## 4 Discussion  
\"The purpose of an educational experience, whether it is online, face-to-face, or a blending of both, is to structure the educational experience to achieve defined learning outcomes. In this context, interaction must be more structured and systematic. A qualitative dimension is introduced where interaction is seen as communication with the intent to influence thinking in a critical and reflective manner. Some have argued that in higher education, it is valuable and even necessary to create a community of inquiry where interaction and reflection are sustained; where ideas can be explored and critiqued; and where the process of critical inquiry can be scaffolded and modelled. Interaction in such an environment goes beyond social interaction and the simple exchange of information. A community of inquiry must include various combinations of interaction among content, teachers, and students.\" [28]  
Web 2.0 technology has been widely adopted for education, and in many instances been successfully used. However, students are still finding this approach unfamiliar, as demonstrated in both the AFA and PCRM cases. As one student in a discussion board says: \"I have not used Wiki before... how do I do it?\". Another jokingly responds, \"You are not alone, I have never encountered a Wiki. ([PERSON] a bit like a Wookie but with a higher pitched voice?)\". It seems wikis are still new to many university students, even in a second year subject in 2011. In PCRM, students initially found the technology challenging, but gained confidence with experience:  
\"Being a wiki first time user, the EIA assignment presented itself with many challenges. Looking back on the exercise there are certainly many ways our group, including myself, could have implemented the use of the wiki devise more effectively \(\ldots\) Once over the initial scare of how to operate the wiki and frustration with tables and inserting pictures to display the wiki as wanted. There was the realisation that the wiki is an easy to navigate, successful communication instrument that can be implemented in various settings.\"  
Despite this unfamiliarity with Web 2.0 tools, both cases described here show that asynchronous tools such as wikis, blogs, file exchanges, discussion boards, and synchronous communication tools (e.g., Elluminate Live!) can be successfully integrated for collaborative learning amongst distance education students in both small and large groups. The role of Web 2.0 tools for knowledge creation, critical thinking and reflection has been discussed elsewhere (e.g., [14, 20, 45, 46, 47, 48]); [PERSON] _et al._[49] discuss technology and its role of in support of communities of practice. We focus in the remainder of this paper on what we have learnt from our case studies in terms of the student-teacher roles, and examine whether it is better to take a structured versus an emergent approach to design. [PERSON] _et al._ argue that \"it is important not to rely entirely on emergent design forms, but to provide strong guidance in site structure, layout and information design to students and knowledge workers\" [23]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] state that \"teachers and instructional designers determine the nature of collaboration; that is, the division of labour, role-taking and the activities to be carried out\" [19]. We ask to what extent should they? Does it depend on the nature of the exercise and the reason for using the Web 2.0 technology in the first place? The \"uneditable and highly structured\" design of the demonstration wiki for the PCRM case contrasts markedly with the more emergent design and use of the wiki for the AFR case. However, the student wikis themselves (the assessment task) in PCRM represent more of an emergent approach. The assessment task for PCRM was more stand-alone and less integrated with other assessment tasks than in AFR. The PCRM task was worth 45% (including the final blog reflection), whereas the AFR task was worth 20% (including the final blog reflection).