stanley project) might also allow schools that had signed up to withdraw without disappointing other participants. Museums with on-line provision will already be familiar with some of the technical challenges, and with careful planning will be able to manage these risks effectively.

Parry and Arbach note that the emerging sensitivity on the part of museums to the individual needs of their on-line users has resulted in museums adapting their on-line learning provision towards the needs of their audience (2005). The museum can only adapt its resources so far and manage its risks so much, however, before the actual participants must step in and do the rest. They are the ones who carry the collaboration; the museum is not a partner in the collaboration but a guide. The schools themselves must therefore understand the benefits of the collaboration - including achieving a common goal, fostering interpersonal collaborative skills, and participating in interdependent learning - and strive to achieve the results. This suggests that museums will need to work closely with schools to ensure that the principle of constructivist learning is understood and carried out when schools participate in these projects. With reciprocal communication in a motivated, flexible environment, the collaboration will likely have a greater chance of being successful.

Already, museums are beginning to develop more collaborative on-line projects with schools in mind: in partnership with the British Council, Tate Britain has embarked on another such project, 'Nahnou-Together', that brings together secondary school students in Syria and the UK to talk about art and cultural identity (http://www.nahnou-together.org/). The Canadian Museum of Nature has launched an award for school-museum partnerships; the first winner was a project involving on-line collaboration between several high schools in Canada (http://www.nature.ca/museum/press/2004/pr04-04-29_musawrd_e.cfm). It appears as if a path to successful collaborative on-line projects for schools has been marked and, if collaboration can be managed successfully, both schools and museums will soon begin to reap multiple rewards.

References

Arbach, Nadia. 'The Third Wave: The New Learning Potential of Museum Web Sites', unpublished dissertation, MA in Museum Studies, University of Leicester, 2001.

Canadian Museum of Nature. 'Web Project Wins First Museums and Schools Partnership Award', 2004, http://www.nature.ca/museum/press/2004/pr04-04-29_musawrd_e.cfm, consulted January 29, 2006.

Gokhale, Anuradha. 'Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking', Journal of Technology Education, 7:1, Fall 1995,http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html, consulted January 29, 2006.

Hein, George. 'The Constructivist Museum', Journal for Education in Museums 16, 1995, 21-3.

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Mary Beth Stanne. 'Co-operative learning methods: a meta-analysis', 2000, http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html, consulted January 29, 2006.

Lee, Eun-Ju, and Clifford Nass. 'Experimental Tests of Normative Group Influence and Representation Effects in Computer-Mediated Communication: When Interacting Via Computers Differs from Interacting With Computers', Human Communication Research 28:3, 2002, 349-81, http://hcr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/28/3/349?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits= 10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle= and&andorexacttitleabs= and&fulltext=internet+collaboration&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid= 1137709925403_247&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec= relevance&journalcode=humcom, consulted January 29, 2006.

MacDonald, George F., and Stephen Alsford. 'The Museum as Information Utility', Museum Management and Curatorship 10 (1991): 309.

Parry, Ross and Nadia Arbach. 'Localised, Personalised and Constructivist: A Space for On-Line Museum Learning', in Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse, edited by Sarah Kenderline and Fiona Cameron, MIT Press, 2006 (forthcoming).

Tidwell, Lisa Collins and Joseph B. Walther. 'Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time', Human Communication Research 28:3, 2002, 317-48, http://hcr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/28/3/317?maxtoshow= &HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= 1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs= and&fulltext=internet+collaboration&andorexactfulltext= and&searchid= 1137709329370_232&FIRSTINDEX= 0&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=humcom, consulted January 29, 2006.

Weller, Martin. Delivering Learning on the Net: The Why, What and How of Online Education (London: Kogan Page, 2002), 65.

Cite as:

Arbach, N., A Multiplicity Of Voices: Encouraging And Developing On-Line Collaborative Projects For Schools, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2006: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 1, 2006 at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/arbach/arbach.html

• Workshops
• Sessions
• Speakers
• Interactions
• Demonstrations
• Events
• Exhibits
• Best of the Web

• produced by
  
• Join our mailing list
• Search A&MI
  

published: March 27, 2006
analytics code updated: Oct. 28, 2010

Archives & Museum Informatics, 158 Lee Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4E 2P3 Canada
Telephone: +1 416 691 2516 | Fax: +1 416 352 6025 | E-mail:
Copyright © 2006 - Archives & Museum Informatics - All rights reserved.