Scaling Up Teacher Networks Across and Within European Schools: The Case of eTwinning

Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)


The aim of this research is to look at the key elements that help sustain and scale up a European-wide teacher network called eTwinning. eTwinning, which has more than 250,000 European teachers as members in April 2014, has become an incubator for pedagogical innovation in the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for cross-border school collaboration and for formal and informal teacher professional development. The chapter synthesises a series of studies on eTwinning – some of which are more qualitative case studies and others are based on social network analysis (SNA) – focusing on factors that contribute to the further development and mainstreaming of eTwinning. In particular, we look at the growth of the network and its reach among teacher population in Europe. Then, we move to observe deeper level collaboration through pedagogical projects and show how the network can be studied to understand its underlying structures. Finally, through case studies on eTwinning school teams, we also look at micro-level mechanisms for teacher collaboration within an institution to spread pedagogical innovation at the local level.


Collaboration Network Continuous Professional Development Vertical Growth Lead Teacher Pedagogical Innovation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The views expressed in this article are purely those of the authors and should not be regarded as the official position of the European Commission.


  1. Berendt, B., Vuorikari, R., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2014). Learning analytics and their application in technology-enhanced professional learning. In A. Littlejohn & A. Margaryan (Eds.), Technology-enhanced professional learning: Processes, practices and tools (pp. 144–157). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Berlanga, A., Brouns, F., Fetter, S., Rajagopal, K., Sloep, P., Van der Vegt, W., & Vuorikari, R. (2012). Social capital and peer support in learning networks – Deliverable 3.2 of the Teachers’ lifelong learning network project. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from
  3. Breuer, R., Klamma, R., Cao, Y., & Vuorikari, R. (2009). Social network analysis of 45,000 schools: A case study of technology enhanced learning in Europe. In U. Cress, V. Dimitrova, & M. Specht (Eds.), Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines (Vol. 5794, pp. 166–180). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (Sociology and economics: Controversy and integration series, pp. 31–56). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Cachia, R., Punie, Y., & Vuorikari, R. (2012). Final report on the future of teacher networking. – Deliverable 4.3.2 of the Teachers’ lifelong learning network project. Retrieved January 12, 2014, from
  6. Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the river city curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Crawley, C., Gilleran, A., Scimeca, S., Vuorikari, R., & Wastiau, P. (2009). Beyond school projects – A report on eTwinning 2008–2009. Brussels: Central Support Service for eTwinning & European Schoolnet.Google Scholar
  10. Crawley, C., Gerhard, P., Gilleran, A., & Joyce, A. (Eds.). (2010). eTwinning 2.0 – Building the community for schools in Europe. Brussels: Central Support Service for eTwinning & European Schoolnet.Google Scholar
  11. Daly, A. J. (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2013). Study of the impact of eTwinning on participating pupils, teachers and schools. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  13. European Schoolnet. (2013). Does the type of ICT training teachers pursue matter? Observatory, 3, Briefing papers. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from
  14. Forkosh-Baruch, A., Nachmias, R., & Mioduser, D. (2008). Innovative pedagogical practices using technology: Cross-case analysis of the SITESm2 data. Paper presented at the 3rd IEA International Research Conference. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from
  15. Gouseti, A. (2013). ‘Old Wine in Even Newer Bottles’: The uneasy relationship between web 2.0 technologies and European school collaboration. European Journal of Education, 48(4), 570–585. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haythornthwaite, C., & Kendall, L. (2010). Internet and community. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1083–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmes, B. (2013). School teachers’ continuous professional development in an online learning community: Lessons from a case study of an eTwinning learning event. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 97–112. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kampylis, P., Law, N., Punie, Y., Bocconi, S., Brecko, B., Han, S., Looi, C.-K., & Miyake, N. (2013). ICT-enabled innovation for learning in Europe and Asia: Exploring conditions for sustainability, scalability and impact at system level. Retrieved January 05, 2014, from Publications Office of the European Union at
