Unified in learning –

separated by space
Case study of a global learning
programme

Martin Rehm

Abstract: The growth of available online learning programmes has

created a wide range of new ways for global organizations to train
their staff effectively. Previously, global training entailed substantial
costs for organizations – costs that had to be endured if the
knowledge and skills of the workforce were to be updated. In this
context, virtual ‘communities of learning’, defined as groups of people
engaging in the collaborative learning and reflective practice involved in
transformative learning, are of increasing interest for global
organizations because of their potential usefulness in workplace
practice and training. This article examines how a community of
learning has been developed and implemented for 174 staff from 81
offices worldwide of a large international organization by facilitating the
collaborative exchange of knowledge and experience. Based on the
participants’ perceptions, several key insights are provided that should
be taken into account when engaging in community of learning
initiatives.

Keywords: communities of learning; global organizations; workforce

training; online learning; collaborative learning

Martin Rehm is with the Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, University of

Maastricht, Kapoenstraat 2, 6211 KW Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail:
martin.rehm@maastrichtuniversity.nl.

New possibilities for global organizations
As the availability of new online learning programmes
and tools is constantly increasing, global organizations
can choose from a wide range of new ways to train their
workforce effectively. In the past, global learning
programmes were often associated with substantial costs
which had to be endured if the knowledge and skills of
the workforce were to be updated. Employees had to
leave their work stations, creating direct and indirect
costs for the organization. Moreover, with people
having to travel physically to training venues for short
periods, there was limited scope to benefit from a truly
international exchange of experience and insights. Now,
organizations can readily create virtual communities of
practice (CoPs) (Wenger, 1998) to teach and train their
staff. In essence, CoPs constitute ‘groups of people who
share a concern, set of problems or passion about a topic
and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this
area by interacting on an ongoing basis’ (Wenger et al,

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION Vol 23, No 4, August 2009, pp 331–341

Unified in learning – separated by space
2002, p 4). Given the availability and flexibility of such
communities, there has been a notable increase in the
occurrence of workplace practice and training (Schlager
et al, 2002), partly fuelled by the growing need in
organizations to provide new skills and knowledge for
employees in order to retain their competitive edge
(Bassi et al, 1998). International organizations therefore
seem increasingly interested in setting up learning
initiatives related to their existing communities of
practice (Brown et al, 1989). It is widely acknowledged
that the creation of such initiatives can be greatly
supported by developing and implementing ‘situated
learning’ (Amin and Roberts, 2006; Bernard
et al, 2000; Billet, 1996; Gannon-Leary and Fontainha,
2007; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Savery and Duffy, 1995;
Woods and Ebersole, 2003). In this context, ‘situated
learning’ describes a situation in which people
collaboratively engage with real-life problems and cases
that are placed in their everyday working environment.
Examples of such learning situations include face-to-
face workshops and apprenticeship-style job training.
Given the increased importance of and demand for
CoPs, much work has already been done on identifying
success factors (see, for example: Amin and Roberts,
2006; Gannon-Leary and Fontainha, 2007; Huang,
2002; Hung and Der-Thanq, 2001; Smith, 2001;
Wenger, 1998; Woods and Ebersole, 2003). However,
there has been concern that CoPs may not be suited to
formal learning programmes (Fowler and Mayes, 1999).
Furthermore, recent research on CoPs has been based on
experimental groups from the educational sector or
communities with very similar background
characteristics (Chalmers and Keown, 2006; Hara et al,
2000). Moreover, only limited research has been
conducted on formal global learning programmes.
Consequently, this article will introduce an
adjusted methodological framework which takes into
account the specific requirements of formal learning
programmes. It will then examine how this
framework has been implemented in a global learning
programme for a large international organization (IO)
involving participants with diverse educational and
professional backgrounds. Finally, a range of
descriptive statistics is provided on the frequency
with which educational tools such as asynchronous
discussion forums were used on the course and on
how it was perceived by the participants, both before
and after completion. This examination provides
possible answers to the underlying research question:
how can global organizations effectively design and
implement communities of learning for their
international staff? These answers in turn help to
identify key aspects that should be taken into account
when engaging in such learning initiatives.
332
From communities of practice to
communities of learning
Virtual CoPs belong to the most important and popular
e-learning methodologies that have been developed in
the field of professional training in recent years (Allan
and Lewis, 2006; Constant et al, 1996). Numerous
organizations have implemented such communities, as
conceptualized by Lave and Wenger (1991), to enhance
the capacity of their staff (Amin and Roberts, 2006;
Cousin and Deepwell, 2005; Fox, 2000; Gannon-Leary
and Fontainha, 2007; Hung and Der-Thanq, 2001; Kelly
et al, 2007; Moule, 2006; Schlager et al, 2002; Schwen
and Hara, 2003; Stacey et al, 2004; Wenger, 1998;
Wenger et al, 2002). Among the noteworthy attributes
of such communities are: they naturally evolve in the
workplace, they do not exhibit clearly defined
boundaries and they provide participants with a high
degree of participatory freedom. As appealing as it
might be, however, scholars have argued that the
concept is not really applicable to formal learning
programmes (Fowler and Mayes, 1999). Unlike CoPs,
learning programmes are designed for a specific
purpose, are limited to a certain timeframe and are
accessible only to an exclusive group of participants
(Nachmias et al, 2000).
Following this train of thought, scholars promoted
a shift towards ‘managed communities of practice’
(see, for example, Allan and Lewis, 2006; Lewis and
Allan, 2004; Swan et al, 2002). One specific
derivative of this movement is the notion of the
‘community of learning’ (CoL) (Stacey et al, 2004).
A CoL is defined as a group of people ‘engaging in
collaborative learning and reflective practice involved
in transformative learning’ (Paloff and Pratt, 2003,
p 17). The main additions and adjustments of this
approach can be expressed as three broad factors.
First, it acknowledges that organizational learning
requires a certain amount of structure if it is to work
effectively and yield the envisaged results. With no
clearly defined boundaries and time limits,
participants may well lack the necessary drive to
participate actively, share their knowledge and expand
their expertise. Second, CoLs incorporate into the
methodology the facilitation of participants by support
staff: this adds another dimension of structure and
support that are of vital importance for organizational
training initiatives. Finally, given the official nature of
such training programmes, any kind of contribution
within the community will automatically be checked
and validated, and this eventually legitimizes all
newly gained knowledge and expertise. Thus different
considerations need to be taken into account when
developing and implementing such a community.
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009

Summarizing these efforts, and acknowledging the
wide range of similarities with CoPs, Amin and Roberts
(2006) have developed a comprehensive overview of
five issues that need to be addressed. First, CoLs should
allow for an open dialogue that is not necessarily
constrained by the borders of the organization. In other
words, they should specifically introduce the
opportunity to engage in discussion with ‘outsiders’,
who will confront participants with an alternative point
of view and challenge them to rethink, or rephrase their
current views. As the IO’s staff must collaborate on a
daily basis with external partners who often have a
different vocabulary and a different approach to
problems and situations, this is also of great importance.
If participants are exposed to the differing views of
colleagues and academic staff, and at the same time are
taught the underlying principles, this can make a
valuable contribution to the overall learning outcomes.
If this aspect were properly incorporated into a CoL,
one would expect to see a high intensity of usage of the
chosen collaborative learning tool. Second, participants
will differ in their level of participation and this
participation will change over the course of the
programme. This is an inherent characteristic of
professional participants, as they will remain a vibrant
part of their working environment during the
programme. Consequently, it is crucial to design a
structure that allows for periods of absence which have
consequences neither for the overall group nor for the
performance of the individual. One solution is to
incorporate collaborative learning tools, such as
asynchronous discussion forums, to cater for this need.
In this context, one would expect to see fluctuating
levels of activity in the discussion forums rather than a
constant level of input. Third, any CoL should provide
both public and private community spaces. The
inclusion of public spaces will facilitate the overall
exchange of knowledge and the creation of a shared
repertoire of common resources and tools. The private
spaces allow for a more social type of communication
between participants, and also between educators and
participants. This creates a degree of ‘commonality’
(Hung and Der-Thanq, 2001) which can help
participants to identify the purpose of the collaboration
(Gannon-Leary and Fontainha, 2007) and to establish
and strengthen personal ties and relations. In either case,
if well received by participants, one would expect that
both types of forums would be actively used, again
reflected in a high intensity of usage of the chosen
collaborative learning tool. Fourth, and very closely
linked to the last issue, Amin and Roberts (2006) point
to the importance of including spaces for informal
discussions, where participants can create an ‘electronic
personality’ (Woods and Ebersole, 2003). This is
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009
Unified in learning – separated by space
comparable to sharing ‘autobiographies’ and engaging
in ‘online socialization’ (Smith, 2001) which generally
takes the form of introducing oneself to the community
and sharing personal information. This process can
contribute substantially to the success of a CoL as it
creates a sense of belonging and trust (Gannon-Leary
and Fontainha, 2007) and encourages participants to feel
comfortable about contributing actively to the CoL.
Similar to expectations for the previous issue, the
importance of including informal discussion spaces
should be supported by a high level of activity within
the chosen collaborative learning tool. Finally,
participants should be challenged by real-life and
current problems. It is the task of the designers to
combine familiar aspects of daily routines with the
challenges of new concepts, theories and mechanisms.
This issue relates to the notion of situated learning
(Hung and Der-Thanq, 2001; Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Moreover, Huang (2002) suggests that this approach is
especially important for adult learners who want to
apply the new knowledge in their working environment
while at the same time linking it to their practical
experience. If the course design is effective in this
respect, one would expect to find a high level of
appreciation for this type of assignment among
participants, as it will assist them in contextualizing
their newly gained knowledge and skills.
In addition, and to some extent following on from the
above, it has proven beneficial to incorporate insights
and findings from the ‘online remedial teaching model’
developed by Rienties et al (2006) (see also Brants and
Struyven, 2009). This model suggests four aspects that
should be taken into account in setting up any type of
online, collaborative learning programme. First,
participants should be able to access information and
actively participate in the programme at any time. This
is of great importance, as it allows participants to access
the learning programme irrespective of time and place.
Secondly, virtual learning environments (VLEs) should
allow for an individualized learning path to cater for
possible differences in participants’ prior knowledge
levels, learning styles and preferences. Third, and in line
with concepts such as ‘social constructivism’
(Vygotsky, 1978) and ‘situated cognition’ (Brown, et al,
1989; Hung and Der-Thanq, 2001), online learning
