Introduction
The dynamic development of digital technologies, the collaborative web, mobile devices and, more recently, artificial intelligence are bringing major changes to all areas of life, including education. The evolution of technology and new social conditions, creating phenomena such as the pandemic and the need to include all social groups in lifelong education, lead educational institutions to incorporate e-learning curricula as an alternative or main mode of teaching (Anastasiadis, 2020). E-learning is not simply learning with the help of the internet and new technologies. It is a broader concept, as it takes advantage of the benefits of distance education (e-learning) and incorporates pedagogical student-centred learning theories (Al-Azawei et al., 2016). Many instructional design models have been developed to support e-learning. Salmon's e-mediating model (or otherwise, five-stage model) is prominent mainly for the ease and clarity of application of its theoretical principles. This model focusses on the construction of knowledge through the gradual development of socialisation (Tzimogiannis, 2017).
The importance of socialisation in e-learning
Socialisation is a critical factor in knowledge creation (Bonafini et al., 2017) and in improving educational effectiveness in e-learning environments (Filippousis & Anastasiadis, 2019). Learning in groups is necessary for learners' communication, especially in distance education, being an important teaching practice that enhances their active participation in the educational process. It is important to overcome the feelings of loneliness and isolation that learners feel due to geographical distance and to increase learning motivation. Groups of people who communicate and support each other, who develop bonds and friendships that encourage each other, have a greater chance of success and completion of studies. Socialisation is therefore initially crucial to create a group, to develop relationships, exchange views, and create a climate of trust, communication, meaningful collaboration and a sense of community (Bofiliou, 2013). It then becomes more critical as a concept to achieve more qualitative and democratic discussions through members' reflections, sharing sources of knowledge and experiences, to increase learners' autonomy and self-regulation of personal time (Niari & Manousou, 2015).
However, the development of socialisation is most of the time not an easy task nor is it self-evident because the learning environments simply allow it (Panselinas, 2002). From the outset, not all learners will show the same willingness to interact and participate in the learning process and discussions. A percentage of learners will actively participate while another percentage will have trouble communicating either with the teacher or with other learners.
In any case, the teacher is a key factor in the cultivation of the social presence of the learners. As the person in charge of instructional design, he/she must intervene appropriately to create a discussion that engages all learners in the search and creation of knowledge and the cultivation of skills. In addition, practices such as interesting activities formulated with clear instructions both in the preparation and in the way of evaluation, proper organisation of discussion topics that facilitate the finding of information and answers (Mokoena, 2013), and regular feedback help to make discussions functional. Finally, the collaborative tools offered by the web facilitate the development of socialisation. The use of ICT tools enables the creation of groups through synchronous and asynchronous communication platforms (chat, forums, etc.), as well as the possibility of collaboration by posting on collaborative walls and collaborative documents (Johnson, 2017).
The ‘e-mediating’ or otherwise ‘five-stage’ instructional design model for e-learning focusses on the construction of knowledge through the gradual development of socialisation. But how does it do this? What is its structure and the teaching and learning principles on which it is based? What are its strengths? What are its weaknesses? What are the challenges it faces in terms of constructing knowledge through students' interaction and socialisation? The next section addresses the above in order to justify the need for our study.
The e-mediating model
Salmon's five-stage model belongs to the contextualised theories of learning approach (2011, 2012) and proposes an integrated model of e-learning organisation in five different phases involving individual and collaborative actions (Figure 1). The five main stages of the model are given below:
Stage 1: Access and motivation (Access-motivation)
The trainees come into contact for the first time with the online learning environment, are introduced to the platform, and become familiar with the online tools for the organisation and use of the space in order to deal with any difficulties related to the technological equipment.
Stage 2: Online socialisation (Online socialisation)
This stage builds the foundation for the online group, builds emotional bonds and introduces the exchange of views through dialogue. In essence, at this stage learners find other learners to learn together.
Stage 3: Information exchange
At this stage, learners met the learning material through well designed learning activities (e-tivities) and exchange information with their co-learners. By e-tivities Salmon (2012) refers to small online activities that start with challenges (sparks) and support learners in mastering the expected knowledge, attitudes and skills in an organised manner.
Stage 4: Knowledge construction
At this stage, knowledge is constructed through the cooperation of learners. Learners work in working groups on joint activities towards a common goal. Group activities based on real-life scenarios are proposed.
Stage 5: Development
In the last stage, the learners form a single discussion group (community). Learning is now at a high level and the learners have been transformed into competent reflectors. Going back to the starting point of the initial knowledge and looking at their overall progress in the training process, they move forward in integrating their online experience into daily practice and outside the training context.
