6. DISCUSSION (continues)

Let us begin the discussion from the perspective of a researcher. As researchers our focus is, on the one hand, on the concept of web literacy and its definitions, and on the other hand, on the pedagogical approach chosen for this study. Furthermore, we want to state some areas in need for further study and spend some time assessing the learning space itself.

Earlier research on web literacy offered us a good starting point, but there was no one definition suitable for our purposes. Web literacy being a novel term to begin with, the literature and research dealing with the topic overwhelmed us with the various definitions and terminology used when describing the one and same phenomenon. Besides web literacy, terms such as Internet literacy, electronic literacy, hypermedia literacy, technological literacy and information literacy were used to describe literacies related to the web, not to mention the terminology of the many "subliteracies" of web literacy, such as visual literacy and hypertext literacy. Although examining the topic from slightly different perspectives, all the definitions and studies were related to what literacy means when the web is the medium, yet they usually referred to the Internet as a whole including also the other services besides the web. What was also somewhat confusing was that even the term web literacy was sometimes used to cover the whole of the Internet. Since web literacy in research was defined according to the specific goals and context of each research, we did not consider any of the definitions suitable as such, but saw the need to form a definition suitable for our goals and purposes.

The choices we made concerning previous literature in this study can be supported by the following arguments. Firstly, we focused on research and literature from various contexts and socio-historical situations. This is because we wanted to build a definition that has not only the perspective of the Finnish society. For even though Netro is built and tested in the context of the University of Jyväskylä in Finland, it is important to broaden the perspective of web literacy, as the web is probably the most international medium so far. Secondly, the research and literature give depth to the concept for the different focuses they have. For awareness raising purposes we needed to cover as many areas attached to the term as possible, and tried to categorise the literature and definitions available in order to form a general field of various aspects related to web literacy.

If we now move on to our definition of web literacy (ch 2.3), the three categories in which we divided web literacy worked well for our purposes. Our definition places an emphasis on the content knowledge, that is, the knowledge of the medium, as well as on the metacognitive side of web literacy. In this way the definition does not necessarily reject any of the other definitions offered, yet, it focuses on the individual web readers' and writers' awareness of their actions. In other words, we believe that in all the definitions introduced in Table 1 many of the metacognitive aspects of web literacy are integrated in the concept, however, they are not articulated that explicitly.

The broadness of the definition can naturally be criticised, for it prevented us from elaborating in more detail on any aspects related to web literacy, and forced us to make choices of including some aspects of web literacy in Netro in the expense of others. For instance, the multimodal aspects of the web were examined merely from the point of view of the visual mode, and the linguistic mode did not receive the attention it might have deserved. The assumption behind this choice was that even though the linguistic mode is a very challenging field of study as such, the field of reading images is less familiar to the learners. Thus, the focus is on raising the learners' awareness on a less elaborated mode.

Another weakness that might be pointed out in our definition is the insufficiency of critical attitude towards the web. It is not completely neglected; yet, a more articulated and deeper elaboration on, for instance, cultural and ideological issues could still improve our understanding of the concept. However, even though we do not focus on critical literacy that explicitly, it can be seen as underlying all of the definition. What we argue is that the shift from skills to content knowledge and metacognitive knowledge discussed in chapter 2.3 can be seen as facilitating a more critical attitude towards the web. For when you know a lot about the medium and are able to understand the meaning making processes through which you operate in that medium, you are more likely to evaluate the web content in more detail.

In addition to the literacy definitions, the pedagogical approach discussed in chapter 3 also requires further commenting. Salmon's (2002a) planets offer a clear starting point for pedagogical thinking. Through this simple metaphor of a planet, it is easier to narrow down the learning related theories and find the ones most applicable for the particular purposes. However, we do not want to simplify the pedagogical premises too much and it needs to be highlighted that from the point of view of research on learning there are still many questions that remain unanswered. In the scope of this study we mainly discuss the aspects of web literacy being taught on-line through the meaning making processes.

The pedagogy behind Netro is very challenging. Supporting awareness raising processes is difficult, so is measuring awareness. In the scope of this study we can only assume that something happened during the process. The forms used in the pilot, as has already been said, also give us a direction towards which Netro took this specific group of passengers. Another group of students, in another time and place, might have focused on very different aspects of web literacy. An interesting topic for further study, thus, would be a stricter measuring of individual changes in awareness in such knowledge building processes. In other words, what the "by-product" of participating in a knowledge building community is. Another aspect that needs consideration is the level of cognitive skills that a passenger has in the beginning of the course. We cannot assume that every passenger has the capacity for self-reflective thinking and has the level of self-directivity Netro requires. During one month, this development is naturally not that considerable. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that Netro does not necessarily support the metacognitive knowledge building of every learner, but a certain level of self-reflectivity is required from the learners.

Also a challenge when thinking about awareness raising on web related issues is the diversity of the prior knowledge of the Netro group. However, this can be seen as a strength. For in collaborative knowledge building processes, the various expertise can be seen as supporting the shared knowledge building process and the learners scaffolding each others on different aspects of web literacy. As to the collaborative knowledge building processes, we argue that at least in the scope of the aims of our learning space, Scardamalia and Bereiter 's (1994,1999) approach seems to function. The aim of producing new knowledge on web literacy can be supported by the fact that the concept of web literacy, and what it demands from web readers and writers, is still rather vague, even among the researchers. Thus, it is quite natural to assume that the learners' conceptions of the web might be even less clear. Therefore, new knowledge is needed. In Netro there is at least a possibility of meaning making through both merely engaging in working on-line (see eg. Warschauer 1999) as well as through shared reflections with the Netro group.

Even though the main pedagogical idea behind Netro is grounded on various theories and pedagogical thinking, there are questions that need further attention. For instance, the aspects of collaboration on-line need further focus. Studies on how technology supports collaboration and the roles of learners and teachers in this process also need to be discussed in more detail. In addition, for instance, accessibility and usability of the learning space might also have deserved more focal attention in an action research such as the creation of Netro.

When thinking about the choices we made in the process of this action research some comments need to be made. It is very challenging to take the role of an educator in today's society and to attempt to grasp such an up-to-date topic as web literacy. What we learned in the process is that more time in the grounding work might have improved the outcome. There seems to be a tendency of only at the very end of the process to see how it should have been done in the first place. Yet, the multi-dimensionality of Netro challenged us again and again and kept us engaged in the process. However, we admit that we took a clear risk when deciding to create Netro from scratch. A more practical procedure might have been to first build smaller tasks and test their usability, focus first on the smaller scale functions and only after this broaden the scope of the study. Luckily, and possibly resulting from the happy collaboration in which we often questioned and criticised each others thoughts and ideas, most of the problems were noticed before it was too late to overcome them. The result, thus, is actually much more than the sum of our individual work.

As teacher-researchers the process of creating such an electronic learning space as Netro changes the understanding of the profession. The span from planning to implementing and piloting the learning phase to finally reflecting on the results is an action research as such. Furthermore, it requires various competences varying from html language to communication skills in interdisciplinary teams and creative pedagogical thinking. To support the future endeavours of other colleagues, we will now comment on all the phases of this process in more detail.

The planning phase requires a creation of a strict framework to begin with. The needs of the target group of the learning space need to be assessed, so do the objectives of the space itself. To produce such learning space as Netro from scratch is time consuming and requires a lot of support, both technical and financial, notwithstanding the support needed in theory building and critical thinking. It is important to consider how adaptable the learning space is and whether the production is worth the time and money spent, that is, what kinds of additional value the learning space offers to the organisation, to its teachers, and students. In Netro's case, we saw a clear need to build an independent module to support the teaching of web literacy related topics, as well as to support and update the content of the existing language and communication courses at the language centre. Netro offers a chance for collaborative knowledge building, sharing of ideas and thoughts related to web literacy. It remains to be seen how the Language Centre uses this additional tool. In the planning phase of Netro we already wanted to create a learning space which could be easily integrated into any language course. To mention a few possibilities of using Netro, many of the Phases can be used independently, and the Bank as such is an independent source of information. Furthermore, by merely changing the web material used in the activities from English to, for instance, Swedish or Spanish, the learning space also facilitates the development of language skills other than English.

The realisation of the plans is the next step in the process. A good concise metaphor is a useful tool and helps both in creation of the learning space as well as in its use. In addition, it gives shape to the learning space and enables the use of imagery and terminology to support your purposes. For instance, the creation of Tuomas brought life and character in the Netro vehicle, yet, he is not just a picture, but has a clear role and purpose in the learning space. Tuomas is a guide, not an authority and helps in creating a more personal and relaxed atmosphere in the learning space, which then again may result in a more open and relaxed discussion. Tuomas can be seen to scaffold the learning process. He also functioned as our alter ego as we communicated in the learning space only through Tuomas.

Technology naturally sets some boundaries, but we encourage teachers to use their imagination when planning electronic learning environments. As we both are skilled users of html editors and graphics software, we only needed support in the creation of the poll tasks and other more sophisticated applications. Naturally, it is often a question of technical skills, but if support is available, exceed your skills and challenge your thinking. For the multimodal possibilities of the medium should not be neglected. In the case of Netro, it was important to build a learning space in which the characteristics of the medium would be well presented. However, at least in our case, there came a need for compromising, as we disagreed with the technical support on how far, for instance, the technical realisations of the activities should be developed. We once more want to stress the importance of a clear pedagogy behind the learning environment. The technology should naturally support this pedagogy, not the other way around.

The test drive phase of the process revealed how well the whole of the learning space functions as a unit, and gave us the opportunity to focus also on the individual tasks. We want to emphasise that the tutor's role in facilitating and administrating the course is not an easy one. A learner contract with the number and depth of learner contributions is needed to set the ground rules for communication on-line. Also, the importance of all contributions and active engagement needs to be stressed. In our test drive we made the conscious choice of not getting involved in the discussion, for we wanted to find out how well the learning space itself functions and supports the knowledge building processes. Naturally, the tutor's voice at more active presence in the learning space at times might improve the depth of reflection to an extent. By interfering in the process, we, however, would not have been able to see how much support is actually needed and what the weaknesses of the learning space are. We regard the teacher's role in collaborative knowledge construction significant, and emphasise the need for the teacher to engage in the discussion, not only as an administrator but also as a reflective expert on the subject matter itself.

Finally, there would be a lot that needs to be said about the learning space itself. We commented on the success of the various activities already in chapter 4.4.3 as we introduced the structure of the Path section of the learning space in detail. As the form of activities varies to an extent, it would also be interesting to find out more about the learner preferences and to see which on-line activities were seen as user-friendly and why. Of importance is also whether the navigation possibilities Netro offers and the metaphor of travelling helped the passengers during the course. We included an electronic form at the very end of the Netro Path, in which we asked about the functions of the learning space. To give a concise report on the data does not, however, fit in the scope of this study.

To sum up, when thinking about teaching in an electronic environment, Netro's success is in the attempt itself. As has already been said, the design and procedure of this study illustrates the diverse roles of a teacher in today's society. And the process can actually be viewed from the perspective of the pedagogical thinking on which the learning space itself is built. While creating Netro we have become more legitimate members (see Lave and Wenger 1991) of a collaborative knowledge building community (see Scardamalia and Bereiter 1994, 1999), as we have had the opportunity work in the context of University Language Centre and to participate in its development discourse. Through this membership, and within this context, we have had the opportunity for a meaning making process of our own. We started from the Available Designs, from existing concepts on web literacy and learning on-line, and on the basis of our own prior knowledge and constructions, Designed what can now be seen as the Redesigned, our understanding of how web literacy can be approached as both autonomy development and knowledge construction (see the New London Group 2000). As by-products of this process, we have gained new skills in the area of what Warschauer (1999:8) calls multimedia interpreting and authoring, in other words, reading and writing on the web. We have learned a lot about the medium itself and about meaning making processes on the web and elsewhere.