courses should stimulate interaction between
participants via the intensive use of communication
tools, such as discussion forums, to bridge the
geographical distance between them. Again, this will
not only aid the dialogue between the participants
themselves, but it will also enhance communication
with the academic staff. Finally, students should always
receive rapid feedback. As identified by Vrasidas and
Zembylas (2003), this will both enhance the interaction
333
Unified in learning – separated by space
Table 1. Average number of contributions per type of discussion forum and content.
LC N CF CDF1 CDF2
Public space 12.43 10.43 4.29 4.36
Private space 10.80 47.20 25.33 35.93
Notes: LC=learning community; N=number of participants; CF=informal discussion forum; CDF=content-driven forum. The average
values for ‘Public spaces’ have been calculated so as to correct for the larger number of ‘Private spaces’. The average values for
‘Private spaces’ have been calculated on the basis of fourteen separate ‘learning communities’.
between staff and students in general and increase the
students’ overall performance. However, the initial
set-up of this model was based on the characteristics of
regular students in higher education.
The remainder of this article focuses on how these
methodological considerations have been put into
practice in a global community of learning for a large
international organization. Moreover, by providing
empirical results on the intensity of usage of
collaborative learning tools, such as asynchronous
discussion forums (Table 1), as well as on participants’
perceptions of the quality of the CoL (Table 2), key
elements can be identified for global organizations to
design and implement CoLs effectively for their
international staff.
Method
Setting
The learning programme under examination was
provided for a large international organization and was
implemented from June to December 2007. Its ultimate
objective was to secure the effectiveness of the IO in its
daily practice by enhancing the capacity and skills of its
staff. In addition, as the world is continuously changing
and new analyses and solutions are constantly needed,
the IO wanted to train their middle and senior managers
so that they could operate in this environment. In terms
of content, the learning programme focused on updating
participants’ understanding of new assessments of
familiar problems and on introducing vocabulary and
theories currently used in problem analysis. The
programme adopted a blended learning approach and
was divided into two main phases – e-learning and
face-to-face. This article ignores the face-to-face part
of the programme and concentrates on the e-learning
phase.
Purpose and structure of the e-learning phase
The duration of the e-learning phase was fourteen
weeks. Given the interdisciplinary background of the
participants, its purpose was to impart or refresh basic
knowledge of the programme’s central topics. In this
334
Total
CDF3 CDF4 CDF5 All CF CDF
1.86 0.50 0.43 21.86 10.43 11.43
46.73 42.33 19.60 217.13 47.20 169.93
way it created a ‘level playing field’ for the second
phase, in which the participants faced real challenges
in putting all the aspects into perspective and
implementing them in real-life scenarios. The
introductory stage of the e-learning phase enabled
participants to become accustomed to the structure and
content, as well as the virtual learning environment
(VLE) which hosted all the required activities of the
phase. Familiarity with the virtual environment has been
deemed important by researchers such as Kelly et al
(2007), who identified a lack of experience in using ICT
among adult learners. Additionally, Gannon-Leary and
Fontainha (2007) stipulate that many professionals are
‘strategic users’ of IT: that is, they are very capable of
using standard text-processing and data-processing
packages, but encounter difficulties when working with
more advanced online tools.
Given the above considerations, the e-learning
phase required a VLE that was able not only to host
all the required ‘static’ content materials and
supporting documents, but also to provide an
opportunity for participants to engage in active
discussions, sharing ideas and experiences. As a
result, a Blackboard© powered VLE was chosen,
which encompassed a wide range of characteristics
that would help to foster the crucial elements of an
effectively working community of learning. More
specifically, it allowed participants to complete online
quizzes, providing automatic feedback on the results
(Rienties et al, 2006). Furthermore, Blackboard
incorporates interactive communication tools, such as
asynchronous discussion forums that can contribute
substantially to open dialogue and collaborative work
on real-life cases and tasks irrespective of time and
place. This also allowed for more personal and
informal exchanges between participants (Amin and
Roberts, 2006). The overall workload for participants
was estimated at five hours per week. In general, the
content was oriented towards the five focal areas of
the entire programme. Each area constituted a content
module that comprised lecture(s), readings, quizzes
and task, which were collaboratively solved in online
discussion groups.
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009
 Unified in learning – separated by space

Table 2. Participants’ end evaluation of the e-learning phase.

Domain Question M SD
AS The pre-assessment was a good test to show me what I did and did not know. 5.5 1.69
AS The online assessments during the e-learning phase gave me a good picture of what I still had to study. 5.64 1.33
CD The content of the e-learning phase was inspiring. 5.49 1.62
CD The structure of the e-learning phase was good. 5.44 1.37
CD The content of the e-learning phase was appropriate. 5.31 1.38
CD The e-learning phase was well-organized. 5.18 1.54
CD The time allocated was sufficient to study the subject matter. 3.58 1.88
CD Please provide an overall grade for the quality of the e-learning phase (scale 1–10). 7.07 1.58
CM The quality of the e-learning materials was good. 5.36 1.48
CM The e-learning materials motivated me to keep up with the subject matter. 5.53 1.55
CM The basic reading list helped me to study the content of the e-learning phase. 5.95 1.28
CM The applied reading list helped me to study the content of the e-learning phase. 5.93 1.11
CM The level of the applied reading list was appropriate. 5.55 1.19
CM The applied reading list was too difficult. 4.07 1.69
CM The amount of required reading was too much. 4.61 1.88
CoL I have been encouraged to cooperate more effectively with my colleagues worldwide. 4.86 1.39
CoL It was a nice possibility to meet colleagues from other offices online. 5.02 1.39
CoL I have adjusted my skills to play a more active role within the organization. 5.27 1.55
CoL I am more able to cooperate with other organizations. 5.11 1.57
CoL I am more able to participate in the translation of the organization’s global commitments into effective 5.32 1.60
policies for our clients.
CoL I will get better results in my career. 5.30 1.39
GC The group in which I participated functioned well. 4.59 1.78
GC I think I have learned more during the e-learning phase through collaboration with others than I would 4.66 1.92
have learned, if I had to work alone.
GC I participated actively in the online discussions (within the learning community). 5.16 1.51
GC I think I contributed to the discussions with valuable comments and suggestions for others. 5.09 1.43
GT The goals of the e-learning phase were clear to me. 5.67 0.90
GT It was clear to me what was expected of me during the e-learning phase. 5.36 1.23
GT The assignments/tasks stimulated me to collaborate with the other group members (in the learning 4.67 1.55
community).
GT The assignments/tasks stimulated me to study. 5.76 1.26
IN The academic facilitators were enthusiastic in coaching our learning community. 4.95 1.93
IN I expected the academic facilitators to take a more active role in the learning process. 4.59 2.22
IN The academic facilitators encouraged the participation of all group members in the online group 5.07 1.85
discussions (learning community).
IN The lectures were of good quality. 5.57 1.59
IN The lectures helped me to study the materials. 5.52 1.27
IN Please provide an overall grade for the functioning of the academic e-learning team (scale 1–10). 7.11 1.97
LS The e-learning phase of this learning programme was a valuable learning experience. 6.16 1.36
LS It was fun that I could attend the e-learning phase via the Internet. 4.91 1.69
LS I am satisfied with what I learned in terms of knowledge. 5.60 1.30
LS I am satisfied with what I learned in terms of insights. 5.42 1.51
LS I have improved my evidence-based analysis skills. 5.34 1.16
LS I have learned how to use an evidence-based approach. 4.89 1.65
– On average, how many hours per week did you work on the e-learning phase of this learning 8.20 6.69
programme?

Note: n=89 (51.5%). AS=‘Assessment’; CD=‘Course design’; CM=‘Course material’; CoL=‘Community of learning’; GC=‘Group
collaboration’; GT=‘Goals and tasks’; IN=‘Instruction’; LS=‘Learning satisfaction’.

Online discussion groups. Online discussion groups (2006). The public, programme-wide space facilitated a
were the backbone of the entire e-learning phase and general exchange of knowledge for all participants, and
were divided into a general public space and many involvement in it was voluntary. The private spaces
private spaces, as recommended by Amin and Roberts were made up of fourteen separate ‘learning

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009 335

Unified in learning – separated by space
Figure 1. Example of an asynchronous discussion forum within a learning community.
communities’, each consisting of about twelve
randomly-assigned participants. Both spaces contained
asynchronous discussion forums, in which participants
could openly discuss the content of the modules (see
Figure 1).
In addition, two different types of forums were
available. One specifically focused on group-building
processes and was entitled ‘Café Talk – Personal
Information’. Here, people could introduce themselves,
post pictures and indulge in informal chit-chat (Figure
2). This forum helped to foster the creation of trust and
a ‘common identity’ (Hung and Der-Thanq, 2001;
Woods and Ebersole, 2003). The other was content-
driven: each focal area was assigned an individual
discussion forum, which was based on a practical,
real-life task, taken from the actual working
environment of the participants. The challenge for
participants was to apply the newly-gained knowledge
to the supposedly familiar surroundings. This
constituted a type of ‘neo-apprenticeship style learning’
(Gannon-Leary and Fontainha, 2007), and stimulated
interaction between colleagues from different
backgrounds. Figure 3 provides an overview of what
such discussions looked like and how they evolved. In
this framework, experts were not necessarily defined on
the basis of explicit knowledge but more along the lines
of tenure and tacit knowledge. By providing these
forums, ‘spillover-effects’ (Hung and Der-Thanq, 2001)
336
were created, with more senior staff sharing their
knowledge with junior colleagues and the junior
colleagues introducing new thoughts and ideas to the
organization. To facilitate the discussions, a team of
academic staff was assigned to each learning
community, monitoring discussions and answering
content-related questions. They also acted as ‘sparring
partners’, challenging participants to rethink their
current practices and implement the newly-gained
knowledge in their working environment (Amin and
Roberts, 2006). Involvement in the content-driven
forums was obligatory. The contributions were graded
by the academic staff and accounted for 50% of the final
grade for the e-learning phase. Finally, to accommodate
the busy schedules of the participants and to ensure that
everyone had an opportunity to participate actively in all
discussions, all the forums remained accessible
throughout the entire e-learning phase.
Participants
Two hundred and ten participants from 81 offices
worldwide started the e-learning phase. Unfortunately,
due to unforeseen circumstances and heavy work
schedules, 22 participants (10.48%) had to drop out,
leaving a total of 174 participants who completed the
e-learning phase. The gender distribution of the
remaining group was slightly in favour of females
(52.9%) and the average age was 44.4 years. With
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009
 Unified in learning – separated by space

Figure 2. Example of a ‘Café Talk – Personal Info’ discussion forum within a learning community.
Note: Names have been removed to ensure anonymity.

Figure 3. Example of a content-driven discussion forum within a learning community.

Note: Names have been removed to ensure anonymity.

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009 337

Unified in learning – separated by space
regard to educational background, the majority of the
participants held a Master’s degree (68.2%), 17.3% had
a PhD, 9.2% had a Bachelor’s degree and 5.3% had
other degrees. Their degree subjects included, among
others, Engineering, Health Sciences, Sociology,
International Law and Geography.
Instruments
Expectations and goals before the start of the e-learning
phase. Before the start of the e-learning phase,
participants were asked about their expectations and
goals via an online questionnaire. This instrument was
based on a previous version developed at Maastricht
University (Giesbers et al, 2009; Rienties et al, 2006)
and included some adjustments to fit the context of
working professionals. It comprised 24 questions,
subdivided into four categories, and was administered
with a seven-point Likert scale in which 1 denoted ‘not
true for me at all’ to 7 denoted ‘completely true for me’.
The four categories were identical to those developed
by Rienties et al (2006): ‘Reasons to join the course’
(six questions), ‘Course design’ (four questions),
‘Expectations and goals’ (ten questions) and ‘Group
collaboration’ (four questions). The response rate was
94%. The purpose of this questionnaire was to establish
an overview of the ex-ante situation before the
participants were exposed to the content and structure of
the e-learning phase, including their attitude towards the
scheduled collaborative activities.
Intensity of use of discussion forums. Given the central
role of the online discussion groups and their structural
importance within the methodological framework,
specific attention was paid to the intensity with which
they were used. In the current study, this was measured
by counting the number of contributions to the public
and private discussions forums. The purpose here was
to estimate the extent to which participants openly
discussed content-related topics. Moreover, to
investigate the importance of providing spaces for
informal discussion, the distribution between the
informal and the content-driven forums was
determined.
Satisfaction after the e-learning phase. At the end of
the e-learning phase, participants’ satisfaction was
estimated via another online questionnaire. Like the
pre-course evaluation, this was an adapted version of a
questionnaire specifically developed to evaluate similar
learning initiatives at Maastricht University (Giesbers
et al, 2009; Rienties et al, 2006). The underlying
motivation was to estimate how aspects such as the
quality of the real-life tasks, the facilitation of the
discussion forums and the overall structure of the phase
were perceived by the participants. This provided
338
valuable information to help us determine whether and
to what extent the selected methodological framework
had been effective. There were 42 questions, subdivided
into six categories, and the questionnaire was
administered with a seven-point Likert scale in which 1
denoted ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 denoted ‘strongly
agree’. The six categories were: ‘Assessment’ (two
questions), ‘Course design’ (six questions), ‘Course
material’ (seven questions), ‘Community of learning’
(six questions), ‘Group collaboration’ (four questions),
‘Goals and tasks’ (four questions), ‘Instruction’ (six
questions) and ‘Learning satisfaction’ (six questions). In
addition, participants were asked to indicate the average
number of hours they had spent per week on the
e-learning phase and there was also an open question for
comments. With the exception of ‘Community of
learning’, which was introduced specifically to
investigate the fit of the methodological framework,
these categories were again identical to those of Rienties
et al (2006). The response rate was 51% – this low rate
is likely to have been caused by the short time between
the end of the e-learning phase and the subsequent
residential workshop.
Results
Prior evaluation
Briefly summarizing the main results of the prior
evaluation, it can be stated that the staff of the
international organization participated mainly to fill
gaps in their knowledge and skills. Moreover,
participation also seemed to be related to a desire to
improve career prospects. The participants’ attitudes
towards group collaboration were generally positive, as
they believed they would achieve better results by
working collaboratively than by individual effort. With
regard to the course design, there was a considerable
appreciation that the e-learning phase could be followed
online irrespective of time and place. Overall, then,
these results provide some preliminary evidence that the
chosen structure and methodological framework
constituted a fair representation of what the adult
learners expected and wanted from a virtual community
of learning.
Intensity of use
Table 1 shows the intensity of use of the different types
of discussion forum available to participants. As
indicated in the theoretical section of this article, a high
level of activity in these forums would provide evidence
for the importance of incorporating public and private
spaces, as well as spaces for informal discussion. On
average, 21.86 messages were contributed to the public
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009