In e-learning courses where there is no face-to-face communication, interaction between participants is not an easy task. The key to success in overcoming this obstacle is well-designed learning activities (e-tivities) (Salmon, 2012). Depending on the stage of the model, e-tivities can change in number, form and serve different sub-objectives beyond that of interaction and discussion development. To this end, they should be as creative as possible to stimulate interest, increase motivation, challenge learners mentally and intellectually and lead them to a smooth transition from one stage to the next (Downing et al., 2007).
Globally, the five-stage model has been described as a successful model for designing and implementing blended or asynchronous e-learning courses in terms of the learning experience and achievement of the expected outcomes sought by all participants (learners, trainers and organisations) (Chowcat, 2005; Lisewski & Joyce, 2003; Moule, 2007). Lisewski & Joyce (2003) in their research point out its wider application to a multitude of different subjects and topics. At the same time, the model brings together in its strengths all the advantages of e-learning. It overcomes geographical challenges, time constraints and limited resources. It also enables learners to overcome factors such as nationalities, stereotypes and social situations that hinder interaction, as it embraces diversity and interculturalism in learning. In fact, according to its creator, this diversity of members is the condition that ensures the success of this scheme, especially in stage 2, to ensure social presence, meaningful dialogue and the exchange and creation of new knowledge through socialisation. Jones & Peachey (2005) in their study observed a correlation between learning and learners' interaction and admitted that the stages of the model did indeed achieve the cultivation of dialogue through activities (e-tivities) as proposed by Salmon. In Greece, similar recent case studies on the implementation and evaluation of the model also observed strong evidence of knowledge development despite the difficulty of students to express their feelings and ideas (Zalavra & Papanikolaou, 2015). In MOOC-designed teacher-training courses, applying Salmon's model, participating teachers showed high individual engagement as well as the cultivation of social skills such as mutual support and collaboration with other members (Koukis & Jimoyiannis, 2017). In Barcelona, Bermejo (2005) studied students' participation and performance in five-stage designed courses. In his conclusions, he reported evidence of increased social presence and superior process skills of thought building. Kovacic et al. (2008), in research on teaching English as a second language, examined the cultivation of social presence through e-tivities implemented in Wikis. The results of the research were encouraging, with evidence of developing social presence leading to creative and deeper engagement of students who improved their capacity for reflection. Rusmetova (2018), in an attempt to apply the model to blended learning, specifically with stages 1 and 2 being conducted asynchronously through forum postings and stages 3 and 4 e-tivities taking place in face-to-face teaching and also through a platform, observed satisfactory interaction and increased active participation and satisfaction from both teachers and learners in both face-to-face and asynchronous teaching.
In addition, Chowcat (2005), among the strengths of the model, cites that the model is a very good guide to a learner-centred approach whose educational pathway is directly related to practice and experience. However, he found the model ineffective when he used it in mixed manager training in the UK. In his research, he described the model as only applicable for asynchronous teaching and emphasised the fact that it ignores the personal pace and style of each trainee. Similar conclusions were reached by Lisewski & Joyce (2003), who observed difficulties and problems in its application as it does not take into account the different learning styles and learning needs of the learners, and Moule (2007), who found it inapplicable in synchronous communication situations and in different pedagogical approaches and teaching theories other than social constructivism. He too agrees that not all learners display the same learning ability, namely within a group through cooperation and interaction. Tzimogiannis (2017) further adds that community building requires learners with high levels of autonomy and developed cognitive and digital skills, making the model difficult to apply at levels lower than that of higher education and adult education. Finally, Jones and Peachey (2005), in their related research, focussed mainly on studying the socialisation of the students through messaging and forum postings. Although the results of their research were encouraging in terms of the development of participants' socialisation, they described stage 2 of the model as problematic as well as redundant. Socialisation in stage 2, according to their findings, was very little compared to stage 1, and messages between them were scarce. The researchers attribute this conclusion to the organised design of stage 1, as in their case, they applied synchronous face-to-face teaching and their trainees had already got to know each other well and socialised. The interaction of community members and community building eventually led to knowledge building as Salmon argues, so the research was ‘successful’ in this direction, but they could certainly not attribute it solely to the model itself or to the fact that the research involved highly qualified and highly skilled participants, and therefore capable of team building.
