![20
of
the
JISC’s
learners’
experiences
programme
(JISC,
2009,
see
also,
Sharpe
and
Beetham,
2010).
From
the
student
perspective,
technology
is
not
necessarily
a
substitute,
but
a
tool
for
added
convenience
and
control
(OECD,
2009).
As
the
authors
of
the
JISC
(2009)
report
note,
‘imagining
Web
2.0
for
social
purposes
in
a
study
context,
presents
conceptual
difficulties
to
learners
as
well
as
a
challenge
to
their
notions
of
space.
They
need
demonstration,
persuasion
and
room
to
experiment
in
this
context'. Sharpe
and
Beetham
(2010)
capture
the
essence
of
findings
emerging
from
learner
experience
research
in
their
introduction
to
a
recent
edited
collection
on
research
in
the
field:
What
becomes
clear
is
the
extent
to
which
learners
are
becoming
active
participants
in
their
learning
experiences
and
are
shaping
their
own
educational
environments
[…]
Learners
are
creating
their
own
blends
of
physical
and
virtual
environments
and
of
informal
and
formal
learning
contexts.
The
changing
role
of
teaching
and
teachers
Having
discussed
the
changing
nature
of
learning
and
learners
in
the
previous
section,
this
section
considers
the
implications
for
teaching.
As
the
OECD
report
on
New
Millennium
Learning
in
Higher
Education
(2009:
28)
notes,
the
assumption
that
most
teachers
in
higher
education
are
digital
immigrants
might
be
true
on
the
basis
of
their
age,
but
is
certainly
not
true
with
respect
to
their
technology
skills
and
competences.
As
early
as
2003,
a
Europaeum
survey
identified
high
adoption
rates
of
technology
in
terms
of
communicating
research
findings
and
networking
(Flather
and
Huggins,
2004,
cited
in
OECD,
2009:
28).
An
Australian
survey
(Education
Network
Australia,
2008)
found
out
that
90%
of
higher
education
teachers
considered
the
Internet
very
important
for
their
work.
Interestingly
they
stated
that
this
was
not
only
for
research
purposes,
but
also,
for
improving
teaching
and
learning
opportunities
and
resources
for
students.
Over
10%
of
teaching
staff
made
a
clear
reference
to
the
use
and
integration
of
digital
learning
objects.
Just
over
one
third
of
Australian
higher
education
teachers
who
responded
to
the
survey
are
convinced
that
they
already
possess
the
ICT
capabilities
required
to
transform
practice,
especially
by
means
of
introducing
new
ways
of
engaging
students
(29%),
or
are
proficient
and
confident
in
the
use
of
ICT
to
support
learning
(37%).
Yet,
there
appears
to
be
a
gap
between
the
expertise
of
teachers
in
continental
Europe
and
in
Anglo‐Saxon
countries.
Mastery
of
digital
libraries
and
databases
are
core
competences
for
academic
researchers;
most
use
word
processors
and
presentation
software
for
writing
papers
and
presenting
findings,
many
use
reference
management
tools
and
tools
for
data
analysis.
Blogs
and
wikis
are
also
used
to
some
extent
–
as
a
means
of
disseminating
research
and
collective
writing.
For
collaborative
research
projects
there
are
a
range
of
Web
2.0
environments
enabling
the
sharing
and
discussion
of
research
findings.
Downes
offers
an
early
review
of
the
potential
of
these
technologies
for
learning
(Downes
2005)
and
Alexander
provides
one
of
the
first
textbooks
exploring
the
use
of
these
tools
for
teaching
and
learning
(Alexander
2006).
Both
outline
more
open,
participatory
and
heterarchical
structures
in
teaching
methods.
Reviewing
the
use
of
social
media
like
blogs
and
wikis,
Bruns
and
Humphreys
(2007)
also
argue
that
the
(co‐)production
of
content
by
the
user
(‘produsage’)
requires
a
shift
in
changing
teaching
methods
towards
approaches
that
support
community
building
through
collaboration,
heterarchical
structures
of
engagement,
mentoring,
fostering
creativity
and
critical
literacy
capacities.
Siemens
(2009),
considering
this
from
the
perspective
of
networked
learning
and
connectivism,
reflects
on
role
of
the
academic
teaching
methods:](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-20-320.jpg)
![27
them
on
board
is
key.
They
need
to
feel
a
sense
of
ownership
and
control
of
their
own
teaching
practice.
• Sharing
of
good
practice.
Finally
if
we
are
to
build
collectively
on
experiences,
mechanisms
are
need
to
share
good
practice
and
enable
teachers
to
adopt
more
scholarly
approaches.
Table
1:
Summary
of
different
strategies
for
change
National
levels
Broad
government
strategies
that
include
the
use
of
Web
2.0
and
provide
incentives
to
deliver
integrated
services
(e.g.
for
student
retention,
innovation
in
teaching
and
learning
such
as
the
Australia
Learning
Performance
Fund
(DEEWR,
2008)
or
investment
into
infrastructure
and
training.
HE
funding
agencies
and
policy
makers
who
can
provide
drivers
for
institutions
through
specific
mandates,
some
of
which
involve
the
adoption
of
social
media
(in
the
UK,
JISC
harnessing
technology
for
learning
programmes/
CETIS
OER
programme;
HEA
[in
particular
EvidenceNet
and
ELESIG
Ning].
Central
investment
in
agencies
that
promote
–
often
through
funding
–
the
development
of
innovations
through
research
projects,
delivery
tools,
resources
and
infrastructure
for
communities
of
practice
(Australia/Edna;
US
(Library
of
Congress;
NSF;
The
Learning
Federation).
Intergovernmenta
l
agencies
and
nonprofit
funding
agencies
Integrated
policies
and
funding
strategies
to
support
research
on
the
ways
in
which
ICTs
are
changing
the
ways
that
people
learn,
play
or
participation
in
civic
activities
(e.g.
UNESCO
IIEP;
OECD
CERI;
OECD’s
Education
Management
and
Infrastructure
Division
(Directorate
for
Education).
Also
in
terms
of
promoting
innovation
and
collaboration
for
the
development
of
digital
literacy
curricula
and
Open
Education
Resources
(OERs).
Projects
focusing
on
understanding
the
impact
of
widespread
use
of
digital
media
in
youth
learning
(see
for
example,
MacArthur;
Carnegie,
Hewlett;
NSF,
EDUCAUSE,
National
Institute
for
Technology
and
Liberal
Education
(NITLE)
in
the
US;
ESRC,
EPSCR,
AHRC,
BECTA
in
the
UK).
Institutional
strategies
Institutional
strategic
plans
and
support:
Some
HE
institutions
are
developing
more
integrated
strategies
through
administrative,
marketing
and
pedagogical
mandates
(for
example
Warwick,
Edinburgh,
Open
University
in
the
UK)
and
for
more
effective
use
of
Web
2.0.
Regulatory,
legal,
security
and
ethical
factors
are
driving
concerns.
Positive
institutional
drivers
appear
to
be
more
prominent
in:
distance
learning
and
life‐long
learning
contexts.
Professional
motivations
(academic/adminis
trator)
There
is
now
a
significant
body
of
evidence
around
technology
interventions.
These
projects
are
providing
rich
data
on
the
barriers
and
enablers
to
successful
integration
of
technologies;
as
well
as
data
on
the
attitudes
of
staff
and
wider
patterns
of
technological
adoption.
A
spectrum
of
users
is
emerging
(e.g.
early
adopters;
‘digital
residents’,
etc.).
Exploration
of
the
opportunities
for
communication,
sharing
and
collaboration
across
borders
often
fits
with
specific
pedagogical
or
communication
strategies.
Popular
patterns
of
motivation
include:
a)
sustainable
resources
beyond
course/degree
duration
(e.g.
alumni
relations;
student
recruitment;
lifelong
learning
commitments);
b)
professional
drives
to
enhance
teaching
practices;
and
c)
extension
to
new
forms
of
knowledge
and
e‐scholarship.
Curricular
needs
and
elearning
Technology
uptake
and
use
is
different
in
different
subject.
For
example
media,
computer
science
and
information
science
courses
appear
to
be
more
open
to
adopting
Web
2.0
practices.
The
functionalities
of
tools
employed,
their
suitability
for](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-27-320.jpg)
![28
chosen
tasks
and
the
learners’
familiarity
and/or
acceptance
of
these
tools
within
the
curriculum
are
key
interrelated
drivers
for
effective
use.
Students’
positive
attitudes
to
social
computing
is
not
only
dependent
on
familiarity
[though
differences
in
types
of
uses
are
evident
in
countries
OECD
countries],
but
also
upon
perceptions
surrounding
the
degree
of
autonomy
and
the
ability
to
appropriate
or
personalize
tools
to
specific
needs.
E‐collaboration
and
open
communication
/
publication
is
seen
as
a
key
skill
for
professional
development
and
conduct
within
HE
sectors.
Scaffolded
pedagogical
approaches
and
fostering
pedagogical
innovation
Constructivism
and
connectivism
are
the
two
pedagogical
approaches
that
align
most
closely
with
Web
2.0
practice.
The
focus
is
on
enhancing
the
student
experience
and
maximising
the
potential
recreational
or
creative
uses.
Networked
interaction
literacies
and
awareness
of
mediated
learning
structures
and
hierarchies
are
also
important.
Contextual
examples
The
previous
sections
offered
perspectives
on
the
key
theoretical
and
empirical
dimensions
that
emerge
from
evidence.
In
this
section
we
focus
on
specific
case
studies
from
existing
practices
that
highlight
these
aspects
in
particular
contexts.
Our
overall
impression
from
the
case
studies
is
that
there
is
relatively
little
reporting
of
actual
learning
processes,
or
indeed
teaching
practices.
Occasionally
a
comparison
point
helps
evaluate
the
impact
of
interventions
relative
to
alternative
learning
structures,
but
this
is
rare.
Peer‐reviewed
journal
and
conference
papers
offer
evaluative
reports
and
are,
occasionally,
rich
on
empirical
detail,
but
there
are
many
questions
that
need
to
be
asked
regarding
the
likely
conditions
that
contributed
to
success
in
these
areas.
A
multitude
of
blogs
and
reflexive
accounts
from
academic
teachers
offer
rich
perspectives,
but
more
systematic
content
analysis
is
required.
The
social
networking
site
for
learning
and
teaching,
Cloudworks,
has
also
generated
a
rich
body
of
knowledge
on
relevant
perspectives
through
solicitation
of
experiences
in
the
field.
We
include
case
studies
that
address
some
of
the
ways
in
which
learning
and
teaching
practices
have
been
improved.
We
have
looked
for
evidence
of
the
extend
to
which
learning
2.0
practices
are
present:
participatory
learning,
co‐creation
of
learning
artefacts,
peer
critique
leading
to
iterative
individual
‘improvement’
and
group
understanding.
We
are
also
interested
in
seeing
the
extent
to
which
this
is
influencing
the
teacher’s
practice:
is
there
evidence
that
they
are
adopting
different
roles
in
the
learning
process,
such
as
becoming
co‐
learners?
We
also
want
to
see
where
there
is
evidence
that
Web
2.0
approaches
are
being
used
to
foster
and
promote
teaching
scholarship
and
where
there
are
examples
of
teachers
as
learning
communities,
i.e.
in
what
ways
are
Web
2.0
technologies
being
used
a)
for
reflective
practices
and
interaction
with
learners;
b)
as
part
of
engagement
in
wider
communities
of
practitioners
engaging
in
scholarly
practice
around
their
teaching.
The
studies
are
grouped
into
three
broad
categories:
i)
blogs,
wikis
and
social
tagging,
ii)
social
networking
and
microblogging
and
iii)
immersive
worlds
and
second
life.
Appendix
8
focuses
on
Open
Educational
Resources
(OER).
A
detailed
discussion
is
provided
there
with
respect
to
OER,
partly
because
practices
around
OER
within
the
Cloudworks
social
networking
site
is
the
main
focus
of
Case
Study
2
for
the
‘Pearls
in
the
Clouds’
project.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-28-320.jpg)
![29
Finally,
Appendix
9
(‘Issues
raised
by
the
introduction
of
Web
2.0
technologies’)
provides
a
discussion
of
and
detailed
empirical
insight
into
some
of
the
tensions
that
arise
as
a
result
of
the
introduction
of
Web
2.0
technologies
and
in
particular,
their
impact
on
organisational
structures
and
processes,
as
well
as
on
teachers’
and
learners’
individual
roles,
identities
and
perceptions.