forums, compared to 217.13 messages in the private
learning communities. This finding is roughly
comparable to the outcomes noted by Rienties et al
(in press), who conducted a similar study on an online
course in economics for incoming Bachelor’s students
at Maastricht University. The finding also provides a
first indication of the perceived values of the different
types of forum. Although both types were well-received
by the participants and contributed to an open dialogue,
informal communication was more pronounced in the
public spaces. The private learning communities, on
the other hand, were used mainly to engage in content-
driven discussions. Interestingly, there were also
substantial differences in the number of contributions to
the various content-driven forums, with the forums in
focal area three experiencing the highest degree of
participation – this is noteworthy, as these discussions
were mainly active around the middle of the e-learning
phase. Thus it seems that the participatory levels of
individual participants will vary over the course of the
e-learning phase. Similarly, it is interesting to compare
participants’ engagement in the informal discussion
forums, which were designed to stimulate a feeling of
‘commonality’ (Hung and Der-Thanq, 2001), with their
engagement in the content-driven forums, which were
for the discussion of newly-gained knowledge and
aimed to foster a ‘neo-apprenticeship style learning’
(Gannon-Leary and Fontainha, 2007). With the
exception of the public space, where the distribution of
messages was roughly equal between the two types
of forum, the content-driven forums were the centre of
attention in the learning communities. This finding
can be compared with that in a study by Schellens
and Valcke (2005), who conducted a more thorough
content analysis of asynchronous discussion groups
among students of a freshman course in ‘Instructional
Science’. They found a higher proportion of
content-related communication than of informal
discussions.
End evaluation
Table 2 presents the results of the end evaluation.
Overall, on a scale from 1 (‘very bad’) to ‘10’ (very
good), the e-learning phase was positively evaluated, in
terms of both quality (M=7.07, SD=1.58) and
supporting staff (M=7.11, SD=1.97). More specifically,
the results of the category ‘Learning satisfaction’ (LS)
clearly indicate that the participants had a positive
attitude towards the outcomes, indicating that the
e-learning phase had been valuable and had provided
them with a better understanding of new concepts and
methods which they could apply in their work. This
finding is strengthened by the fact that the participants
generally perceived the ‘Course design’ (CD) of the
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009
Unified in learning – separated by space
e-learning phase to be appropriate and this translated
into respectable scores for both its structure and content.
The only noticeable drawback was the amount of time
required to prepare for the programme. In contrast to the
envisaged five hours per week, participants spent on
average eight hours per week on the e-learning phase.
Participants were generally satisfied with the ‘Course
materials’ (CM), but the results for the ‘Community of
learning’ category were more ambiguous. Although the
participants felt that the course would lead to better
career achievements, which was in line with their
expectations prior to the programme, they were only
partially convinced that they would be more able
cooperate effectively with other organizations. And
although the initial evidence is promising, there is still
room for improvement if the CoL is genuinely to
stimulate collaboration among participants from
different offices and regions.
As has been stated, a major objective of the course
was to stimulate active discussion among participants,
leading to a degree of ‘neo-apprenticeship style
learning’ (Gannon-Leary and Fontainha, 2007).
However, judging from the results for the ‘Goals and
tasks’ (GT) category, participants felt only mildly
stimulated to collaborate with their peers in order to
complete the tasks. This finding is supported by
responses to the questions in the ‘Group collaboration’
(GC) category. Although participants had indicated in
their pre-course responses that they expected to learn
collaboratively rather than individually, they were not
convinced that the e-learning phase had fully capitalized
on this aspect and had stimulated them to engage fully
in discussions with their peers. With regard to
‘Instruction’ (IN), the participants were generally
satisfied with the performance of the online facilitators
and appreciated their enthusiasm in supporting them
throughout the discussions. However, they indicated
that the facilitators should have taken a more active role
in the guiding discussions.
Summary and discussion
In this study, the notion of the ‘community of learning’
was used to assess the perceived effectiveness of a
global learning programme. It has been argued, from the
theoretical perspective, that the incorporation of the idea
of communities of learning into an online course will
increase its success. Starting from this perspective and
building on an ‘Online Remedial Teaching Model’, five
key factors were taken into account in organizing the
e-learning phase that were considered important in
stimulating an effective and successful CoL. First, an
open dialogue should be encouraged between all
participating parties. Second, adult learners are likely to
339
Unified in learning – separated by space
exhibit fluctuating levels of participation, due to their
busy work schedules, and an effective CoL should cater
for this. Third, participants should have access to both
public and private spaces. This will facilitate the
creation of a shared repertoire of resources and tools
and will allow participants to develop a degree of
‘commonality’ (Hung and Der-Thanq, 2001). Fourth,
participants need spaces for informal discussion to
create a sense of belonging and trust, which is necessary
if they are to share information and contribute to the
CoL. Finally, and reflecting the concept of ‘situated
learning’, adult learners will benefit greatly from
working on real-life and current problems to which
they can relate.
Overall, the study confirms the importance of those
five factors. Moreover, judging from the evaluation
scores and intensity of use statistics discussed above,
their implementation was successfully accomplished in
this case. The participants clearly indicated that they
had found the programme a valuable learning
experience and that they belived it would assist them in
their future careers. The predominant role of online
discussions and the collaborative work on real-life tasks
were also highly appreciated – providing more evidence
that CoLs provide an effective means for international
organizations to engage their staff in training initiatives
and capacity building activities.
On the other hand, two findings indicate the need for
some critical adjustments. First, the actual workload and
the time required to complete all the activities were
underestimated. This created difficulties for participants
in preparing for activities and finding the time to
contribute actively to the discussions. One possible
solution is to inform the participants’ supervisors more
fully about the dimensions of the learning programme,
so that participants are better able to combine their
studies with their regular work obligations.
Alternatively, the content of the course could be
reviewed to reduce its coverage – but this would
probably have a negative impact on its quality, which
would not be in anyone’s interest.
The second area for improvement relates to the
facilitation of the discussion forums. Although online
facilitators received positive scores, participants
indicated that they should have taken a more active
role in the learning process. There is also room for
improvement in stimulating participants to collaborate
fully with their colleagues in the forums. On one hand,
this could be achieved by adjusting the real-life tasks
such that collaboration was more necessary. At the same
time, online facilitators could be instructed to become
more proactive, effectively stimulating discussions and
encouraging participants to exchange their views and
ideas on various topics.
340
Limitations and future research
This study has three main shortcomings that should be
taken into account when interpreting the data and
drawing conclusions for the validity of the theoretical
framework of communities of learning. First, the
analysis is descriptive and is based largely on the
subjective perceptions of participants about content,
structure and outcomes. Although this certainly provides
a valuable first impression, it captures only part of the
picture. Moreover, the completion rate of the end-of-
course questionnaire was rather low, and this makes it
more difficult to generalize the findings over the entire
experimental population. Similarly, the majority of
the evaluation scores show considerable standard
deviations, which again pose difficulties in interpreting
the results. However, based on confirmatory Cronbach
alphas, the conclusions drawn from the data can
nevertheless be considered as representative.
Second, this study focuses on the e-learning phase
and does not consider any data from the face-to-face
workshop or the overall results of the global learning
programme. Thus the picture is not a complete one and
certain aspects may be neglected that would have
become apparent only at a later stage. In addition, the
learning programme was also provided in 2006 and
again in 2009. It would be interesting to compare the
three cohorts and their respective evaluations and thus
to ascertain whether there any significant differences
between them.
Third, in trying to assess the empirical relevance
of ‘open dialogue’, ‘public and private spaces’ and
‘informal discussions’, once again only descriptive
data were used. Thus, while establishing a first
understanding of the general validity of the concepts,
a more thorough investigation is needed. Future
research should employ a more detailed multi-method
approach to analyse the structure and dynamics of
the private learning communities and how these
might have an impact on the learning outcomes.
More specifically, by employing both Social Network
Analysis (see, for example, De Laat et al, 2007) and
Cognitive Presence studies (Garrison et al, 1999;
Schellens and Valcke, 2005), valuable insights could
be gathered on how organizational structures affect
the group dynamics and outcomes of professional
communities of learning. In relation to ‘neo-
apprenticeship style learning’, this would not only
provide opportunities for organizations to capitalize
more fully on their internal stock of practical experience
and tacit knowledge, but would also help towards a
better understanding of how to compose learning
communities that will achieve the highest possible
learning outcomes.
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009

References
Allan, B., and Lewis, D. (2006), ‘The impact of membership of a
virtual learning community on individual learning careers and
professional identity’, British Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol 37, No 6, pp 841–852.
Amin, A., and Roberts, J. (2006), ‘Communities of practice:
varieties of situated learning’, paper prepared for the EU
Network of Excellence: Dynamics of Institutions and Markets
in Europe (DIME), http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/
Amin_Roberts.pdf, accessed 18 February 2008.
Bassi, L., Cheney, S., and Lewis, E. (1998), ‘Trends in
workplace learning: supply and demand in interesting times’,
Training & Development, Vol 51, No 11, pp 156–165.
Bernard, R.M., Rojo de Rubalcava, B., and St-Pierre, D. (2000),
‘Collaborative online distance learning: issues for future
practice and research’, Distance Education, Vol 21, No 2,
pp 260–277.
Billet, S. (1996), ‘Situated learning: bridging sociocultural and
cognitive theorising’, Learning and Instruction, Vol 6,
pp 263–289.
Brants, L. and Struyven, K. (2009), ‘Literature review of online
remedial education: a European perspective’, Industry and
Higher Education, Vol 23, No 4, pp 269–275.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989), ‘Situated
cognition and the culture of learning’, Educational
Researcher, Vol 18, No 1, pp 32–42.
Chalmers, L., and Keown, P. (2006), ‘Communities of practice
and professional development’, International Journal of
Lifelong Education, Vol 25, No 2, pp 139–156.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1996), ‘The kindness of
strangers: the usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical
advice’, Organization Science, Vol 7, No 2, pp 119–135.
Cousin, G., and Deepwell, F. (2005), ‘Designs for network
learning: a communities of practice perspective’, Studies in
Higher Education, Vol 30, No 1, pp 57–66.
De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., and Simons, R.-J. (2007),
‘Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning
and computer-supported collaborative learning: a role for
Social Network Analysis’, Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, Vol 2, pp 87–103.
Fowler, C.J.H., and Mayes, J.T. (1999), ‘Learning relationships
from theory to design’, ALT-J, Vol 7, No 3, pp 6–16.
Fox, S. (2000), ‘Communities of practice, Foucault and
actor-network theory’, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol 37, No 6, pp 853–867.
Gannon-Leary, P., and Fontainha, E. (2007), ‘Communities of
practice and virtual learning communities: benefits, barriers
and success factors’, eLearning Papers, No 5, September.
Garrison, D., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (1999), ‘Critical
inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing
in higher education’, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol
2, No 2–3, pp 87–105.
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Gijselaers, W.H., Segers, M., and
Tempelaar, D.T. (2009), ‘Social presence, Web
videoconferencing and learning in virtual teams’, Industry
and Higher Education, Vol 23, No 4, pp 301–309.
Hara, N., Bonk, C.J., and Angeli, C. (2000), ‘Content analysis of
online discussion in an applied educational psychology
course’, Instructional Science, Vol 28, No 2, pp 115–152.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2001), ‘Exploring multiplexity: social
network structures in a computer-supported distance
learning class’, Information Society, Vol 17, No 3,
pp 211–226.
Huang, H.-M. (2002), ‘Toward constructivism for adult learners in
online learning environments’, British Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol 33, No 1, pp 27–37.
Hung, D.W.L., and Der-Thanq, C. (2001), ‘Situated cognition,
Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of
practice perspective: implications for the design of
Web-based learning’, Educational Media International,
Vol 38, No 1, pp 3–12.
INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2009
Unified in learning – separated by space
Kelly, P., Gale, K., Wheeler, S., and Tucker, V. (2007), ‘Taking a
stance: promoting deliberate action through online
postgraduate professional development’, Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, Vol 16, No 2, pp 153–176.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Lewis, D., and Allan, B. (2004), Virtual Learning Communities,
Open University, Maidenhead.
Moule, P. (2006), ‘Developing the communities of practice:
framework for on-line learning’, Electronic Journal of
e-Learning, Vol 4, No 2.
Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Oren, A., and Ram, J. (2000),
‘Web-supported emergent-collaboration in higher education
courses’, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, Vol 3,
No 3, pp 94–104.
Paloff, R., and Pratt, K. (2003), The Virtual Student: a Profile
and Guide to Working with Online Learners, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D.T., Waterval, D., Rehm, M., and
Gijselaers, W.H. (2006), ‘Remedial online teaching on a
summer course’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 20,
No 5, pp 327–336.
Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D.T., Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers,
W.H., and Segers, M. (in press), ‘The role of academic
motivation in computer supported collaborative learning’,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 23, No 4.
Savery, J.R., and Duffy, T.M. (1995), ‘Problem based learning:
an instructional model and its constructivist framework’,
Educational Technology, Vol 35, pp 31–38.
Schellens, T., and Valcke, M. (2005), ‘Collaborative learning in
asynchronous discussion groups: what about the impact on
cognitive processing?’, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol 21, No 6, pp 957–975.
Schlager, M., Fusco, J., and Schank, P. (2002), ‘Evolution of an
online education community of practice’, in Renninger, K.A.,
and Shumar, W., eds, Building virtual communities: Learning
and Change in Cyberspace, Cambridge University Press,
New York, pp 129–158.
Schwen, T.M., and Hara, N. (2003), ‘Community of practice: a
metaphor for online design’, The Information Society, Vol 19,
No 3, pp 257–270.
Smith, P.J. (2001), ‘Enhancing flexible business training through
computer-mediated communication’, Industrial & Commercial
Training, Vol 33, No 4, pp 120–125.
Stacey, E., Smith, P.J., and Barty, K. (2004), ‘Adult learners in
the workplace: online learning and communities of practice’,
Distance Education, Vol 25, No 1, pp 107–123.
Swan, J.A., Scarbrough, H., and Robertson, M. (2002), ‘The
construction of ‘‘communities of practice’’ in the management
of innovation’, Management Learning, Vol 33, No 4,
pp 477–496.
Vrasidas, C., and Zembylas, M. (2003), ‘The nature of
technology-mediated interaction in globalised distance
education’, International Journal of Training and
Development, Vol 7, No 4, pp 271–286.
Vygotksy, L. (1978), Mind in Society, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Wenger, E. (1998), ‘Communities of practice: learning as a
social system’, The Systems Thinker, Vol 9, No 5.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W.M. (2002),
Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Woods, R., and Ebersole, S. (2003), ‘Becoming a ‘‘Communal
Architect’’ in the online classroom - integrating cognitive and
affective learning for maximum effect in Web-based learning’,
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Vol 6,
No 1.
The author would like to thank Bas Giesbers for his comments
and feedback on earlier versions of this article.
341