  19. McDonald, B., Noakes, N., Stuckey, B., & Nyrop, S. (2005). Breaking down learner isolation: How social network analysis informs design and facilitation for online learning. Montreal: AERA.Google Scholar
  20. Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Cohen, A., Tubin, D., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2004). Factors involved in the implementation of pedagogical innovations using technology. Education and Information Technologies, 9(3), 291–308. doi: 10.1023/b:eait.0000042045.12692.49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from
  22. Penuel, W. R., & Riel, M. (2007). The ‘new’ science of networks and the challenge of school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 611–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Penuel, W. R., Sussex, W., Korbak, C., & Hoadley, C. (2006). Investigating the potential of using social network analysis in educational evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(4), 437–451. doi: 10.1177/1098214006294307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pham, M. C., Cao, Y., & Klamma, R. (2012). Social network analysis methods for lifelong learning communities – Deliverable 2.2 of the Teachers’ lifelong learning network project. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from
  25. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  27. Schlager, M. S., Farooq, U., Fusco, J., Schank, P., & Dwyer, N. (2009). Analyzing online teacher networks: Cyber networks require cyber research tools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 86–100. doi: 10.1177/0022487108328487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sloep, P., & Berlanga, A. (2011). Learning networks, networked learning. Revista Comunicar, 19(37), 55–64. doi: 10.3916/c37-2011-02-05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Song, E., Petrushyna, Z., Cao, Y., & Klamma, R. (2011). Learning analytics at large: The lifelong learning network of 160,000 European teachers. In C. Kloos, D. Gillet, R. Crespo García, F. Wild, & M. Wolpers (Eds.), Towards ubiquitous learning (Vol. 6964, pp. 398–411). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vuorikari, R. (2010). Teachers’ professional development – An overview of current practice (A. Gilleran, Ch. Crawley, & S. Scimeca, Eds.). Brussels: Central Support Service for eTwinning & European Schoolnet.Google Scholar
  31. Vuorikari, R. (2013). eTwinning school teams – Case studies on teacher collaboration through eTwinning. Brussels: Central Support Service for eTwinning & European Schoolnet.Google Scholar
  32. Vuorikari, R., & Scimeca, S. (2013). Social learning analytics to study teachers’ large-scale professional networks. Open and Social Technologies for Networked Learning – IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 395, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vuorikari, R., Berlanga, A., Cachia, R., Cao, Y., Fetter, S., Gilleran, A., Klamma, R., Punie, Y., Scimeca, S., Sloep, P., Petrushyna, Z. (2011a). ICT-based school collaboration, teachers’ networks and their opportunities for teachers’ professional development – A case study on eTwinning. Advances in Web-Based Learning – ICWL 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7048, pp. 112–121). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Vuorikari, R., Gilleran, A., & Scimeca, S. (2011b). Growing beyond innovators – ICT-based school collaboration in eTwinning. In C. Kloos, D. Gillet, R. Crespo García, F. Wild, & M. Wolpers (Eds.), Towards ubiquitous learning (Vol. 6964, pp. 537–542). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vuorikari, R., Garoia, V., Punie, Y., Cachia, R., Redecker, C., Cao, Y., Klamma, R., Pham, M. C., Rajagopal, K., Fetter, S., & Sloep, P. B. (2012). Teacher networks – Today’s and tomorrow’s challenges and opportunities for the teaching profession. Brussels: European Schoolnet.Google Scholar
  36. Wastiau, P., Crawley, C., & Gilleran, A. (Eds.). (2011). Pupils in eTwinning – Case studies on pupil participation. Brussels: Central Support Service for eTwinning & European Schoolnet.Google Scholar
  37. Wiske, M. S., & Perkins, D. (2005). Dewey goes digital: Scaling up constructivist pedagogies and the promise of new technologies. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. C. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 27–47). San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Commission, Joint Research CentreInstitute for Prospective Technological StudiesSevilleSpain
  2. 2.European SchoolnetBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations