This paper investigates the process of employing learners self-rated motivation profile information into collaborative learning tasks of an on-line learning environment. Main focus of the paper is to study how profiling information (Miettinen, Nokelainen, Kurhila, Silander & Tirri, 2002) is related to various tasks (such as on-line group formation, peer-to-peer highlighting and commenting of the course material) performed by adult learners in a computer supported collaborative learning system, EDUCOSM (Kurhila, Miettinen, Nokelainen, Floréen & Tirri, 2002).The studyThe sample consisted of 37 female and 17 male Finnish vocational education inservice teachers (n=54) conducting their post-graduate degree (age ranging from 21 to 51 years, median was 36 years).Information about learners' motivation was obtained with an on-line self-rated questionnaire system, EDUFORM (Nokelainen, Niemivirta, Kurhila, Miettinen, Silander & Tirri, 2001), in the beginning of a web-based university-level statistics course in Fall 2002.The motivation category (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1993; Ruohotie, 1999; Nokelainen & Ruohotie, 2002) of the 12-item questionnaire (Ruohotie, 2002; Ruohotie & Nokelainen, 2002) consists of three sections: (1) a value section; (2) an expectancy section; and (3) an affective section. The value section has three subscales: (1.1) intrinsic goal orientation, (1.2) extrinsic goal orientation, and (1.3) meaningfulness of study. The expectancy section consists of two subscales: (2.1) control beliefs and (2.2) self-efficacy. The affective section includes one component: (3.1) test anxiety. The response options varied in a five-point Likert-scale from "1 - Completely Disagree" to "5 - Completely Agree". Motivational profile information was embedded into the system consisting of a set of tools (i.e., "Search", "Newsgroups" and "Filters") for asynchronous collaborative knowledge constructing. The idea of learner-centered learning in the context of this study is that learners are expected to take responsibility for their own learning: The instructor gives an orientation to the topic through theoretical face-to-face lectures. She also gives few pointers to selected on-line resources. The system provides tools to process information and collaborate with peer learners. We believe that this is in harmony with modern psychological and educational theoretical perspectives based on the assumption that a learner is an active contributor in the individual learning process (Snow, Corno & Jackson, 1994).After two face-to-face sessions covering selected theoretical issues, the course relied following two weeks solely on peer-based distance learning in the system. During this time, learners were expected to (1) form a group of two, and (2) annotate by highlighting and commenting an on-line document. The group mate was selected anonymously amongst the other available learners with a special tool. The only personalization information provided in the dynamic selection process was the motivational profile presented for each learner. Each group worked anonymously on a different document, brought into the system by the course lecturer. The learning task had following phases: (1) establishing a newsgroup for the document, (2) highlighting and (3) annotation the relevant issues in the document, and (4) discussing about the document with peer learner in the newsgroup.Pedagogical model (Sfard, 1998) of the course relied mostly on Acquisition Model as the focus of learning activities during lectures and exercises was mainly on the acquisition of pre-specified knowledge. Weekly assignments carried out in the EDUCO system were aimed to promote Participation Model, as students were expected to become members of a community of practice. Collis and Moonen (2001) argue that in addition not choosing between the models, one should find a purposeful balance with flexibility of the whole learning environment. Formal statistical content of the course favours activities with acquisition goals. On the other hand, according to activity theory, act is a prerequisite for learning (Jonassen & Land, 2000), and thus we provided a truly activity-based learning system for the students to collect information needed to complete weekly assignments.Findings and conclusionsStatistical analysis was conducted with Bayesian network modeling (Myllymaki, Silander, Tirri & Uronen, 2002) due to fact that we could not guarantee neither multivariate normality assumption nor equal sample sizes or variances within groups. Preliminary results suggest that self-rated level of motivation has a positive effect on both quality of annotations and study success measured by the final examination. Further, we found evidence that study success is positively related to the number of newsgroups postings. Results of the e-mail survey showed that all the respondents strongly agreed when asked if the system brought added value to the learning process and if it changed their studying habits favorably, when compared to the traditional university lectures. All the respondents also strongly agreed when asked if they would recommend the system for other courses. Both self-made highlightings and comments were experienced to be more useful for the learning process than those made by other learners. Respondents made no distinction between anonymous and full name annotations.Further studies are needed to investigate possible distractive effects of peer-to-peer annotation to individual learning processes as self-made highlightings and comments were experienced to be more useful than those made by other learners.ReferencesCollis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.Jonassen, D.H., & Land, S.M. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesKurhila, J., Miettinen, M., Nokelainen, P., Tirri, H., & Floréen, P. (2002). Peer-to-Peer Learning with Open-Ended Writable Web. Unpublished manuscript, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki Institute for Information Technology, Finland.Miettinen, M., Nokelainen, P., Kurhila, J., Silander, T., & Tirri, H. (2002). Adaptive Profiling Tool for Teacher Education. Proceedings of the SITE 2002 Conference, (pp. 1153-1157). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Myllymaki, P., Silander, T., Tirri, H., & Uronen, P. (2002). B-Course: A Web-Based Tool for Bayesian and Causal Data Analysis. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 11, 3, 369- 387.Nokelainen, P., Niemivirta, M., Kurhila, J., Miettinen, M., Silander, T., & Tirri, H. (2001). Implementation of an Adaptive Questionnaire. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001 Conference, (pp. 1412-1413). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Nokelainen, P., & Ruohotie, P. (2002). Modeling Students' Motivational Profile for Learning in Higher Education. In H. Niemi & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Theoretical understandins for Learning in the Virtual University, pp. 168-196. Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere.Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation, (pp. 451-502). San Diego: Academic Press.Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and Predictive Validity of The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.Ruohotie, P. (1999). Growth Prerequisties in Organizations. In P. Ruohotie, H. Tirri, P. Nokelainen, & T. Silander (Eds.), Modern modeling of professional growth, (pp. 5-36). Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere.Ruohotie, P. (2000). Conative constructs in learning. In P. R. Pintrich & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Conative constructs and self-regulated learning, (pp. 1-30). Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere. Ruohotie, P. (2002). Motivation and Self-regulation in Learning. In H. Niemi & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Theoretical understandins for Learning in the Virtual University, (pp. 37-72). Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere.Ruohotie, P., & Nokelainen, P. (2000). Modern Modeling of Student Motivation and Self-regulated Learning. In P. R. Pintrich & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Conative Constructs and Self-regulated Learning, (pp. 141-193). University of Tampere, Research Centre for Vocational Education.Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1994). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology, (pp. 243-310). New York: Macmillan.