Salmon (2012), on the other hand, argues that the model is an opportunity for the teacher to become inventive (especially in stage 3, where most information is given) and to use different teaching methods for different learning styles through well-structured online activities. He points out that the teachers' ally in this direction is technology and the tools of the World Wide Web. She also explains that the model, because of its format, allows the learner to learn at his or her own pace but through collaboration and dialogue. As for the criticisms of the model that it is only applicable to asynchronous courses, she replies that even in its initial application to exclusively asynchronous teaching, she herself, in cases where she found that students were experiencing difficulties or were concerned about something, would get in touch with them by telephone or even arrange face-to-face meetings with them when possible. Nevertheless, she admits that the framework of the model needs to be ‘modernised’ to today's technological tools and to the new needs of the educational community and learners. To this end, ‘transferring the model to today’, after the pandemic, she has successfully designed and implemented the model in workshops with a combination of asynchronous and face-to-face teaching using new technologies (Salmon, 2022).
It is in the context of all the above considerations and the ambiguous research findings on the effectiveness of the model in terms of knowledge creation through socialisation and learners' interaction that this research focusses. This research, aiming to study the mechanisms that contribute to the effectiveness of the model, focusses on the study of socialisation as it develops during its implementation in a digital literacy teacher-training course. What happens to the development of socialisation during the transition from one stage of the model to another? While Salmon argues for a gradual increase in socialisation, in Jones and Peachey's (2005) study, socialisation decreased in stage 2 only to increase again afterwards in stages 3, 4 and 5. The answer to this question can only influence the educational design of training courses.
Aim and Research Question
This study aims to capture the socialisation as it develops in an asynchronous teacher training course in Digital Literacy, designed and implemented based on the five-stage (e-mediating) model.
In particular, the research question of this study is as follows:
Where and in what ways is the socialisation of the trainees captured during the implementation of the five stages of this training course? To that end, the study investigates:
(a) the development or not of socialisation and
(b) at which stage (when), in which tool (where) and with which messages/posts (how), it occurred.
The answer to the above questions will help:
(a) investigate what helps and what hinders socialisation development and
(b) evaluate the e-mediating model in terms of educational design and implementation, in a context similar to that of our study.
Method
This case study was designed for a distance asynchronous digital literacy training course for teachers serving in the Crete prefecture, Greece. The Moodle platform was used to implement the course. The training course took place during the first semester of the school year 2023–2024 (23 October–18 December 2023) and lasted a total of 8 weeks. In the first phase, a needs assessment of the trainees' needs was carried out with a preference form created for the needs of the seminars. Then the preferences of the trainees were analysed and the topics of the training course were derived. The educational design of the training course followed the e-mediating model (Salmon, 2011). Our study focussed on evaluating the effectiveness of the electronic mediation model in capturing the socialisation and metacognition of the trainees through the messages exchanged by the trainees throughout the course of the seminar. The timeline of the seminar is detailed in Table 1:
Table 1.
Timetable of the online training course
| Month/Day | Week | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | Saturday | Sunday | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| October | 1st | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Stage 1 |
| 2nd | 30 | 31 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| November | 3rd | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Stage 2 |
| 4th | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | Stage 3 | |
| 5th | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ||
| 6th | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | Stage 4 | |
| December | 7th | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Stage 5 |
| 8th | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
Digital means of capturing socialisation
To capture socialisation, all messages from the Moodle platform forum, Viber, Google Docs collaborative documents and finally Padlet were first collected and transcribed into text files by e-tivity and stage of the model and by tool in order to be categorised.
Messages on the Moodle platform
In the Moodle platform, the forum was used several times as a tool for learners' interaction. As messages for detecting the socialisation of the trainees, all the posts of the trainees and all the responses of the trainees to the posts of others for each e-tivity and for each stage of the model were collected and transcribed into text files.
Messages in the Viber app
From the first day of the seminar, a Viber group was created for direct communication between the trainer and the trainees. However, for the needs of the last e-tivity in stage 3, the trainees expressed the wish to create smaller groups for its development. Therefore, in addition to the initial group, which had all the participants inside, four other groups of five members were created. In all the groups, the administrator was the teacher. To collect the survey data, both the messages from the beginning of the seminar to the end in the initial total group and in the smaller groups formed later were collected and transcribed into text files. The messages were collected and categorised according to their content and the stage they were addressed to.
Messages in Google Docs
Learners were asked to collaborate using the collaborative Google Docs documents in some e-tivities. In this case, all the learners' comments on the activity within each document were collected and transcribed into text files for content analysis.
Messages in the Padlet
The Padlet collaborative wall was used only in the last stage of the model for the online activity 5.1. For the evaluation of socialisation in stage 5, all responses and comments of the learners to other learners' posts were considered as messages and were collected and transcribed into text files.
The categorisation of messages
The material to be analysed to detect socialisation was in the form of messages transcribed into text files. More specifically, the messages were analysed using content analysis techniques and categorised in the same way as they were categorised in Jones & Peachey's (2005) research:
Messages to the e-moderator (messages to the trainer)
On-task messages (messages related to online activities)
Off-task messages (messages from non-e-tivity-related discussions and messages of a purely social nature). This category includes messages from discussions that were not directly related to e-tivity, as well as the social messages of the Jones & Peachey (2005) survey.
The messages in the third category are of particular value (Jones & Peachey, 2005) as evidence of the socialisation of learners. To this end, off-task messages were counted for each e-tivity and for each stage of the model. Their number was recorded on separate worksheets (a different worksheet for each stage of the model) in an Excel file compared to the others. In this way, it was possible to investigate in which e-tivity, at which stage, in which tool and with which messages/posts more or less socialisation was captured in order to answer the research question. The data were then analysed, percentages calculated and graphs plotted. In addition, representative messages for each stage of the model and for each e-tivity and tool are listed in the Results section.
Validity and Reliability
To ensure the validity and reliability of the data analysis, part of the messages were categorised independently by the analyst-trainer after being given the definitions of concepts and categories of the theoretical and methodological framework. The categorisation match rate was in the range of 92%.
Results
The results of the content analysis of the messages exchanged by the trainees throughout the duration of the training course are presented below. The messages are presented by E-activity, by digital communication facilitation tool separately and as a whole, for each stage of the model. The reason they are analysed in this way is that the research investigates not only the development or not of socialisation but in which tool (where), at which stage (when) and with which messages/posts (how) it occurred.
Socialisation of trainees in stage 1 of the model
In the first stage, which was the introductory stage of the training course, the trainees took part in three (3) e-tivities. The communication tools used for the first communication of the trainees were the Moodle platform forum, Google Docs collaborative documents and the Viber application. Table 2 records the total messages after the completion of the stage 1.
Table 2.
Total messages for stage 1
| Total messages of stage 1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Messages on-task | Messages off-task | Messages to the e-moderator |
| 55 | 10 | 13 |
In the first e-tivity 1.1 no off-task messages appeared at all.
An on-task message from E2 is shown as an example:
‘I joined the group and the seminar to recall past experiences and to learn about new tools and software that I can use in my course.’
In the second e-tivity that required the use of Google Docs, 6 off-task messages appeared out of 23 total. It was the first time that off-task messages appeared. As an example, E1 commented ‘And you are in the same group! The Salon blood draws…’ and E7 replies, ‘Oh, how nice, it was a pleasure! Thessaloniki loves Crete’.
In the next E-Tivity 1.3 they had to propose a rule for the Netiquette of the training project group and again no off-task messages were observed the messages were limited only to the elaboration of the activity.
In the fourth e-tivity 1.4 out of the 19 messages related to all e-tivities of the stage 1, 4 were off-task messages.
The off-task messages were: E5 commenting, ‘I guess I've missed episodes’ and ‘I'll watch that too. Thanks’. E1 comments ‘good evening’ and E18 ‘welcome!’.
Overall, of all the messages exchanged by the trainees in the first stage of the model, only 10 out of the total 78 messages were in the off-task category, while 13 were messages to the trainer (Table 2).
Socialisation of trainees in stage 2 of the model
In the second stage of the model, the trainees for the three (3) e-tivities exchanged messages in the discussion groups on the platform's forum and on Viber.
In the first activity of stage 2, E-Tivity 2.1, out of the 23 messages uploaded by the trainees, only three (3) of them were off-task messages.
The messages were mainly greetings such as ‘Good morning girls’ (E9), ‘Can anyone hear me?’ (E11) and ‘Good morning from me too’ (E13).
In the second activity of stage 2, E-Tivity 2.2, the learners did not exchange any off-task messages. The messages were limited to the elaboration of the activity only.
In the third e-tivity, 6 off-task messages and 1 message to the trainer were observed, for a total of 23 messages.
Indicatively, two (2) off-task messages are given: ‘Great job!’ (Q11), ‘the truth is I'm older, I got my degree in 1999…’ (Q20).
In total, in stage 2, the total number of messages exchanged by participants on Viber was 32. The number of off-task messages was nine (9). The majority of them were messages that were yes related to E-Tivity but not about its development. These messages were messages that were not directly related to e-tivities such as ‘Ok. If I need anything I'll let you know…’, ‘Wow, and I'm swamped this week’, ‘Okay…Have a good evening’, ‘Thanks for the prompt reply’, ‘You're doing great’, ‘I'm wondering the same thing’.
Of the 98 messages exchanged between the participants for the overall elaboration of the e-tivities of the 2nd stage, 22 were off-task, 50 were on-task, while 26 messages were questions to the trainer (Table 3).
Table 3.
Total messages for stage 2
| Total messages of stage 2 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Messages on-task | Messages off-task | Messages to the e-moderator |
| 50 | 22 | 26 |
Socialisation of trainees in stage 3 of the model
In stage 3, the activities to be carried out by the trainees were four in total. From the digital tools, after categorising the messages, messages in the forum for E-Tivity 3.1, 3.2 and 3.2 completion, messages in Google Docs for E-Tivity 3.4 and messages in the Viber app were counted.
In the first activity of stage 3, no off-task messages were presented at all. On the contrary, in E-Tivity 3.2, for the first time there were more off-task messages than messages related to the E-Tivity. In total, there were 31 messages exchanged and 15 of them were of the off-task category. Two off-task messages from this activity are given as an indication: ‘Why do you need fishing if you don't have it?’ commented E14 and ‘The smart bird is caught by the nose’, according to E9.
In stage 3's Tuesday E-Tivity, the total number of messages was 18. Of these, 7 were off-task and were directly related to the e-tivities since they encouraged the efforts and responses of other trainees. Typically, E4 replied: ‘That's right. Well done’, E20 ‘I think you covered everything’, and E6 agreed and responded “You're absolutely right about all of it”.
In the last activity of stage 3, E-Tivity 3.4, there was only one (1) off-task message compared to the 9 total messages exchanged by the trainees. The only off-task message read: ‘Bravo E13 for looking up the second article. You're all over the place!’
On Viber app, the total number of messages was 170. 40 messages were on-task, 16 were messages to the e-moderator and 114 were off-task messages. The messages exchanged had to do with the coordination of the team for the development of the e-tivities of stage 3.
Two typical messages are given for this purpose. E18 states, ‘I hope to find time today to complete last week's module, but I have 5 tests to prepare and I have taken out 3 so far’, and E15 also comments, ‘Dear team members. I haven't gotten in to write anything yet. I promise I will enter on Sunday to add something myself’. E12 in another group says, ‘I haven't gotten to this activity yet, if I find time I'll get to it tomorrow’ with E20 responding, ‘Whew, good because I thought I was the only one behind’.
In addition, there were messages suggesting ways to work on group work such as, ‘I started to capture some opinions with the color I chose. You can add or modify that text with the color of your choice’. and ‘Just write the name and colour at the beginning to show who wrote or corrected what (e.g. Mary: purple)’ (E4) and ‘What a team! Who will post the text of the week?’ (Q20). Finally, there were also reminders concerning problems with the rights of collaborative documents with learners helping and guiding each other. E19 states, ‘Give us editor rights’, and E15 replies, ‘remind me how I do this!!!’, and at the end, ‘Now you can comment’.
The total number of messages changed by learners in stage 4 across all tools (Moodle forums, Google Docs and Viber) was 242. Of these messages, 137 were off-task messages that were either directly related to the activities or were purely social comments (Table 4).
Table 4.
Total messages for stage 3
| Total stage 3 messages-Moodle and Viber app | ||
|---|---|---|
| Messages on-task | Messages off-task | Messages to the e-moderator |
| 89 | 137 | 16 |
Socialisation of trainees in stage 4 of the model
To complete the module of the stage 4, the learners had to collaborate and communicate using the platform's forum, through a collaborative Google Docs group that one of their team members had to create and finally through the group created on Viber.
On the Moodle platform, there were no off-task messages for stage 4. Out of the 5 total messages, 4 were about the activity and 1 was for the instructor.
On the other hand, in the Google Doc tool, 21 off-task messages and one message addressed to the instructor were presented. In total, the trainees communicated by sending 33 messages.
E5, in a post from another group, comments, ‘Very interesting. I didn't know about the Slack app’, E14 feedbacks, saying, ‘You did an excellent job, well done!’ and E1 agrees by stating, ‘Very nice idea! I would never have thought of it!’
On Viber, there were 66 messages in total. The off-task messages were 51, while six (6) were messages to the instructor. The messages were indeed about E-Tivity but were not directly related to it. Typical Viber messages include E8, who joins the conversation and characteristically asks, ‘Are you ok E19? Shall we upload the text?’ with E19 replying, ‘Tomorrow guys! Today I've delivered a spell’.
The total number of stage 4 messages was 103 in total. Of the 103 messages, 72 were not directly related to E-Tivity, 24 were messages related to its development, and 8 messages were to the trainer (Table 5).
Table 5.
Total messages for stage 4
| Total messages for stage 4 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Messages on-task | Messages off-task | Messages to the e-moderator |
| 24 | 72 | 8 |
Socialisation of trainees at stage 5 of the model
In the final stage, the trainees had to exchange messages as comments on other trainees' work in the Padlet tool. The Viber application was also used in this last stage for their exchange of views, communication and collaboration. Cumulative messages in both tools are presented in Table 6.
Table 6.
Total messages for stage 5
| Total messages of stage 5 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Messages on-task | Messages off-task | Messages to the e-moderator |
| 48 | 186 | 2 |
The total number of messages captured on the Padlet bulletin board was 96. Sixty of these messages were not about E-Tivity, while only 30 messages were about its elaboration. Some of the messages exchanged by the trainees within the Padlet as comments are given below:
‘I'm no expert in technology either…but with Gogo's help and yours I did it…’ ‘In the end, we got a lot out of this seminar. Knowledge, interaction, new tools!’ ‘The truth is that I was a little disappointed that we didn't see other tools…I already knew about kahoot, Google Docs, Google Maps, avatar Maker, Padlet! to do a seminar on digital only tools that you can use in the classroom’
In the last stage, the total number of messages exchanged by the trainees on Viber was 140. One hundred and twenty six of these messages were for messages outside the activity, while two (2) messages were to the trainer. Typical off-task messages of this stage are given below: (E5), ‘Obstacles help us to learn’ (E9). There were also several photo messages in the off-task messages that were related to decorations and Christmas themes because the last weeks of the training seminar were very close to the Christmas holidays.
Of the 236 total messages exchanged by the trainees in the last stage of the model, 186 were off-task messages and 2 were for the trainer (Table 6).
The mapping of the socialisation of the learners during their transition from one stage to another is given in Table 7.
Table 7.
Percentage of socialisation at each stage
| Socialisation by stage | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|
| Stage 1 | 12.82 |
| Stage 2 | 22.45 |
| Stage 3 | 56.61 |
| Stage 4 | 72.97 |
| Stage 5 | 78.5 |
The socialisation of the trainees for each stage of the model is then presented in Figure 2 according to Table 7:
Finally, snippets/comments were observed on the Padlet digital bulletin board, indicating the establishment of community in the final stage of the model. These messages are of value to this research and are therefore presented separately below.
‘It was very interesting how we finally managed to work together even though we are strangers to each other’ ‘I really didn't expect that in such a short period of time we would be able to become such a good team and that we would all learn cooperatively together…’ ‘It's incredible how we created a collaborative digital learning environment through the moodle platform!’ ‘I think that during the seminar we have strengthened the 21st century skills 4cs, critical thinking, creativity, communication, cooperation. Through the moodle platform we have created a digital learning community.’
In order to give a schematic overview of the results of our study, Figure 3 shows the change in socialisation in terms of the role of the trainer, the tools used at each stage and the social organisation of the trainees as it evolved from the first to the fifth and final stage of the model.
Discussion and Conclusions
Most learners were able to achieve their cognitive objectives. This is directly demonstrated by the successful completion of all e-tivities. A decisive role in the achievement of the objectives was initially played by the guidance of the trainer in addition to their own personal effort. The instructor's contribution was important in the early stages of the model. Not all trainees showed the same learning motivation from the beginning of the seminars. The trainer had to communicate with them several times to identify the barriers that kept them out of the course (stages 1 and 2); also, not all trainees had the same technological knowledge. There was very frequent telephone contact with five of the trainees at the beginning to address difficulties they had in handling the Moodle platform (stage 1).
In addition, a decisive role in the achievement of the cognitive objectives was then played by the mutual support of the learners among themselves (stages 3, 4 and 5). Their individual engagement increased, and social skills of mutual support were improved (Koukis & Jimoyiannis, 2017). With the formation of smaller groups in Viber (stage 3), the teacher's intervention decreased. Questions were resolved ‘from within’ the group through reflection, dialogue and collaboration. Indeed, therefore, there was a correlation between learning and socialisation of learners through the development of e-tivities (Jones & Peachey, 2005; Salmon, 2012).
In the present study, there was no decrease in socialisation in any of the stages of the model as in previous research, e.g. Jones & Peachey (2005), which decreased in stage 2. This may be because the training course was only asynchronous (Chowcat, 2005; Lisewski & Joyce, 2003) and not in a mixed format as in Jones & Peachey (2005), where stage 1 was conducted face-to-face and the trainees met there. In our case, it appears that the acquaintance continued and developed in stage 2 and gradually increased. The socialisation of the trainees increased as they moved from one stage to another, just as Salmon (2011) points out, and the instructor decreased his support as the trainees showed an increased level of self-regulation (Panselinas & Komis, 2009). More specifically, trainees in introductory Stage 1 showed reluctance to interact and communicate with each other. Their messages were limited to simple greetings. In stage 2, however, the off-task messages they exchanged almost doubled. They began to be social in nature and were part of a short conversation. In addition, a significant increase was manifested in socialisation in stage 3 as well. Trainees seemed more willing and comfortable to collaborate and interact with each other. The messages they sent to each other were humorous, greetings, photos, and links to songs. However, this behaviour may have been driven by the creation of smaller groups on Viber, which allowed them to connect more emotionally with the people in their group and engage more in larger conversations. Off-task messages also increased in stage 4 for the E-Tivity. The hypothetical scenario required the participation of all trainees to complete it. The messages of this stage were mainly related to the organisation and division of each member's work. In the final stage 5, increased interaction between trainees was observed, regardless of whether they were part of the same group in a previous stage. Trainees showed a willingness to comment on people who had never interacted with them before in the project, to share concerns, to agree or disagree, to joke and to share feelings. Even more, some students expressed the willingness to maintain the group created on Viber even after the end of the training course. Up to one month after the completion of the course, the trainees were still using this group for communication and collaboration.
Therefore, the role of the trainer was important in all stages but especially in stages 1 and 2. Furthermore, the creation of work groups helped to develop socialisation in stages 3, 4 and 5 (see the big boost in socialisation with the creation of small work groups in stage 3) (Figure 2), not hindering but rather facilitating the creation of community in stage 5. Both the role of the trainer and the transition from the individual level to working groups, and finally to the community and back to the individual level, were not accidental but were applied in the context of the implementation of the e-mediating model (Figure 3). The e-mediating model, with its well-designed e-tivities, which succeed each other by moving from one stage to the next, ensured continuity in the social construction of knowledge (Panselinas & Komis, 2009; Salmon, 2011).
In addition, digital media, according to the study, seems to be another critical factor in facilitating communication and collaboration that needs to be discussed. In total, four digital media were used in this study for learners' collaboration: Viber, Google Docs, the Moodle platform forum and Padlet (Figure 3). Viber seems to be the digital tool that facilitated communication more than the other tools. Trainees showed more willingness to communicate via Viber throughout the course and at all stages. Although in stage 1 the messages were more directed towards the trainer, even then it was the discussion area with the most off-task messages. Its usability, along with the fact that the Viber app was already being used by most of the trainees, made them feel more comfortable using it and probably contributed to this preference (Ali, 2022). Padlet proved to be a valuable digital tool for developing socialisation in this research. Although it was not known from the outset, the majority of trainees were enthusiastic about its use. Its simple yet organised structure gave them the opportunity to annotate tasks and interact in an easy and fun way. The off-task messages on the Padlet bulletin board show the preference of the learners. Padlet got many votes of preference, and many learners reported that they would use it in their classes for project development, brainstorming, and posting their students' work. Google Docs, although familiar to many of the trainees, did not develop the expected socialisation. Trainees in activities that required the use of collaborative documents were mainly content with exchanging messages related to issues related to the completion of the activity. Off-task messages in the time period corresponding to the activity were in the majority sent via Viber. The Moodle platform has been somewhat dysfunctional for fostering socialisation according to the recorded data collected (Weidlich & Bastiaens, 2019). In general, on the Moodle platform, the responses were mainly related to the elaboration of e-tivities. The only E-Tivity where learners captured a significant sample of socialisation in the discussion area of the Moodle platform was E-Tivity 3.3, which was about online frauds. The trainees showed great willingness to share personal experiences with other trainees. This conclusion triggers the need to consider both the content and theme of e-tivities in capturing socialisation in further research. The majority of the learners already knew this module; they had common or different experiences and had been in the same position. All of the above factors may have contributed to the success of the forum in this case.
Clearly, the entire discussion and any conclusions are limited to the context of this case study. We believe, however, that they may offer some insights and generate some hypotheses for testing in similar contexts.
Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Barriers and opportunities of E-learning implementation in Iraq: A case of public universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17 (5). 126–146, https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2501
Ali, R. (2022). Potential of viber messenger to foster online social presence among blended learning students. Journal of Educators Online, 19 (3), n3, https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2022.19.3.3
Anastasiadis, P. (2020). The School Distance Education in the era of the COVID-19 Coronavirus: The example of Greece and the challenge of the transition to the “Open School of Exploratory Learning, Collaborative Creativity and Social Solidarity”. Open Education, 16 (2), 20–48. (in Greek). https://doi.org/10.12681/jode.25506
Bermejo, S. (2005). Cooperative electronic learning in virtual laboratories through forums. IEEE Transactions On Education, 48 (1), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2004.837045
Bofiliou, A. (2013). Interaction in online learning environments. Discussion forums as a space for collaboration and learning [Dissertation, Patras: Hellenic Open University]. (in Greek).
Bonafini, F. C., Chae, C., Park, E., & Jablokow, K., W. (2017). How much does student engagement with videos and forums in a MOOC affect their achievement? Online Learning Journal, 21 (4), 223–240, https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1270
Chowcat, I. (2005). Models of E-learning: The importance of context. ALT-C 2005 12th International Conference. Manchester University, UK. (05–07 September).
Downing, K. J., Lam, T. F., Kwong, T., Downing, W. K., & Chan, S. W. (2007). Creating interaction in online learning: A case study. Research in Learning Technology, 15 (3), 201–215, https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v15i3.10931
Filippousis, G., & Anastasiadis, P. (2019). Teleconferencing in primary school: Design and development of a constructive teaching approach with an emphasis on social presence. 10th International Conference in Open & Distance Learning–November 2019, Athens, Greece–PROCEEDINGS, 106–119. (in Greek).
Johnson, C. S. (2017). Collaborative technologies, higher order thinking and self-sufficient learning: A case study of adult learners. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1981
Jones, N., & Peachey, P. (2005). The development of socialization in an on-line learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3 (3), 1–20, https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/3.3.4.pdf
Koukis, N., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2017). Designing MOOCs for teacher professional development: Analysis of participants' engagement and perceptions. In A. Mesquita & P. Peres (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on e-Learning-ECEL 2017 (pp. 271–280). Academic Conferences and Publishing International.
Kovacic, A., Bubas, G., Zlatovic, M. (2008). E-tivities with a wiki: Innovative teaching of English as a foreign language. “VISION IT–Visions for use of IT in higher education”. 14th Congress of the European University Information Systems Organisation, EUNIS 2008, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lisewski, B., & Joyce, P. (2003). Examining the five-stage e-moderating model: Designed and emergent practice in the learning technology profession. Research in Learning Technology, 11 (1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v11i1.11267
Mokoena, S. (2013). Engagement with and participation in online discussion forums. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12 (2), 97–105, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015527.pdf
Moule, P. (2007). Challenging the five-stage model for e-learning: A new approach. Research in Learning Technology, 15 (1), 37–50, https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v15i1.10911
Niari, M., & Manousou, E. (2015). Investigation community implementation study at the Hellenic Open University. International Conference on Open & Distance Education, 8(4B). Retrieved September 22, 2020, from https://eproceedings.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/openedu/article/view/81 (in Greek).
Panselinas, G., & Komis, V. (2009). ‘Scaffolding’through talk in groupwork learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4 (2), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.06.002
Panselinas, G. (2002). The guided construction of knowledge in group work computer-based learning activities: The case of general applications software. Proceedings of 3rd Hellenic Conference with International Participation “ICT in Education”, Volume B, 275–285. https://www.etpe.gr/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/etpe303.pdf (in Greek).
Rusmetova, M. (2018). Applying Gilly Salmon's five stage model for designing blended courses. Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları, 17 (17), 271–290, https://doi.org/10.30767/diledeara.418085
Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Salmon, G. (2012). E-tivities: The key to active online learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Salmon G. (2022). The Five-Stage Model: Looking Back, Looking Forward, Retrieved 14/1/2025 from https://vimeo.com/718612980
Tzimogiannis, A. (2017). E-learning: Theoretical approaches and educational designs. Theoretical and theoretical approaches and concepts. Kritiki Publications. (in Greek).
Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2019). Designing sociable online learning environments and enhancing social presence: An affordance enrichment approach. Computers & Education, 142, 103622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103622
Zalavra, E., Papanikolaou, K. A. (2015). The wiki as a collaborative environment for the design of educational scenarios. 4th Panhellenic Conference “Integration and Use of ICT in the Educational Process”, Thessaloniki. (in Greek).
© 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.