Blogs,
wikis
and
social
tagging
The
examples
from
the
literature
provided
here
illustrate
projects
where
blogs
and
wikis
have
been
integrated
into
curricular
design.
They
illustrate
a
range
of
pedagogic
approaches
and
give
an
indication
of
student
and
teacher
perceptions
and
attitudes
towards
using
these
types
of
sites.
Blogs
have
evolved
from
the
concept
of
a
‘personal
homepage’
and
hence
have
been
referred
to
as
personal
publishing
spaces.
Blogs
have
also
been
labelled
reflexive
diaries
or
learning
journals;
both
names
emphasise
the
personal,
chronological
reflective
element
of
sharing
ideas.
As
Downes
notes:
‘they
now
form
one
part
in
a
much
more
diverse
landscape’
[of
Web
2.0
content].
Allegiances
to
particular
technologies
shift
over
time
and
some
people
who
formerly
wrote
blogs,
now
use
social
networking
sites
such
as
MySpace
or
Facebook
instead.
Others
use
‘microblogging'
services
such
as
Twitter.
Textual
blogs
have
evolved
into
other
media
forms,
so
that
it
is
possible
now
to
have
both
audio
blogs
(also
known
as
‘podcasts’)
and
video
blogs
(‘vlogs').
Blogs
are
often
linked
to
a
range
of
multimedia
repository
services
(such
as
Flickr
for
photos,
Deviantart
for
art
work,
YouTube
for
videos
and
SlideShare
for
slide
shows
or
document
files).
It
is
also
possible
to
use
embed
functions
with
many
of
these
so
that
they
appear
within
the
context
of
an
individual
blog
posting.
Blogs
have
been
used
for
a
variety
of
educational
purposes,
for
example
as
platforms
for
course
announcements,
as
mechanisms
to
gather
or
generate
feedback
and
as
a
collective
peer
support
vehicle
among
different
groups
(of
teachers,
researchers
and/or
students).
They
can
be
used
as
a
motivational
tool
to
engage
discussions
in
blended
learning
contexts.
Alternatively
they
can
offer
more
scaffolded
approaches
to
distributed
research.
Finally,
they
can
be
used
as
a
mechanism
for
aggregating
resources,
i.e.
as
a
form
of
e‐portfolio
for
use
either
within
formal
courses
or
as
part
of
professional
development.
In
a
BeCTA
review
of
'Web
2.0
practices
in
education'
Crook
et
al.
(2008)
stated
that
the
clear
articulation
of
the
purposes
of
blogs
within
educational
contexts
and
appropriate
integration
within
formal
assessment
should
be
seen
as
both
a
fundamental
and
important
motivational
tool.
Downes
(2010)
has
identified
nearly
fifty
pedagogical
uses
of
blogs
in
formal
learning,
the
majority
of
which
can
be
or
have
been
used
within
higher
education
courses.
Commonly
cited
advantages
of
blogs
in
education
emphasise
the
communicative,
motivational
and
participatory
benefits
(Farmer
et
al.,
2008;
Kim,
2008).
Some
highlight
the
fact
that
blogs
enable
individual
learners
to
express
their
unique
authorial
voices
and
identity
(Burgess,
2006;
Ellison
and
Wu,
2008)
and
also
that
they
can
encourage
a
sense
of
responsibility
and
pride
(Farmer
et
al.,
2008).
Others
foreground
the
meaningful
interactions
with
others
and
argue
that
peer
critiquing
can
foster
both
psychosocial
needs
and
the
development
of
critical
literacy
and
civic
engagement
skills.
Over
400,000
educational
blogs
are
hosted
by](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-29-320.jpg)
![30
edublogs10
alone.
Teachers
have
been
using
them
to
support
student
learning
and
also
as
a
vehicle
to
reflect
on
their
own
practice
since
about
2004
(Downes,
2004).
The
integration
of
blogging
and
social
networking
is
evident
in
sites
such
as
Ning11
and
Elgg12.
This
kind
of
integration,
alongside
with
the
emergence
of
microblogging,
has
shifted
the
role
of
blogs
from
self‐publishing
and
representation
towards
sharing,
peer
reviewing
and
collaborating.
The
purpose
and
focus
of
educational
blogs
varies.
Some
are
only
open
within
a
course
cohort,
whilst
others
may
be
viewable
by
anyone.
Some
form
an
integral
part
of
a
course,
being
a
formal
part
of
course
activities
or
actually
forming
part
of
the
assessable
output.
In
other
cases
they
are
optional.
Such
varied
practices
in
terms
of
the
degree
of
curricular
integration
or
assessment
generate
tensions
regarding
the
representation
of
hybrid
identities,
trust
and
authorship
(Hemmie
et
al.,
2009).
Davis
(2007:
np)
argues
that
blogs:
are
more
than
a
tool
for
regular
or
irregular
writing
tasks,
and
for
that
reason
teachers
need
to
remember
that
blogging
is
sui
generis
[unique
in
its
characteristics]
–
not
online
diary,
nor
e‐portfolio,
nor
online
newspaper,
nor
e‐exercise
book,
though
it
can
be
used
in
any
of
those
ways
–
and
assert
the
manner
in
which
they
expect
the
blog
to
be
used.
Similarly,
the
potential
of
wikis
for
facilitating
cooperative
learning
in
a
constructivist
environment
and
for
fostering
communities
of
practice
has
been
argued.
Wikis
are
considered
to
be
ideal
tools
for
collaborative
writing
and
for
scaffolding
group
projects.
Examples
of
use
include
using
wikis
as
a
means
of
creating
collective
study
guides
and
textbooks,
as
a
mechanism
for
creating
annotated
reading
lists
or
simply
as
collective,
subject
specific
repositories.
A
number
of
studies
demonstrate
interesting
empirical
findings
pointing
to
a
number
of
observable
benefits.
For
example,
for
a)
fostering
active
learning
(Anson
and
Miller‐Cochran,
2009;
Parker
and
Chao,
2007;
Augar,
Raitman
and
Zhao,
2004)
b)
facilitating
creativity
and
socialization
(Bruns
and
Humphreys,
2007)
or
c)
as
mechanisms
to
foster
the
development
of
higher
order
cognitive
skills.
They
can
enable
students
to
become
co‐creators
of
course
content
and
design.
Social
dimensions
of
cooperation,
such
as
trust
and
consensus,
governance
and
control
are
deemed
important
in
self‐organising
communities,
such
as
Wikipedia.
Successful
implementation
of
wikis
in
an
educational
context
also
requires
a
clear
articulation
of
the
purpose
of
the
wiki
and
clear
explanation
of
its
proposed
benefit
for
learners.
Carefully
constructed
tutor
moderation
and
guidance
is
also
often
needed,
particularly
at
the
start,
before
students’
gain
a
sense
of
control,
ownership
of
the
space
and
a
collective
sense
of
community
(see
for
example
Anson
et
al.,
2009;
Augar
et
al.,
2004;
Beach
et
al.,
2008;
Bruns,
2008;
Notari,
2006).
Dimensions
of
reflexivity
and
collaboration
are
also
attached
to
social
tagging
and
bookmarking,
collectively
known
as
folksonomies.
Folksonomies
are
words
or
meanings
that
users
generate
and
then
attach
to
particular
content.
They
can
be
contrasted
with
more
controlled
pre‐defined
vocabularies,
which
underpinned
many
web
1.0
repositories
and
digital
libraries.
Different
social
bookmarking
sites
encourage
different
uses:
some
sites
10
www.edublogs.org
11
www.ning.com
12
http://elgg.org/](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-30-320.jpg)
![32
• Opinion
sharing
about
events,
sharing
of
ideas,
information
and
commentary
• Backchannels
at
conferences
or
events
(audience
channels,
serendipity/types
of
review
and
reflection)
• Crowd‐sourcing
of
news
and
evidence
from
the
ground
• A
mechanism
for
surveying
and
gathering
opinions.
Although
few
empirically
grounded
studies
have
been
documented
so
far,
several
small‐
scale
evaluative
studies
offer
interesting
insights.
McNeill
(2009)
has
collated
an
interesting
cohort
of
such
studies:
Dr
Rankin
has
used
Twitter
as
a
means
of
encouraging
greater
student
participation
in
large‐group
classes
of
around
90
students.
Her
intention
was
to
pull
more
students
into
a
class
discussion
which
[she]
wouldn't
ordinarily
be
able
to
do
with
that
many
people.
(McNeil,
2009:
10).
Reflections
from
this
case
support
claims
that,
in
spite
of
the
issue
of
it
being
an
added
background
‘noise’
and
that
as
an
interface
it
is
not
really
conducive
to
conversational
use,
short,
dyadic
exchanges
occur
with
multiple
participants
that
can
be
surprisingly
coherent
(Honeycutt
and
Herring
2009).
As
McNeill
(2009:
10)
reports:
Tweeted
comments
and
questions
also
went
some
way,
according
to
the
students
featured,
in
militating
against
some
of
the
factors
that
inhibit
student
participation
in
large‐group
discussion,
namely
'feedback
lag',
or
the
suppression
of
questions
due
to
the
pace
of
the
lecture,
'student
apprehension',
or
the
fear
of
speaking
due
to
the
size
or
climate
of
the
class
and
the
'single‐speaker
paradigm'
or
assumption
that
only
one
person
(usually
the
lecturer)
speaks
(Anderson
et
al.
2003).
Twitter
has
also
been
used
to
enhance
social
presence.
A
case
study
from
the
University
of
Colorado
Denver
focuses
on
the
use
of
Twitter
in
a
module
on
an
instructional
design
and
technology
course
(Dunlap
and
Lowenthal
2009).
The
authors
encouraged
their
students
to
use
Twitter
in
a
variety
of
ways:
to
post
questions
and
queries
to
one
another
or
to
the
course
team,
to
send
student‐to‐student
direct
messages,
to
tweet
comments
on
relevant
news
events,
to
share
resources,
to
reports
on
conferences
attended,
to
link
to
student
blog
postings
and
to
exchange
personal
information.
The
authors
claim
that
the
use
of
Twitter
can
enhance
students'
perception
of
a
sense
of
'social
presence',
an
important
quality
that
helps
promote
student
involvement,
commitment
and
retention.
They
conclude
that
Twitter
is
good
for
sharing,
collaboration,
brainstorming,
problem
solving,
and
creating
within
the
context
of
moment‐to‐moment
experiences
(Dunlap
and
Lowenthal
2009).
This
case
study
illustrates
something
of
the
flexibility
of
Twitter
to
enable
a
range
of
interactions
from
private
messages
between
peers,
to
lightweight
Twitter‐based
tutorials,
or
'twittorials'
that
engage
the
whole
cohort.
The
evaluation
also
supports
the
social
networking
dimension
of
Twitter,
with
students
clearly
comfortable
with
the
varieties
of
information
exchange
and
the
heightened
perception
of
belonging
and
of
social
connection
to
both
teaching
staff
and
fellow
students.
Bradshow
reports
on
the
use
of
Twitter
in
journalism
courses
(Bradshow,
2008).
He
describes
the
difficulty
of
engaging
students
who
have
not
used
social
media
before.
Part
of
his
aspiration
was
to
expose
students
to
Twitter
as
a
means
of
helping
them
see
the
implications
of
new
technologies
for
the
journalism
profession.
He
argues
that
teaching
students
about
the
tools,
through
the
tools,
will
help
them
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
broader
implications
of
these
technologies
for
journalism.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-32-320.jpg)
![34
dialogues
and
at
engaging
students
in
identifying
links
with
popular
culture.
He
experienced
reluctance
and
extremely
low
levels
of
uptake
or
enthusiasm
by
students:
‘This
may
change
but
it's
clear
that
the
students
‐
media
and
cultural
studies
and
Eng.
Lit
and
Popular
culture
‐
aren't
perceiving
the
relevance
of
the
activities
and
technology
to
their
learning
in
the
same
way
as
their
tutors
do.’
Other
comments
in
this
cloud
and
related
clouds
(e.g.
‘Twitter
in
academia’
‘is
Twitter
killing
blogging’,
‘Twitter
for
teaching
and
learning’)
revolve
around
tools
to
archive
Twitter
conversations,
and
mechanisms
for
linking
Twitter
threads
into
specific
courses.
Also
there
are
reflections
about
effective
teaching
practices,
and
alternative
means
of
encouraging
use
without
resorting
to
coercion.
Several
participants
comment
that
aggregating
short
bursts
of
text
and
capturing
the
serendipity
of
the
moment
is
a
powerful
feature
of
blogging.
Others
cited
the
value
of
micro‐blogging
as
a
mechanism
for
sharing
interesting
links
and
references.
The
way
in
which
uncertainties
on
the
use
of
such
tools
is
dealt
with
depends
largely
on
the
ways
in
which
the
teacher
introduces
and
promotes
the
tool.
Teachers
who
have
been
successful
with
the
use
of
these
tools
tend
to
be
those
that
are
actively
using
Twitter
more
broadly
as
part
of
their
professional
practice.
This
is
a
common
pattern
of
Web
2.0
tools,
i.e.
that
really
these
tools
need
to
be
appropriated
and
used
pro‐actively
before
they
can
be
incorporated
into
a
course
design
and
used
in
a
learning
context.
This
is
a
distinct
shift
from
earlier
technologies,
where
how
the
tools
could
be
used
was
more
self‐evident.
For
example,
personal
use
of
an
interactive
computer
package
was
not
necessary
before
a
teacher
could
make
a
judgment
about
its
use
in
their
teaching.
The
difference
lies
in
the
extent
to
which
Web
2.0
tools
are
indeed
used
for
networking,
sharing
and
socialising;
hence
understanding
what
constitutes
productive
behaviour
in
these
spaces
is
something
one
learns
by
doing.
Parry
describes
the
use
of
Twitter
in
his
class
and
identifies
the
following
as
key
factors
to
consider
at
the
learning
design
stage
(see
Briggs,
2008):
• Create
a
sense
of
classroom
community.
• Familiarise
students
with
both
disciplinary
and
professional
discourses.
• Conduct
just‐in‐time
case
studies
and
encourage
them
to
be
reflexive
about
their
own
communicative
practices,
through
the
sharing
of
ideas
and
negotiation.
• Develop
a
social
and
ubiquitous
presence:
As
Parry
notes,
‘I
think
people
end
up
being
a
lot
more
comfortable
with
classroom
discourse
and
get
a
sense
that
[the
instructor]
isn't
just
someone
who
comes
in
and
talks
for
an
hour
and
30
minutes
twice
a
week.
It
has
the
very
positive
effect
of
altering
the
classroom
state
to
not
just
be
contained
by
the
four
walls,
and
by
meeting
twice
a
week.’
(cited
in
Briggs,
2008:
n.p.).
• Using
backchannels
to
generate
instant
feedback
within
lectures
is
another
factor
for
potential
success.
This
is
consistent
with
Yardi
(2008:
145)
who
notes
that:
Online
backchannel
chat
rooms
offer
the
potential
to
transform
classroom
learning
in
unexpected
and
powerful
ways.
However,
the
specific
ways
in
which
they
can
influence
teaching
pedagogy
and
learning
opportunities
are
less
well
understood.
Activities
in
a
backchannel
may
include
the
dissemination
of
ideas,
knowledge
building,
asking
and
answering
questions,
engaging
in
critical
discourse,
and
sharing
information
and
resources.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-34-320.jpg)
![35
• In
both
classroom
situations
and
research‐led
teaching,
using
social
networking
and
microblogging
to
connect
to
the
epistemology
of
disciplines
such
as
new
media
with
writing
or
critical
literacy
skills
can
be
fruitful:
We're
always
trying
to
teach
students,
especially
in
writing,
that
context
determines
meaning.
And
because
Twitter
has
very
refined
rules
about
what
you
can
do‐‐only
140
characters,
for
example‐‐it's
developed
its
own
sort
of
discursive
grammar
set;
that
can
serve
as
an
example
of
how
rules
can
be
productive
for
communication
and
can
limit
communication.
(Parry
cited
in
Briggs,
2008:
n.p.).
Another
interesting
example
of
the
use
of
Twitter
as
a
conversation
medium
for
in‐
classroom
and
post‐lecture
interaction
is
describe
by
Dr
Monica
Rankin,
a
history
lecturer
at
the
University
of
Texas
at
Dallas.
Her
pilot
use
of
Twitter
is
documented
in
a
short
video,
‘The
Twitter
Experiment’,
created
by
a
student14.
Social
networking
There
is
a
growing
body
of
evidence
on
the
use
of
social
networking
within
higher
education
curricula
(see
for
example,
Ebner
and
Maurer,
2008;
Grosseck
and
Holotescu,
2008;
Ebner
et
al.,
2010;
Ramsden,
2009).
These
include
studies
looking
at
a
range
of
learning
contexts,
including
informal
and
process
oriented
learning.
The
conversational
and
communal
qualities
of
social
networking
services
are
considered
by
some
to
‘mirror
much
of
what
we
know
to
be
good
models
of
learning,
in
that
they
are
collaborative
and
encourage
active
participatory
role
for
users’
(Maloney,
2007:
B26).
One
of
the
core
promises
of
social
networking
and
its
application
in
formal
educational
contexts
lies
in
its
support
for
interaction
between
learners,
for
peer
support
in
terms
of
the
development
of
shared
understandings
and
mutual
support
and
discussion
spaces
to
address
dilemmas
about
their
studies
(Madge
et
al.,
2009;
Selwyn,
2009).
Another
is
its
potential
use
to
support
the
development
of
teacher
practice,
to
help
them
develop
strategies
for
using
new
technologies
to
augment
‘conventional’
interactions
and
dialogue
with
their
students.
The
use
of
SNS
by
educators
in
their
pedagogic
practice
has
been
reported
by
Mason
(2006),
and
Mazer,
Murphy,
and
Simonds
(2007;
2009).
More
generally
it
is
about
transferring
the
practices
that
are
evident
in
what
is
commonly
known
as
'socialising'
(informal
knowledge
building,
mutual
peer
support,
discussions
on
shared
interests)
to
formal
educational
contexts.
Selwyn
(2009)
explored
students'
use
of
Facebook
to
support
their
formal
studies.
He
used
a
non‐participant
virtual
ethnography
approach,
drawing
on
Goffman's
notions
of
self‐
representation
and
'faceworking'
to
analyse
the
comments
from
a
number
of
university
students
and
counsels:
Facebook
appears
to
provide
a
ready
space
where
the
'role
conflict'
that
students
often
experience
in
their
relationships
with
university
work,
teaching
staff,
academic
conventions
and
expectations
can
be
worked
through
in
a
relatively
closed
'backstage'
area'.
[….]
It
was
acting
as
a
ready
space
for
resistance
and
the
contestation
of
the
asymmetrical
power
relationship
built
into
the
established
offline
positions
of
university,
student
and
lecturer
(Bourdieu
and
Passeron
1977).
This
was
perhaps
most
clearly
evident
in
the
playful
and
often
ironic
rejection
of
dominant
university
discourses
throughout
the
posts,
14
The
Twitter
Experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WPVWDkF7U8](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-35-320.jpg)
![49
http://franc2.mit.edu:8000/ci/
[Deliberatorium]
http://arg.umentum.com/
http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/forum
Online
games
and
virtual
worlds
Being
able
to
interact
with
other
users
is
also
possible
in
online
games.
Often
users
are
strangers
and
so
the
game
rules
need
to
avoid
assuming
mutual
familiarity.
A
simple
example
is
a
game
based
around
naming
a
sketch
drawn
by
someone
else
(Isketch).
A
similar
idea
is
a
game
based
on
having
an
invisible
user/partner
suggest
labels
for
random
photographs.
This
has
a
dual
purpose
in
that
it
enables
automatic
metadata
tagging
that
can
then
be
used
by
search
engines
(Imagelabeler).
More
traditional
partner‐based
electronic
games
are
possible
with
Internet
connections
between
players
(World
of
Warcraft).
'Virtual
worlds'
create
screen
environments
that
allow
users
to
navigate
around
the
virtual
space
and
interact
with
others
through
avatars.
The
best
known
of
these
is
Second
Life,
an
educational
example
is
the
University
of
Edinburgh’s
Vue.
They
do
not
demand
game‐like
rules
but
promote
the
opportunity
for
simulatory
experiences.
These
have
clear
potential
for
learning
and
have
been
used
to
good
effect
to
simulate
medical
environments
for
example
or
to
set
up
simulations
around
the
economies
for
trading
goods
or
services.
Although
basic
use
of
these
sites
is
often
free,
many
have
an
economic
model
as
well,
enabling
the
buying
and
selling
of
objects
(such
as
clothes,
islands
or
buildings)
in
the
virtual
space.
A
new
Open
Source
project,
“Sloodle”
aims
to
integrate
the
Second
Life
multi‐
user
virtual
environment
with
the
popular
Moodle
Virtual
Learning
Environment
(VLE).
Second
Life
Grid
is
another
example
of
an
umbrella
group
for
supporting
educators
using
Web
2.0
tools
in
the
curriculum.
Other
examples
take
ecology,
climate
or
human
rights
as
topics
(Powerupthegame,
Gamesforchange).
http://www.isketch.net
http://images.google.com/imagelabeler
http://www.worldofwarcraftWorld
of
Warcraft.com
http://secondlifeSecond
Life.com
http://www.habbo.com
http://www.virtualibiza.com
http://vue.ed.ac.uk/
http://www/sloodle/org
http://secondlifeSecond
Lifegrid.net/programs/education
http://www.powerupthegame.org
http://www.gamesforchange.org/
Social
networking
An
early
form
of
Internet
social
interaction
was
based
on
the
dating
agency
principle
(Match).
Recent
sites
organise
real
world
meetings
between
members,
such
as
meeting
for
Saturday
breakfasts
(Fruehstueckstreff)
or
by
tracking
mobile
phone
location
(Dodgeball).
Other
sites
convened
members
online
based
on
alumni
relations
(Friendsreunited)
or
around
business
profiles
(Linkedin).
However,
the
greatest
success
has
been
in
sites
that
allow
users
to
create
digital
spaces
into
which
they
can
invite
'friends'
to
share
messages,
texts,
videos
or
to
play
games.
Some
have
a
strong
student
base
(Facebook),
others
are
more
media‐oriented
(Myspace),
and
some
are
aimed
at
teenagers
(Bebo).
Some
specifically
create
social
links
based
on](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-49-320.jpg)
![64
Appendix
6:
Barriers
to
change
Some
of
the
specific
barriers
evident
from
the
literature
include:
concerns
about
expectations,
experiences
and
competences
with
respect
to
using
Web
2.0
technologies,
the
perception
that
engagement
in
using
these
tools
has
an
associated
time
investment;
a
mismatch
between
the
current
social
and
cultural
context
of
teaching
practices
and
Web
2.0
approaches
(see
also
Blin
and
Munro,
2008),
a
lack
of
confidence
that
appropriate
instructional
structures
are
in
place
to
support
these
activities
and
an
inherent
scepticism
as
to
whether
or
not
these
technologies
will
actually
make
a
difference.
More
on
these
issues
can
be
found
in
an
online
discussion
around
a
research
question
we
included
in
Cloudworks
‘why
has
general
Web
2.0
practice
not
translated
well/extensively
within
a
HE
context?’22.
Finally,
there
are
issues
around
the
workload
implications
of
these
new
approaches;
both
for
teachers
and
students.
Access,
accessibility,
and
concerns
on
authority
and
trivialisation
Firstly,
there
are
a
range
of
issues
around
notions
of
access
and
accessibility.
Accessibility
remains
a
major
obstacle
to
equal
opportunities
and
a
key
problem
for
inclusion
(see
for
example
Davies
and
Cranston,
2008).
Furthermore,
there
are
differences
in
the
familiarity
with
ICT
in
general,
and
in
social
computing
in
particular
among
different
learners
and
learner
groups,
giving
rise
to
a
‘participation
divide’
(Hargittai
and
Walejko,
2008).
Similarly
a
recent
report
by
JISC
suggests
that
information
literacies
represent
a
growing
deficit
area
among
HE
learners
(JISC,
2009).
There
are
also
negative
perceptions
about
the
blurring
of
boundaries
that
arise
though
interaction
with
these
technologies
and
in
particular
the
blurring
of
work
and
social
spheres
of
interaction,
as
well
as
invasion
of
personal
or
private
spaces.
Many
are
concerned
about
shifting
to
more
open
approaches
and
making
content
freely
available,
fearing
it
will
lead
to
an
erosion
in
their
competitiveness
(OECD,
2007;
Minocha,
2009),
while
issues
of
authority,
authorship
and
trivialisation
are
evident
too.
A
specific
example
helps
to
illustrate
some
of
these
issues.
A
recent
survey
conducted
by
Faculty
Focus
(2009)
aggregated
2000
responses
from
educators
in
the
US,
and
is
a
significant
source
of
data
regarding
practitioners’
attitudes
to
the
use
of
Twitter
in
undergraduate
and
postgraduate
education.
What
was
significant
about
the
findings
were
the
reservations
many
expressed
about
Twitter's
suitability
in
higher
education.
The
perception
of
triviality
persists
in
relation
to
time
consumption
and
real
engagement,
leaving
to
one
side
questions
about
privacy,
security
and
faddism.
More
specifically
pedagogic
or
intellectual
concerns
emerged
from
the
data
that
focused
on
the
perceived
deleterious
influence
of
Twitter
on
students'
academic
literacy
practices,
with
quotes
like
‘logical
arguments
cannot
be
delivered
well
in
short
bursts’
or
‘[It]
perpetuates
poor
written
and
oral
communication
skills'.
There
were
also
concerns
that
Twitter
can
encourage
comment
without
thought
and
that
this
does
not
encourage
or
enable
the
students
to
adequately
reflect
on
the
content
and
concepts
they
are
being
presented
with;
i.e.
arguably
the
antithesis
of
learning‚
(Focus
Faculty:
2009:
13).
There
is
a
similarity
between
some
of
these
comments
and
earlier
anxieties
about
the
negative
influence
of
22
http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2394](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-64-320.jpg)
![74
As
Iiyosh
and
Kumar
argue
'the
key
tenet
of
open
education
is
that
education
can
be
improved
by
making
educational
assets
visible
and
accessible
and
by
harnessing
the
collective
wisdom
of
a
community
of
practice
and
reflection'
(Iiyosh
and
Kumar,
2008:
10,
emphasis
added).
Open
Education
it
has
been
argued
not
only
creates
avenues
for
a)
engaging
educators
around
the
world
and
b)
offering
additional
resources
for
classroom
students;
but
also,
c)
as
support
for
independent
learners,
auto‐didacts
and
self‐learners.
Participation,
whether
as
an
educator
or
casual
learner
is
often
framed
as
an
opportunity
for
experimenting
and
gaining
information,
digital,
networking
and
media
literacy
skills,
through,
and
within,
the
field
of
curricular
design
and
instruction.
It
is
too
framed
as
an
opportunity
for
developing
a
supportive
dialogue
for
the
representation
of
pedagogies
and
pedagogical
knowledge.
In
a
recent
discussion
between
Stephen
Downes
and
David
Wiley
–
both
advocates,
scholars
and
practitioners
in
OER
–
what
was
suggested
was
that:
Institutions
are
invited
to
explore
the
effectiveness
and
viability
of
open
solutions
to
address
large‐scale
educational
reform.
Teacher
training
and
faculty
development
efforts
are
areas
of
particular
interest,
along
with
opportunities
for
continuous
education.
[…]
‘if
open
educational
resources
are
to
represent
a
rich
tapestry
of
the
ways
in
which
we
manifest
ourselves
–
the
ways
in
which
we
immerse
ourselves
in
multiple
creativities
–
they
too
offer
an
inviting,
lower‐
risk
and
lower‐cost
platform
for
being
experimental
and
innovative
in
the
field
of
education'
(paraphrased
from
the
Wiley‐Downes
discussion
at
the
OpenEd
preconference,
Alevizou,
2009).
Indeed
a
body
of
literature
has
emerged
from
research
into
OERs
that
come
from
conventional
universities
and
points
towards
these
directions
(Petrides
and
Jimes,
2006;
Petrides
et
al.,
2008;
Kanchanaraksa
et
al.,
2009;
Schuwer
and
Mulder,
2009).
McAndrew
et
al.
(2009)
note
that
the
OpenLearn
initiative
has
provided
new
means
of
working
with
both
formal
partnerships
and
to
build
also
less
formal
partnerships
and
collaborations.
It
has
also
helped
towards
examining
and
improving
organizational
structures
and
processes,
as
well
as
pedagogical
philosophies
among
educators
that
shared
their
materials
in
an
OER
form.
Another
strand
in
the
literature
points
to
informal
learning
communities
forming
around
open
educational
resources
(Bourbules,
2007;
Ala‐Mutka,
2009).
Burbules
focuses
on
what
he
describes
as
'self‐educating
communities'
groups
engaged
in
formal,
informal,
or
non‐formal
teaching
and
learning
activities
amongst
themselves.
His
primary
interest
is
with
online
self‐educating
communities,
using
the
web
as
an
educational
medium.
He
offers
a
typology
of
the
kinds
of
online
networks
of
‘improvement’
and
co‐education.
He
also
discusses
the
internal
practices
and
norms
that
allow
these
networks
to
act
successfully
as
self‐educating
communities,
and
points
to
the
areas
in
which
these
practices
produce
tensions
and
contradictions.
While
tensions
between
informal
environments
and
given
and
measured
tasks
(such
as
accreditation)
need
to
be
recognized,
establishing
presence
in
informal
spaces
helps
institutions
to
get
visibility.
It
also
enables
institutions
to
connect
with
prospective
students
and
self‐learners
that
have
the
potential
to
contribute
to
developing
pedagogical
innovations
coming
from
people
from
within
institutions
and
external
communities
(Gurley
and
Lane,
2009).
Community,
creative
participation
and
collaboration
in
both
formal
and
informal
contexts
are
central
to
the
effectiveness
and
sustainability
of
OER.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-74-320.jpg)
![80
Despite
the
widespread
marketing
and
media
discourses
around
the
idea
that
‘content
is
free;
it’s
a
matter
of
editorialising’,
comments
such
as
these
are
representative
of
a
position
more
widely
shared
amongst
those
who
teach:
‘Without
a
teacher,
learning
is
difficult
and,
often,
impossible’.
‘It
took
me
six
months
to
find
my
way
around
something
I
could
have
learnt
in
a
week,
if
I
had
some
stepping
stones’.
‘Even
strongly
motivated
groups
of
learners
quickly
collapse
without
a
teacher’.
Whilst
some
of
the
underlying
concerns
amongst
some
colleagues
seem
to
revolve
around
views
that
construe
‘openness’
as
a
potentially
destabilising
element,
less
reactionary
views
revolve
around
concerns
with
‘quality’
as
something
that
can
be
assessed,
measured,
and
used
as
evidence
of
‘success’:
‘quality’
of
learning
resources,
‘quality’
of
the
learning
experience
afforded
by
the
involvement
of
a
teacher
and
‘quality’
of
the
individuals
produced
by
such
experiences.
But
are
these
concerns
rooted
only
in
politics
and
its
questions
of
power?
[...]
From
this
perspective,
a
major
area
of
impact
of
OERs
is
that
their
availability
is
not
only
creating
new
challenges
but
also
bringing
to
light
previously
veiled
tensions
and
questions
regarding
identity
and
boundaries,
and
this
provides
a
fascinating
area
for
further
investigation
(Ferreira,
2009:
48‐9).
Repurposing
and
reflecting:
designing
resources,
designing
collaborative
communities
Motivations
for
contribution
in
OER
platforms
or
Open
Courseware
repositories
follow
similar
patterns
to
open
publishing.
Petrides
et
al.
(2008)
offer
useful
insights
regarding
‘author’
use
and
reuse
in
OER.
They
focused
on
the
Connexions
platform
and
performed
a
rigorous
statistical
analysis
of
log
files
of
activity
over
a
five‐year
period,
along
with
follow
up
interviews
with
a
selection
of
participants
within
the
platform.
While
the
qualitative
data
provided
insights
into
use
and
reuse
practices,
the
qualitative
data
added
depth
to
the
findings
by
delving
into
the
‘why’
and
the
‘how’
that
goes
behind
use
and
reuse
practices,
collaborative
authorship,
as
well
as
challenges
and
discontinuation
of
use
and
reuse.
Among
the
factors
influencing
contribution
and
continuous
use
cited
in
the
findings
were:
• prior
familiarity
with
publishing
online
content
• a
sense
of
improvement
of
teaching
practices
• and
support
in
professional
development,
which
helped
feed
a
continuum
in
publishing,
augmenting
and
re‐using
content.
As
the
authors
note:
‘Users
explained
that
as
teaching
professionals
they
had
a
heightened
need
for
timely
content
for
their
students
and
colleagues’
(Petrides
et
al.,
2008:
112).
Incentives
for
persistent
users
included
ideology,
technical
know‐how
and
a
recognition
that
this
type
of
engagement
helped
their
professional
development;
they
also
saw
it
as
useful
for
connecting
with
subject‐specific
instructors
and
teaching
scholars
across
geographical
boundaries.
However,
intermittent
and
eventual
non‐users
(some
of
whom
were
also
educators)
were
disincentivised
by
lack
of
technical
skills,
relevance
of
content,
and
reluctance
to
the
idea
of
group
authorship
(see
below
for
more
about
collaborative
co‐
authorship
and
community
structures).
Certainly,
educators’
prior
knowledge
and
familiarity
with
Web
2.0
or
technical
skills,
as
well
as
motivations
towards
openness
and
crowdsourced
education,
are
key
components
for
the
sustainability
and
success
of
the
OER
movement
(see
for
example,
Downes,
2007).
As
research
in
the
field
has
indicated,
educators’
concerns
over
relevance
and
quality
hinder
use
and
reuse.
The
relevance
of
content
incorporates
several
layers,
e.g.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-80-320.jpg)
![90
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Alevizou.p
df
ISBN
978‐1‐86220‐225‐2.
Alevizou,
P.,
Conole,
G.
and
Galley,
R.
(2010)a
‘Case
Study:
Using
Cloudworks
to
support
OER
activities’
Case
Study
for
the
HEA‐funded
‘Perls
in
the
Clouds’
Project.
Milton
Keynes:
Open
University.
Alevizou,
P.
(2009)
'Thoughts
on
OpenEd09
Conference'
Open
University:
OLnet
blog
post
http://olnet.org/node/45
Alevizou,
P.
(2009)a
'Collaboration
and
Content
in
Open
Educational
Resources:
International
Perspectives'
http://olnet.org/node/103
Alexander,
B.
(2008)
'Social
Networking
in
Higher
Education'.
In
R.
Katz,
(ed.)
(2008)
The
Tower
and
the
Cloud,
EduCause
http://www.educause.edu/thetowerandthecloud
Anderson,
C.
(2006)
The
Long
Tail:
Why
the
future
of
Business
is
Selling
Less
of
More;
New
York
:
Hyperion.
Anderson,
P.
(2007).
What
is
Web
2.0?
Ideas,
technologies
and
implications
for
education
JISC
Technology
and
Standards
Watch
[last
accessed
19/11/09]
http://www.jisc.org.uk/media/documents/techw
atch/tsw0701b.pd
Anderson,
R.J.,
Anderson,
R.,
Vandegrift,
T.,
Wolfman,
T.
and
Yasuhara,
K.
(2003).
'Promoting
interaction
in
large
classes
with
computer‐mediated
feedback
in
designing
for
change
in
networked
learning
environments'.
Proceedings
of
CSCL.
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~rea9x/papers/cscl2003‐cfs‐sp.pdf
Anson,
C.M.
and
Miller‐Cochran,
S.K.
(2009).
‘Contrails
of
learning:
Using
new
technologies
for
vertical
knowledge‐building’.
Computers
and
Composition,
Vol
26:
38‐48.
Armstrong,
J.
and
Franklin,
T.
(2008).
A
review
of
current
and
developing
international
practice
in
the
use
of
social
networking
(Web
2.0)
in
higher
education.
A
report
commissioned
by
the
Committee
of
enquiry
into
the
Changing
Learner
Experience.
http://www.franklin‐consulting.co.uk/
Atkins,
D.E.,
Brown‐Seely,
J.
and
Hammond,
A.L.,
(2007).
A
review
of
the
open
educational
resources
(OER)
movement:
Achievements,
challenges,
and
new
opportunities.
Report
to
The
William
and
Flora
Hewlett
Foundation.
Accessible
online
at
http://www.oerderves.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2007/03/a‐review‐of‐the‐open‐educational‐resources‐oer‐
movement_final.pdf
Attwell,
G.
and
Pumilia,
P.M.
(2007)
'The
New
Pedagogy
of
Open
Content:
Bringing
Together
Production,
Knowledge,
Development,
and
Learning'.
Data
Science
Journal,
6,
211‐
21.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-90-320.jpg)
![95
Conole,
G.
and
Jones,
C.
(2010).
'Sharing
practice,
problems
and
solutions
for
institutional
change
–
comparing
different
forms
of
representation'.
In
P.
Goodyear
and
S.
Retalis
(Eds)
Technologyenhanced
learning:
Design
Patterns
and
Pattern
Languages.
Rotterdam,
The
Netherlands.:
Sense
Publishers
B.V.
Conole,
G.,
McAndrew,
P.
and
Dimitriadis,
Y.
(2010/forthcoming).
'The
role
of
CSCL
pedagogical
patterns
as
mediating
artefacts
for
repurposing
Open
Educational
Resources’.
In
F.
Pozzi
and
D.
Persico
(Eds)
Techniques
for
Fostering
Collaboration
in
Online
Learning
Communities:
Theoretical
and
Practical.
Conole,
G.
(2010)
'Review
of
pedagogical
models
and
their
use
in
e‐learning',
available
online
at
http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2982
[27/3/2010]
Conole,
G.
and
Weller,
M.
(2008)
'Using
learning
design
as
a
framework
for
supporting
the
design
and
reuse
of
OER'.
Journal
of
Interactive
Media
in
Education,
Vol.
5.
www.jime.open.ac.uk/2008/05/jime‐2008‐05.pdf
Conole,
G.,
Dyke,
M.,
Oliver,
M.
and
Seale,
J.
(2004)
‘Mapping
pedagogy
and
tools
for
effective
learning
design’.
Computers
and
Education.
43(1‐2):
17‐33.
Crook,
C.,
Cummings,
J.,
Fisher,
T.,
Graber,
R.,
Harrison,
C.,
Lewin,
C.,
Logan,
K.,
Luckin,
R.
and
Oliver,
M.
(2008),
Web
2.0
technologies
for
learning:
the
current
landscape
–opportunities,
challenges
and
tensions,
A
Report
Becta
,
http://partners.becta.org.uk/uploaddir/downloads/page_documents/research/web2_tech
nologies_learning.pdf
Crystal,
D.
(2008).
Txting:
the
gr8
db8.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press.
Dalsgaard
C.
(2006)
‘Social
Software:
E‐learning
beyond
learning
management
systems’
European
Journal
of
Open,
Distance
and
ELearning,
Issue
2006
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm
Dalsgaard
C.
(2009)
‘From
Transmission
to
Dialogue:
Personalized
and
Social
Knowledge
Media’
MedieKultur:
Journal
of
Media
and
Communication
Research,
Special
Issue
on
Mediated
Learning/Learning
Media,
Vol46:
18‐33,
http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/mediekultur/article/view/1333
D’Antoni,
S.
(2006)
(ICDE
SCOP
2006)
Open
Educational
Resources:Deliberations
of
a
Community
of
Interest.
Lillehammer,
Norway.
Davis,
R.
(2007),
“A
Web
2.0
education”
www.education.ed.ac.uk/e‐
learning/gallery/davis_web2education.html#%5B%5BStart%20Here%5D%5D
[blog
post]
Davis,
C.
and
Good,
J.
(2009)
Choosing
to
use
technology:
how
learners
construct
their
learning
lives
in
their
own
contexts,
Key
findings
from
the
first
year
of
research.
A
Report
for](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-95-320.jpg)
![105
McNeill,
T.
(2009)
'Twitter
in
Higher
Education',
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20025500/Twitter‐in‐Higher‐Education
McPherson,
T.
(ed.)
(2008)
'Digital
Youth,
Innovation,
and
the
Unexpected'.
The
John
D.
and
Catherine
T.
MacArthur
Foundation
Series
on
Digital
Media
and
Learning.
Cambridge,
MA:
The
MIT
Press
Mejias
U.
(2006)
‘Teaching
Social
Software
with
Social
Software’.
Innovate:
Journal
of
Online
Education,
Vol
2,
Issue
5,
June/July
2006.
Merrill,
M.D.
(2002)
'First
principles
of
instruction'.
Educational
Technology
Research
and
Development,
50(3):
43–59.
Metzger,
J.
M.
and
Flanagin,
J.
A.
(2008)
‘Introduction’
in
Metzger,
J.
M.
and
Flanagin,
J.
A
(eds.)
(2008)
Digital
Media,
Youth
and
Credibility.
The
John
D.
and
Catherine
.
MacArthur
Foundation
Series
on
Digital
Media
and
Learning.
Cambridge,
MA:
The
MIT
Press:
pp.
1‐4.
Minocha,
S.
(2009)
'A
Study
of
the
Effective
Use
of
Social
Software
by
Further
and
Higher
Education
in
the
UK
to
Support
Student
Learning
and
teaching'
http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/workspace.cfm?wpid=8655
MIT
(2009)
MIT
OCW
Site
Statistics
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/about/stats/index.htm
MIT
(2009a)
2009
Program
Evaluation
Findings
Report
www.ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/global/09_Eval_Summary.pdf
MIT
(2006)
2005
Program
Evaluation
Findings
Report,
Available
at
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/FA49E066‐B838‐4985‐B548‐F85C40B538B
8/0/05_Prog_Eval_Report_Final.pdf
Norris,
P.
(2001)
Digital
Divide:
Civic
Engagment,
Information
Poverty
and
the
Internet
Worldwide.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Notari,
M.
(2006)
'How
to
use
wiki
in
education:
Wiki
based
effective
constructive
learning'.
In
Proceedings
of
the
2006
International
Symposium
on
Wikis
(WIKISYM),
Denmark.
NSF
Cyberlearning
(2008)
‘Fostering
Learning
in
the
Networked
World:
The
Cyberlearning
Opportunity
and
Challenge’.
National
Science
Foundation
Task
Force
on
Cyberlearning
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf08204
Oblinger,
D.G.
and
Oblinger,
J.L.
(eds)
(2005)
Educating
the
Net
Generation
[online],
An
Educause
ebook
publication
available
at
http://routes.open.ac.uk/ixbin/hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=routesand_IXSPFX_=gandsubmitbutto
n=summaryand%24+with+res_id+is+res19283](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-105-320.jpg)
![109
Siemens,
G.
(2009)
'Connectivism
and
Connective
Knowledge',
available
online
at
http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/?p=189
Siemens,
G.
(2009b)
'Connectivism
and
the
role
of
the
teacher'
[blog
post]
(http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=220)
Smith,
C.
(2008)
'Technologies
for
Transcending
a
Focus
on
Error:
Blogs
and
Democratic
Aspirations
in
First‐Year
Composition'.
Journal
of
Basic
Writing,
27(1):
35‐60.
Smith,
M.S.
and
Casserly,
C.M.
(2006)
'The
promise
of
open
educational
resources'.
Change:
The
Magazine
of
Higher
Learning.
38(5):
8–17.
Steeples,
C.
and
Jones,
C.
(2002)
Networked
learning:
perspectives
and
issues.
Springer
Verlag.
Surowiecki,
J.
(2004)
The
wisdom
of
crowds:
why
the
many
are
smarter
than
the
few
and
how
collective
wisdom
shapes
business,
economies,
societies
and
nations.
New
York:
Little
Brown.
Tapscott,
D.
(1998)
Growing
up
Digital:
The
Rise
of
the
Net
Generation.
New
York:
McGraw‐
Hill.
Tapscott,
D.
and
Williams,
A.
D.
(2006)
Wikinomics:
How
Mass
Collaboration
Changes
Everything.
New
York:
Penguin
Thorpe,
M.,
Conole,
G.
and
Edmunds,
R.
(2008)
‘Learners’
experiences
of
blended
learning
environments
in
a
practice
context’
[online],
Sixth
International
Networked
Learning
Conference,
Greece,
5–6
May
2008,
http://kn.open.ac.uk/
document.cfm?docid=12129.
Turney,
D.
Robinson,
M.
Lee,
and
A.
Soutar
(2009)
‘Using
technology
to
direct
learning
in
higher
education:
The
way
forward?’
Active
Learning
in
Higher
Education,
vol.
10:
71
‐
83.
Unwin,
T.
(2005)
'Towards
a
Framework
for
the
Use
of
ICT
in
Teacher
Training
in
Africa'.
Open
Learning.
Vol20:
113‐130.
Urry,
J.
(2007)
Mobilities.
London:
Sage
Väljataga,
T.
(2009)
‘If
a
Student
Takes
Control:
Facilitator’s
Tasks
and
Responsibilities’
in
Advances
in
Web
Based
Learning
–
ICWL
2009
8th
Proceedings
of
the
International
Conference,
Aachen,
Germany,
August
19‐21,
2009.
Pp.
390‐399
Berlin
/
Heidelberg:
Springer
DOI
‐
10.1007/978‐3‐642‐03426‐8_47
http://www.springerlink.com/content/23V52409256W16U1
Vuorikari,
R.
(2007).
“Folksonomies,
Social
Bookmarking
and
Tagging:
State‐of‐the‐Art”.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/conolealevizou2010-130826221837-phpapp02/85/Conole-alevizou-2010-109-320.jpg)
Conole alevizou 2010
- 2. 2 Table of Contents A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education................................1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................5 Changing technologies......................................................................................................................9 The emergence of Web 2.0 tools..............................................................................................................9 A typology of Web 2.0 tools.................................................................................................................... 11 Changing learning and learners................................................................................................. 13 Theories of learning ................................................................................................................................. 13 New forms of learning.............................................................................................................................. 16 Patterns of technology use and the characteristics of learners................................................. 17 The changing role of teaching and teachers..................................................................................... 20 Strategies for supporting the use of technologies................................................................ 22 Barriers to uptake and lack of impact................................................................................................ 22 Digital, networked and multiliteracies............................................................................................. 23 Success factors and strategies for change......................................................................................... 25 Contextual examples...................................................................................................................... 28 Blogs, wikis and social tagging.............................................................................................................. 29 Twitter........................................................................................................................................................... 31 Social networking...................................................................................................................................... 35 Immersive environments and virtual worlds.................................................................................. 37 Summing up................................................................................................................................................. 40 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 41 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 44 Appendices: Further issues relating to the adoption of Web 2.0 in HE: details from the research field.................................................................................................................. 45 Appendix 1: An open approach to literature reviews using Cloudworks............................... 46 Appendix 2: A typology of Web 2.0 tools ........................................................................................... 47 Media sharing..........................................................................................................................................................47 Media manipulation and mash‐ups ...............................................................................................................47 Instant Messaging, chat and conversational arenas...............................................................................48 Online games and virtual worlds....................................................................................................................49 Social networking..................................................................................................................................................49 Blogging .....................................................................................................................................................................50 Social bookmarking ..............................................................................................................................................51 Recommender systems.......................................................................................................................................51 Wikis and collaborative editing tools ...........................................................................................................52 Syndication................................................................................................................................................................53 Appendix 3: A review of elearning models and frameworks .................................................... 54 Appendix 4: Paradoxes created by the networked and digital.................................................. 57 Knowledge expansion..........................................................................................................................................58 No hierarchy or control.......................................................................................................................................58 Networked versus bounded spaces?.............................................................................................................58
- 3. 3 Collective ownership versus commodification.........................................................................................59 Appendix 5: Factors influencing the lack of uptake of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education60 Levels of maturity..................................................................................................................................................60 National strategies ................................................................................................................................................61 Marketing and student recruitment..............................................................................................................61 Appendix 6: Barriers to change ............................................................................................................ 64 Access, accessibility, and concerns on authority and trivialisation.................................................64 Literacy issues.........................................................................................................................................................65 Quality and effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................65 Legacy systems.......................................................................................................................................................65 Pedagogical rethinking........................................................................................................................................66 Appendix 7: Different approaches to shifting thinking and promoting change................... 66 Design‐based research ........................................................................................................................................66 Promoting change through the technologies ............................................................................................67 Appendix 8: Open Educational Resources ........................................................................................ 70 From learning objects to open educational resources ..........................................................................70 Educators’ motivations and OER teaching practices..............................................................................75 OER classroom communities............................................................................................................................78 Repurposing and reflecting: designing resources, designing collaborative communities ....80 Appendix 9: Issues raised by the introduction of new technologies........................................ 84 Institutional arrangements ...............................................................................................................................84 The educators’ role ...............................................................................................................................................85 The attitudes and roles of students ...............................................................................................................87 Tensions around the concept of openness .................................................................................................87 Assessment practices...........................................................................................................................................88 References ......................................................................................................................................... 89
- 4. 4 Introduction This review focuses on the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. It provides a synthesis of the research literature in the field and a series of illustrative examples of how these tools are being used in learning and teaching. It draws out the benefits that these new technologies appear to offer, and highlights some of the challenges and issues surrounding their use. The review forms the basis for a HE Academy funded project, ‘Pearls in the Cloud’, which is exploring how Web 2.0 tools can be used to support evidence‐based practices in learning and teaching. The project has also produced two in‐depth case studies, which are reported elsewhere (Galley et al., 2010, Alevizou et al., 2010). The case studies focus on evaluation of a recently developed site for learning and teaching, Cloudworks, which harnesses Web 2.0 functionality to facilitate the sharing and discussion of educational practice. The case studies explore the extent to which the Web 2.0 affordances of the site are successfully promoting the sharing of ideas, as well as scholarly reflections, on learning and teaching. Our aim in this review is to draw on the existing body of international literature in this field. It synthesises some empirical evidence on the patterns of use of Web 2.0 tools and social media in higher education and structures findings in themes relevant to communities of educators. Although evidence exists regarding the benefits of Web2.0 in informal learning environments, and within administrative contexts, results from longitudinal studies showing the depth of change in pedagogical practice in either tertiary or post‐tertiary education are either scarce or far from consensual. And while an emerging body of literature focuses on experiences of learners, structured evidence regarding the issues surrounding integration in formal education, such as those outlined above, is only slowly emerging. The next section describes our methodology for the study. The report is divided into the following sections: • Introduction • Methodology • Changing technologies • Changing learning and learners • Changing teaching and teachers • Strategies for promoting the use of technology • Contextual examples • Conclusion • Appendices o Appendix 1: An open approach to literature reviews using Cloudworks o Appendix 2: A typology of Web 2.0 tools o Appendix 3: A review of e‐learning models and frameworks o Appendix 4: Paradoxes created by the networked and digital o Appendix 5: Factors influencing the lack of uptake of Web 2.0 in Higher Education o Appendix 6: Barriers to change
- 5. 5 o Appendix 7: Different approaches to shifting thinking and promoting change o Appendix 8: Open Educational Resources o Appendix 9: Issues raised by the introduction of Web 2.0 technologies • References Methodology We have drawn on existing evidence from larger and smaller scale reports, anecdotal accounts of innovative practices of mainstream Web 2.0 in education, and conference papers and journal articles to identify and surface trends, experiences and challenges regarding the take up and use of Web2.0 in formal learning contexts. We have also scrutinised accounts of collaborative projects regarding the pedagogical integration of Web 2.0 within HE contexts, and searched for recorded experiences of practice from relevant edu‐blogs and established networks on scholarship in education, as well as peer‐reviewed papers. Being reflective and experimental in our research, we sought to open up the debate, solicit insights and share resources in a public space. The review was informed by secondary research pointing to the impact of social media/software and Web 2.0 in learning and teaching. The focus has been on emerging trends and evidence on practices and challenges in the field of higher education in OECD countries. Following an initial review of existing relevant reports with a UK, US or an international focus (e.g. BECTA, 2008; 2009; NSF Cyberlearning, 2008; Frankling and Armstrong, 2008; Ala‐Mutka et al., 2009; JISC, 2009; Redecker, 2009; OECD, 2009), we devised an initial structure and set of sub‐ categories and started performing searches on each topic in progressively more detail, reducing the set until a listing of themes regarding trends, projects and evidence relating to practices and challenges was selected. In order to collect evidence from research publications (peer reviewed journal articles, books and book chapters) we performed searches with specialised journal and conference proceedings databases including: • ERIC • Igenta connect • Sage journals online • Communication and mass media complete • Elearning and TEL • Informaworld • Relevant e‐learning conferences, such as ALT‐C, ASCILITE and Networked learning Additional Google scholar searches were performed, using keyword and boolean searches on terms including: ‘Web 2.0’ ‘social media’ ‘social networking’ ‘higher education’ ‘learning 2.0’ ‘virtual words’, ‘social learning’ ‘participatory learning’ 'teaching practices' 'reflection' and 'teaching'. Finally, specialised networking and community sites were searched (include ECAR, EDUCAUSE, EvidenceNet, ELSIG, JISC, Higher Education Academy subject centres and Cloudworks). As the second case study within the ‘Pearls in the Clouds’ project focuses on the use of Cloudworks for supporting practices and discussions around Open Educational
- 6. 6 Resources (OER), more targeted searches regarding openness and OER were also performed in the above databases and in specialised sites through Boolean operators. It was clear from this initial round of searches that there is little in the way of meta‐reviews and empirically‐grounded or longitudinal studies. There are however many case studies on specific use of Web 2.0 tools and a rich body of evidence investigating the learners’ voice. This learner voice research is giving valuable insights about the experiences and expectations that learners have about using technologies to support learning. Research looking at the ‘teacher voice’ and their expectations and experiences is smaller. Similarly, there is a dearth of evidence looking at the ways in which these new technologies are or could change learning and teaching practice. The largest body of evidence comes from scholars and educational technologists who are involved in e‐learning and distance learning and from proponents of open learning and OER. In addition to the traditional literature review strategy outlined above, we also conducted what we are labelling an ‘open review’ using the Cloudworks site. We define an ‘open review’ as one that uses a social networking space to aggregate and collectively discuss an evolving body of literature around a set of core research questions. To initiate the open review a cloudscape was set up1. The nature of the project was described and an outline of how we planned to use Cloudworks to conduct the open review: We are using Cloudworks as a place to share awareness of, and critically evaluate relevant literature, but also to elicit views, ideas, and experiences surrounding the use of Web 2.0 in Higher Education. The resultant Cloudscape will be referenced in the final report to the HEA and in appreciation of your contributions, you will be acknowledged explicitly in the report in the form of quotations. All comments will be subject to a Creative Commons Attribution licence. In part, this is a self‐reflective exercise in that we want to see how this cloudscape evolves as an example of Web 2.0 practice in the HE context. The initial cloud representing the state of the review and some initial references is below. A detailed overview of how Cloudworks was used to support an open review is provided in the first in‐depth case study, part of the 'Pearls in the Clouds' project . The way that the site was used to support the Web 2.0 review outlined here, is discussed in more detail in Appendix 1, ‘An open approach to literature reviews using Cloudworks’2 . A summary explanation is provided here for completeness. Five spaces (‘clouds’) were set up around core questions associated with the review, as a means of stimulating the debate: • Is there evidence of productive and creative use of Web 2.0 in HE? • What are the barriers and enablers to the use of Web 2.0 in HE? • What are the barriers to sharing experiences and teaching ideas in a public space? • Why has general Web 2.0 practices not translated well/ extensively into an HE context? • Web 2.0 tools for building pedagogical wraparounds in OERs? 1 Reviewing the use(s) of Web 2.0 in higher education: http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/1895 2 Literature review of the uses of Web 2.0 in HE: http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2294
- 9. 9 A number of other sources of evidence were reviewed. In particular, a lot is written on this topic through personal blogs, self‐published essays and reflective diaries. This includes reflections on the implications of new technologies for learning and teaching, strategies for more effective take up of technology, identification of barriers and drivers to adoption, and critiques of impact on learner experience and teaching practices. Although these softer sources of evidence are not subjected to the standard peer review process, they can offer valuable insights into the perceived state of the landscape of Web 2.0 in Higher Education; in some ways they are evidence of ‘practicing what you preach’, i.e. use of the medium to understand the nature of the medium. Although a systematic categorisation of these resources was beyond the scope of this review, we include a selection of relevant reflections in the section that outlines the contextual examples. Changing technologies The technological environment within which modern education operates is becoming increasingly complex; offering new possibilities but also giving rise to challenges. We have seen a continual evolution of technologies and how they are used since the introduction of the Internet. Web 2.0 tools, virtual worlds, simulations, haptics and mobile technologies continue this trend of co‐evolution and we are only beginning to develop an understanding of what the trajectory of this co‐evolution will be. De Freitas and Conole (2010) suggest five broad technological trends that are likely to have a significant impact on education: • A shift towards ubiquitous and networked technologies • The emergence of context and location aware devices • The increasingly rich and diverse different forms of representations and stimulatory environments possible • A trends towards more mobile and adaptive and adaptive devices • A technological infrastructure which is global, distributed and interoperable The emergence of Web 2.0 tools Appendix 2 offers a detailed typology of Web 2.0 tools , categorising them according to the ways in which they are used. This section considers some of the key features of these tools. It concludes by describing some of the overarching features and patterns of behaviour that are emerging through use of these tools. The term ‘Web 2.0’ is attributed to Tim O’Reilly (2005). Since then it has gained widespread use, penetrating also the discourse of learning and teaching. Related terms such as the ‘read and write web’ and the ‘social web’ give an indication that the term refers to a shift in web tools and practices towards more participatory, user interaction. Although the term has no single definition, there is a widespread agreement that it applies to a wide set of functional characteristics, within the context of computer‐mediated communication and networked digital media. These not only point to the increased possibilities for publication (compared to earlier generations of the web), but also encourage, and are supportive of, user participation in the uploading and sharing of digital artefacts.
- 10. 10 In the last few years much has been written about the ways in which these tools are changing practices; practices that involve shifting from the web as a content repository and information retrieval mechanism to a web that enables more social mediation and user generation of content. New practices are emerging: • sharing of images, videos and documents (as is evident with sites such as Flckr, YouTube and Slideshare) • mechanisms for content production, communication and collaboration (through blogs, wikis and micro‐blogging services such as Twitter and social sites like Facebook, Elgg and Ning) • opportunities to interact in new ways through immersive virtual worlds (such as Second Life). The social interface of Web 2.0 offers novel ways for connecting people and sharing and discussing ideas. It can be used to support and enhance existing communities or to foster the development of new communities of inquiry and exploration. There seems to be a tantalising alignment between the affordances of digital networked media (the focus on user‐generated content, the emphasis on communication and collective collaboration) and the fundamentals of what is perceived to be good pedagogy (socio‐constructivist approaches, personalised and experiential learning) (Conole and McAndrew, forthcoming: 2). The emergence of Web 2.0 tools sits within a broader context of continual technological change. The 2010 Horizon Report identifies four trends as key drivers of technology adoption in higher education for the period 2010 through 2015 : • The abundance of online resources and relationships inviting a rethink of the educators’ role in sense‐making, coaching and credentialing. • An increased emphasis on, and expectation of, ubiquitous, just‐in‐time, augmented, personalised and informal learning. • The increased use of cloud computing challenges existing institutional IT infrastructures, leading to notions of IT support becoming more decentralised. • The work of students being seen as more collaborative in nature and therefore there is potential for more intra‐ and inter‐ institutional collaboration (Johnson et al., 2010). While the Horizon series of annual reports have contributed to research into future trends and emerging priorities within a US context (see for example the NSF Cyberlearning Report, 2008), several other reports have also outlined recent and developing international practice regarding the patterns of adoption and/or use of Web 2.0 in education (see for example, Armstrong and Franklin, 2008; OECD, New Millenium Learners, 2008; OECD‐CERI, 2009). In particular, Redecker (2009) and Ala‐Mutka et al. (2009) report findings from a European perspective focusing on formal and informal education respectively. In the UK, BECTA’s Emerging Trends of technology in Education and Harnessing Technology: Next Generation Learning 20082014, as well as JISC's Learner Experience programmes have produced numerous case studies and reports (see BECTA/Crook et al., 2008; Davies and Good, 2009). JISC’s most recent comparative report looks into the strategic and policy implications for higher education of the experiences and expectations of learners in the
- 11. 11 light of their increasing use of Web 2.0 technologies (JISC, 2009). Engagement in Web 2.0 environments provides, it has been argued, more avenues for self‐representation, expression or reflection and more organized forms of collaboration and knowledge building. Re‐generation of content through remixing and repurposing, as well as networking and group‐interaction are common activities. While activities such as these were also evident in earlier generations of networked computing and online services (for example Usenet groups, bulletin boards and discussion forums, Multi‐UserDomains and MOOs, use of Instant Messaging protocols, personal and institutional web pages to promote individual or project‐based activities and interests; see BECTA/Crook et al. , 2008), ‘Web 2.0’ marked a watershed in terms of a significant shift in practices. A number of factors contributed to this shift. These include: advancements in the technological infrastructure, increased Internet and broadband adoption, and user‐ friendlier interfaces for navigating, archiving, communicating and collaborating on the web. Together, these have contributed to scaling up user access and involvement. In the OECD countries (OECD, 2009) web services are becoming less expensive, faster, and increasingly based on wireless technology. Advancements in access and speed have been accompanied by a similar level of advancement in terms of developments in software and data management. At its simplest, familiar web browsers have become more versatile, allowing not only a wider range of user interactions, but also interoperability with numerous desktop applications. A typology of Web 2.0 tools The following categorisation of Web 2.0 activities is derived from a BECTA‐commissioned review of Web 2.0 tools in schools (Crook et al., 2008): • Media sharing. Creating and exchanging media with peers or wider audiences. • Media manipulation and data/web mash ups. Using web‐accessible tools to design and edit digital media files and combining data from multiple sources to create a new application, tool or service. • Instant messaging, chat and conversational arenas. One‐to‐one or one‐to‐many conversations between Internet users. • Online games and virtual worlds. Rule‐governed games or themed environments that invite live interaction with other Internet users. • Social networking. Websites that structure social interaction between members who form subgroups of 'friends'. • Blogging. An Internet‐based journal or diary in which a user can post text and digital material while others can comment. • Social bookmarking. Users submit their bookmarked web pages to a central site where they can be tagged and found by other users. • Recommender systems. Websites that aggregate and tag user preferences for items in some domain and thereby make novel recommendations. • Wikis and collaborative editing tools. Web‐based services that allow users unrestricted access to create, edit and link pages. • Syndication. Users can ‘subscribe’ to RSS feed enabled websites so that they are automatically notified of any changes or updates in content via an aggregator.
- 13. 13 building, but also to foundational issues that will affect educational institutions and practice for the future. Changing learning and learners Theories of learning This section considers different pedagogical approaches specifically in relation to Web 2.0 practices. Views on categorisation of learning theories are strongly contested and definitions for different aspects are not clear‐cut. Furthermore, whilst theories of learning have never been static, arguably the ‘fluidity’ and complexity of new online spaces and the ways in which they are being used to support different forms of learning means that the distinction between pedagogical approaches (such as behavioural, cognitive, developmental and critical pedagogy) is being eroded. Nonetheless, it is possible to draw out some patterns as to what constitutes good pedagogy, irrespective of the underlying epistemological beliefs that different theorists and schools of thought hold. This section provides a review of current theories of learning in the context of their application to exploitation of new technologies for learning. Mayes and de Freitas (2004) grouped learning theories into three categories: • Associative (learning as activity through structured tasks) • Cognitive (learning through understanding) • Situative (learning as social practice). In addition to the categorisation provided by Mayes and De Freitas, a number of other authors have written about learning theories and how they relate to e‐learning. Conole et al. reviewed learning theories and mapped them against a pedagogical framework (Conole, et al., 2004). Dyke et al. (2007) built on this work by providing an overview of the main learning theory perspectives along with an indication of the kinds of e‐learning practice they most obviously support. Ravenscroft (2003) linked pedagogical theory to specific examples of e‐learning innovation. Learning theories are frequently captured in pedagogical models or frameworks that emphasise a particular approach. A recent review of the key models or frameworks that have been used in e‐learning described twenty common models or frameworks across the different theoretical perspectives (Conole, 2010). Appendix 3 (‘A review of e‐learning models and frameworks’) provides a summary of this work. A lot of early application of e‐learning was essentially behaviourist in nature. This ‘page turning’ mentally has been criticised resulting in researchers exploring the ways in which more interactional, student‐centred and socially mediated approaches might be applied. Many argue that behaviourist approaches, which focus on prescriptive shaping and systematic guidance of the learner towards inscribed goals are inappropriate for Web 2.0 environments. Nonetheless Web 2.0 tools can support associative pedagogies and be used effectively in terms of providing structured guidance through tasks and through provision of effective and timely feedback. This might include the adaption of a learner’s personal learning environment to provide a structured learning pathway, using interactive e‐
- 16. 16 Selwyn (2009) argues that educational practices that are concerned with the exploratory and social, the reflective or immersive aspects of knowledge building will find Web 2.0 tools and social media powerful. At the same time, it is also assumed that the core affordances of Web 2.0 tools blur the boundaries between production and use (Bruns and Humphreys, 2007). This can in turn have an impact on all four principle aspects of the learner experience: the cognitive, the constructive, the social and the situative (see also Mayes and de Freitas, 2007). New forms of learning Having provided a general discussion of learning theories and their relationship to Web 2.0 tools, this section describes four specific examples of the ways in which these tools might promote new forms of learning, namely: • Inquiry-based and exploratory learning • New forms of communication and collaboration • New forms of creativity, co‐creation and production • Richer contextualisation of learning Web 2.0 technologies and practices provide new mechanisms for inquiry‐based and exploratory learning. Distributed collection of data is possible, as are new ways of organising and representing multiple data sources. New tools are emerging for interrogating and analysing data, along with rich social and information environments to support research communities. In this respect, cognitively, Web 2.0 invites users to familiarise themselves and develop confidence in new modes of inquiry. It also brings challenges to both learners and teachers in terms of a blurring of the boundaries of control in these contexts, as well as raising issues about the legitimacy of information in these new distributed, mixed‐environments (e.g. Keen, 2007). The ephemeral nature of web knowledge is not only an asset enabling multiple locations, users and re‐mixing, but also a liability, which can lead to cognitive overload, confused authorship and loss of credibility. New forms of media and information literacy for filtering, navigating, organizing and manipulating relevant content (for a more developed discussion of literacy, see below) are required. Social networks enable new forms of communication and collaboration. The importance of collaboration is a common ingredient in many of the learning perspectives, as it is generally considered to be an important means of developing understanding through shared dialogue and co‐construction. An ecology of social networks has now developed, ranging from those congregating around common interests or kinship, through to those associated with more formal community contexts (such as formal learning contexts or professional networks). These ecologies are facilitated by a range of processes of engagement instantiated through the new technologies, making peer guidance, reflection and support possible in a variety of new ways and at a scale not seen before. For example, the ability to openly comment upon and critique other people’s work has become a standard practice within the blogosphere and has been taken up by academics (through self‐reflective blogs for teaching and digital scholarship) and researchers. In teaching contexts, students can socialise with peers through social networks, providing mutual support and a forum for shared dialogue.
- 19. 19 preferences in the ways they like to learn, the degree to which they wish to engage with technologies and the standard of their general study skills and academic performance. Some of the original rhetoric around technologies being associated with significant shifts in the nature of contemporary learners can be traced back to the work of researchers like Oblinger and Prensky. Prensky coined the phrase ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001) to describe a generation of learners who have grown up in a world of computers, mobile phones and the web; i.e. a generation reliant upon digital media and tools. Prensky and others argued that these digital natives are seen to stand in stark contrast to older generations of ‘digital immigrants’, who adopted digital media later on in their lives. Terms such as ‘Internet generation’, ‘generation M’ (media), ‘generation V’ (virtual), ‘google generation’ (Brabazon, 2007), ‘generation C’, ‘Nintendo kids’, ‘Millennials’ (OECD, 2008) typify this movement (see, for example, Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Tapscott, 1998; and Kennedy et al., 2008 among others, for an empirically grounded critique of such rhetoric). Certainly Oblinger and Oblinger's (2005) book, ‘Educating the Net Generation’, provides a useful starting point for recent research exploring students’ use of technologies. It provides a kind of watershed in terms of tuning into the increasing research interest in studying how learners are interacting with new tools, and how this might be changing the ways in which they are learning. In their introduction, Oblinger and Oblinger note, ‘we hope this book will help educators make sense of the many patterns and behaviors that we see in the Net Generation but don’t quite understand’ (2005:7). Constantly evolving technology lies at the heart of mobile, connected, and as Bauman (2005) and Urry (2007) have called it 'liquid lifestyles'. These digital natives are thought to expect technology to assist fluidity in all aspects of their lives, including the ways in which they learn and are educated. They are thought to have distinct expectations of education that involve learning which is personalised, accessible on‐demand, and available at any time, any place, or any pace and are often contrasted with teachers and parents, who are labelled as being ‘digital immigrants’ or 'visitors' (White, 2009). The uniformity of such learners, and indeed the rhetorical articulation of the technologically deterministic, generational, regional or temporal definitions have been widely contested (Davis and Good, 2009; Jones and Cross, 2009; White, 2009; Buckingham, 2006), and the multiple dimensions of the digital divide have repeatedly been addressed. Increased connectedness, immediacy, multitasking, media and critical literacy, networked skills, but also, emotionality, time management and indeed learner differences and tutor influences are some of the themese which have been considered across a range of in‐depth case studies and surveys (Richardson, 2008; Sharpe et al., 2008; Thorpe et al., 2008). One of the main reasons cited by students for using technologies in their courses is convenience. Technologies are seen as adding value to courses, not as mechanisms for radical transformation. For example, Caruso and Kvavik (2006) found that the most commonly cited reason given for using technology in courses was convenience (51% of students), followed by the ability to manage course activities easily (19%), and to a much lesser extent the opportunities to enhance learning (15%) or to communicate with peers and teachers (11%). This is supported by a comparative analysis on existing studies as part
- 21. 21 Given that coherence and lucidity are key to understanding our world, how do educators teach in networks? For educators, control is being replaced with influence. Instead of controlling a classroom, a teacher now influences or shapes a network. Siemens suggests the follow as a list of the new roles that teachers need to adopt in networked learning environments: • Amplifying • Curating • Way‐finding and socially‐driven sensemaking • Aggregating • Filtering • Modelling • Persistent presence (Siemens, 2009: np) Scaling up to the majority will require different approaches, more strategic coordination and staff development and support. To date, on the whole, only a minority of enthusiastic teachers and those with a research interest in the learning sciences, educational technology or new media, have undertaken experimentation with new innovations in pedagogy and exploration of the use of new technologies. Embracing Web 2.0 approaches will require radically different strategies in terms of designing, supporting and assessing learning. Essentially, the creative change in the practices may lead to deliberate and systemic innovation – both paramount to knowledge‐creating organizations (Bereiter, 2002), such as higher education institutions. The learning potential of Web 2.0 is seen to derive from the co‐construction of knowledge and the collaborative ethos in self‐organised networked and virtual spaces. It is necessary to acknowledge the webs of knowledge created in the social process of teaching and learning (Rudd et al., 2006b). Though it seems unlikely that Web 2.0 will fundamentally displace ‘teaching’ per se, it is clear that embracing Web 2.0 practices will mean that more emphasis is placed on teaching processes being situated as active ‘co‐ learning’ experiences. Adoption of a more scholarly and reflective approach to teaching practice is clearly a logical strategy to help achieve this shift. Despite the relatively sophisticated technological infrastructure that is now in place in the UK and other Anglo‐saxon or OECD countries, deployment of social media at the core of the curriculum within further and the higher education is mostly at an experimental stage (see OECD, 2009). Educators’ confidence in and experience with social media is still perceived as a barrier for successful implementation within teaching and learning in Higher education contexts. Although studies in OECD countries show that teachers may indeed be amongst the most skilled technology users, it appears that they are unable to take advantage of their competence and apply it to the way they teach (OECD, 2008: see also Blin and Munro, 2008; Zang, 2009). According to the OECD (2008) three reasons emerge as the most salient for explaining this paradox: • The absence of appropriate incentives to use technology in the classroom and, more generally, getting involved in any innovation regarding teaching.
- 22. 22 • The dominant culture in the teaching profession is one of applied practice, which does not rely very much on research‐based evidence to identify good teaching methodologies and strategies. • The observation that academic teachers lack the vision and the personal experience of what a technology‐enhanced teaching could look like. The last two reasons suggest that initial teacher training has to be revised and that there needs to be an overall change in the social and cultural context surrounding teaching practices. Strategies for supporting the use of technologies The previous sections paint a picture of a vibrant landscape of research activities and developments, of clusters of communities aggregating around common interests and themes. One would assume that collectively these activities should have a significant impact on practice, but they do not. These communities sit alongside actual teaching practices and rarely inform them to any great extent. There does not yet appear to be an evidence‐based ethos to learning and teaching practice. However, initiatives such as the Higher Education Academy‐funded EvidenceNet5 are attempting to change this and sites like Cloudworks, which are specifically harnessing Web 2.0 approaches to encourage educational debate, are indicators that things are beginning to change. Barriers to uptake and lack of impact Despite the potential application of technologies in an educational context, their use also raises some fundamental paradoxes (See Appendix 4 ‘Paradoxes created by the networked and digital’ for a more detailed discussion). Surveys on the use of Web 2.0 within education give an indication of the level of uptake (see for example the JISC Ipsos MORI polls, 2008; the annual ECAR surveys; also Education Network Australia, 2008; Lam and Ritzen, 2008). Collectively they suggest that uptake is occurring, but that it is not yet extensive across all aspects of learning and teaching provision. It is important to caution against over‐ generalisations from these surveys in terms of extrapolating the uptake of both ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ Web 2.0 tools as it is difficult to draw comparative conclusions systematically from surveys that use different research instruments. In a recent paper Conole considers the barriers to uptake of technologies, drawing on the broader literature on resistance to change and innovation (Conole 2010) (See Appendix 5 ‘Factors influencing the lack of uptake of Web 2.0 in Higher Education’ and Appendix 6 ‘Barriers to change’). Conole identifies the following as commonly cited reasons for lack of adoption: ‘I haven’t got time’, ‘My research is more important’, ‘What’s in it for me?’, ‘Where is my reward?’, ‘I don’t have the skills to do this’, and ‘I don’t believe in this, it won’t work’. Common resistance strategies include saying yes (and doing nothing) or undermining the initiative and/or the people involved. Depressingly classic mistakes are repeated over and over again: an over emphasis on the 5 http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/evidencenet
- 24. 24 • Play ‐ the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem‐solving • Performance ‐ the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery • Simulation ‐ the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real‐world processes • Appropriation ‐ the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content • Multitasking ‐ the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details • Distributed Cognition ‐ the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities • Collective Intelligence ‐ the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal • Judgment ‐ the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources • Transmedia Navigation ‐ the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities • Networking ‐ the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information • Negotiation ‐ the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms • Visualization ‐ the ability to interpret and create data representations for the purposes of expressing ideas, finding patterns, and identifying trends (Jenkins et al., 2006: np.) This list shows the multifaceted nature of digital literacies. Jenkins et al. (2006) define participatory culture as being about involvement and participation, about being able to create and share work and about peer mentorship and support. They go on to suggest that this has immense potential educationally; providing opportunities for peer‐to‐peer learning, diverse cultural expression, skills development across different contexts and a changing attitude to the notions of openness, ownership, intellectual property. Many factors may specifically influence the use of resources, and engagement with social media, including cultural perceptions regarding ‘learning’ and ‘information’; perceptions regarding the value of written resources and evaluation of information, but also competences in using media and computers or to critically reflect on information resources. Uses may also be shaped by other activities conducted online – expectations regarding interactivity, hypertext, ‘Internet literacy’ developed across online sites and services and, possibly, conventions regarding authorship, citation and plagiarism (Livingstone, 2008, Metzer and Flanagin, 2008; Rieh and Hilligoss, 2008). Also important are the tensions associated with the blurring boundaries between production and use, ownership and authorship, expert authority and amateur creativity, openness and completeness, as well as formal and informal learning (e.g. James et al, 2008; McPherson, 2008). Based on an extensive review of the literature, Beetham et al. (2009) provide a comprehensive framework of types of literacies relating to social and situated practices (including meaning making and situated knowledge); technological and media literacies (including multimodal skills, information and critical literacy); and scaffolded and meta‐ cognitive literacies (including the new pedagogies associated with mediated learning). Such
- 26. 26 collaborative activities, Web 2.0 is often presented as also having the potential to facilitate innovations in professional development, teacher training and teaching practices, as well as improvements in the quality of student learning and experiences. Evidence of a concerted effort within institutions to systematic embedding of technologies and its use for learning and teaching, can be traced back to the early to mid 2000s. Institutions began to have more explicit policies on how technologies were being used to support their core activities. Web sites were developed and used explicitly for marketing purposes and for maintaining alumni relations. VLEs were introduced to support the delivery of online teaching and presentation of materials. The popularisation of Web 2.0 technologies from 2005 began to extend the information‐focused use of the technologies and enabled the emergence of informal communities and communication alongside the ‘formal provision’ within institutions (Franklin and van Harmelen, 2007; Ala‐Mutka et al., 2009). A range of e‐learning initiatives was funded which provide mechanisms to experiment with these new technologies. These ranged from small‐scale projects focusing on local practice (for example exploration of a particular tool in a particular teaching practice), through more institutionally focused initiatives (for example the JISC’s Managed Learning Environment programme) through to international collaborations (such as the NSF/JISC digital library programme and the Hewlett‐funded OER initiatives). Collectively these can be seen as primarily bottom‐up, often driven by individual interests, although funding bodies do provide a steer and vision for the overall focus and direction of innovations (e.g. JISC, 2009; OECD, 2009; see also Armstrong et al., 2008: 15). For example in the UK, several e‐learning initiatives have been aligned to the HEFCE e‐learning strategy (HEFCE, 2009). JISC’s programme of activities has directly derived from and is closely aligned to HEFCE’s e‐learning strategy (see JISC, 2009b). Table 1 provides a summary of some of the strategies for changes that have been adopted. Evidence from the literature gives an indicator of the factors for success: • Scaffolding and guidance to teachers. Amongst the most important factors is the need to ensure that there is appropriate ‘scaffolding’ and support of how Web 2.0 tools are embedded in courses. This includes guidance and support on the design of courses, the nature of activities and the role of the teacher. It requires teachers to rethink their position from one of expert to facilitator. • Strategic alignment. Another area of importance is ensuring that appropriate strategies are in place to support this shift. • Understanding the student experience. Careful consideration of the student perspective is needed, particular consideration of affective issues. What are the key factors that motivate students, that will ensure their engagement? • Appropriate support structures. Although closely aligned to considerations around a teacher’s role and the design of the course, the need for effective support structures cannot be underestimated. This involves ensuring that access to materials is easy, that the structure and role of the online environment is clear and having in place contingency plans if there are problems. • Staff incentives and rewards. The projects that have been most successful are those where careful consideration has been given to staff motivation. Ensuring that staff are aware of the vision of why these new technologies are being introduced and getting
- 27. 27 them on board is key. They need to feel a sense of ownership and control of their own teaching practice. • Sharing of good practice. Finally if we are to build collectively on experiences, mechanisms are need to share good practice and enable teachers to adopt more scholarly approaches. Table 1: Summary of different strategies for change National levels Broad government strategies that include the use of Web 2.0 and provide incentives to deliver integrated services (e.g. for student retention, innovation in teaching and learning such as the Australia Learning Performance Fund (DEEWR, 2008) or investment into infrastructure and training. HE funding agencies and policy makers who can provide drivers for institutions through specific mandates, some of which involve the adoption of social media (in the UK, JISC harnessing technology for learning programmes/ CETIS OER programme; HEA [in particular EvidenceNet and ELESIG Ning]. Central investment in agencies that promote – often through funding – the development of innovations through research projects, delivery tools, resources and infrastructure for communities of practice (Australia/Edna; US (Library of Congress; NSF; The Learning Federation). Intergovernmenta l agencies and nonprofit funding agencies Integrated policies and funding strategies to support research on the ways in which ICTs are changing the ways that people learn, play or participation in civic activities (e.g. UNESCO IIEP; OECD CERI; OECD’s Education Management and Infrastructure Division (Directorate for Education). Also in terms of promoting innovation and collaboration for the development of digital literacy curricula and Open Education Resources (OERs). Projects focusing on understanding the impact of widespread use of digital media in youth learning (see for example, MacArthur; Carnegie, Hewlett; NSF, EDUCAUSE, National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE) in the US; ESRC, EPSCR, AHRC, BECTA in the UK). Institutional strategies Institutional strategic plans and support: Some HE institutions are developing more integrated strategies through administrative, marketing and pedagogical mandates (for example Warwick, Edinburgh, Open University in the UK) and for more effective use of Web 2.0. Regulatory, legal, security and ethical factors are driving concerns. Positive institutional drivers appear to be more prominent in: distance learning and life‐long learning contexts. Professional motivations (academic/adminis trator) There is now a significant body of evidence around technology interventions. These projects are providing rich data on the barriers and enablers to successful integration of technologies; as well as data on the attitudes of staff and wider patterns of technological adoption. A spectrum of users is emerging (e.g. early adopters; ‘digital residents’, etc.). Exploration of the opportunities for communication, sharing and collaboration across borders often fits with specific pedagogical or communication strategies. Popular patterns of motivation include: a) sustainable resources beyond course/degree duration (e.g. alumni relations; student recruitment; lifelong learning commitments); b) professional drives to enhance teaching practices; and c) extension to new forms of knowledge and e‐scholarship. Curricular needs and elearning Technology uptake and use is different in different subject. For example media, computer science and information science courses appear to be more open to adopting Web 2.0 practices. The functionalities of tools employed, their suitability for
- 32. 32 • Opinion sharing about events, sharing of ideas, information and commentary • Backchannels at conferences or events (audience channels, serendipity/types of review and reflection) • Crowd‐sourcing of news and evidence from the ground • A mechanism for surveying and gathering opinions. Although few empirically grounded studies have been documented so far, several small‐ scale evaluative studies offer interesting insights. McNeill (2009) has collated an interesting cohort of such studies: Dr Rankin has used Twitter as a means of encouraging greater student participation in large‐group classes of around 90 students. Her intention was to pull more students into a class discussion which [she] wouldn't ordinarily be able to do with that many people. (McNeil, 2009: 10). Reflections from this case support claims that, in spite of the issue of it being an added background ‘noise’ and that as an interface it is not really conducive to conversational use, short, dyadic exchanges occur with multiple participants that can be surprisingly coherent (Honeycutt and Herring 2009). As McNeill (2009: 10) reports: Tweeted comments and questions also went some way, according to the students featured, in militating against some of the factors that inhibit student participation in large‐group discussion, namely 'feedback lag', or the suppression of questions due to the pace of the lecture, 'student apprehension', or the fear of speaking due to the size or climate of the class and the 'single‐speaker paradigm' or assumption that only one person (usually the lecturer) speaks (Anderson et al. 2003). Twitter has also been used to enhance social presence. A case study from the University of Colorado Denver focuses on the use of Twitter in a module on an instructional design and technology course (Dunlap and Lowenthal 2009). The authors encouraged their students to use Twitter in a variety of ways: to post questions and queries to one another or to the course team, to send student‐to‐student direct messages, to tweet comments on relevant news events, to share resources, to reports on conferences attended, to link to student blog postings and to exchange personal information. The authors claim that the use of Twitter can enhance students' perception of a sense of 'social presence', an important quality that helps promote student involvement, commitment and retention. They conclude that Twitter is good for sharing, collaboration, brainstorming, problem solving, and creating within the context of moment‐to‐moment experiences (Dunlap and Lowenthal 2009). This case study illustrates something of the flexibility of Twitter to enable a range of interactions from private messages between peers, to lightweight Twitter‐based tutorials, or 'twittorials' that engage the whole cohort. The evaluation also supports the social networking dimension of Twitter, with students clearly comfortable with the varieties of information exchange and the heightened perception of belonging and of social connection to both teaching staff and fellow students. Bradshow reports on the use of Twitter in journalism courses (Bradshow, 2008). He describes the difficulty of engaging students who have not used social media before. Part of his aspiration was to expose students to Twitter as a means of helping them see the implications of new technologies for the journalism profession. He argues that teaching students about the tools, through the tools, will help them have a better understanding of the broader implications of these technologies for journalism.
- 33. 33 Whilst there are evident challenges surrounding the use of Twitter, there is also broad consensus in the literature that it can facilitate new forms of engagement and give students access to a wider audience of participation. There is anecdotal evidence where use of Twitter has led to increased motivation amongst students and there is a genuine excitement for many of its increasing potential in education. However, one important question to consider is whether the interest in and rhetoric around Twitter is just a passing fad. What happens when the novelty has worn off? Discussions on Cloudworks suggest that this is not the case. In fact, discussions surrounding its use in academic contexts and within the HE curricula sparked off several times, and comments were rather insightful. The ‘Using twitter with students’ cloud in Cloudworks 13 aggregated a variety of comments and references around the use of Twitter in courses and to support different forms of learning. Some examples were given of embryonic experimentation with the tool. A number of positive effects for learning were cited, but low levels of engagement were also raised as an issue. There also appear to be a number of challenges in getting a whole class of active users. One participant in the discussions has mixed views on its value: 'Whilst twitter usage is high amongst the 'converted', I wonder how many actually use it within learning and teaching. My use has varied quite a bit (see blog post http://bit.ly/37ASy2), and I think there could be considerable challenges in getting a whole class of active users ‐ anything else would surely raise questions around equality of experiences'. Other challenges raised include what constitutes an appropriate ‘style of communication’ in Twitter; issues around how it can be integrated within an institutional VLE, the extent to which it forms part of the student’s PLE, and to what degree it is formally integrated into learning intentions. One participant remarks on the ways in which Twitter was being used to build communities and as an alternative social space: ‘I think about half took to it, those that didn't had the usual reservations. What I think has been interesting is that a few have stayed active beyond the course and twitter is a much better way of maintaining this network than having to commit to using forums say. It's also a very democratising space ‐ I often forget who are students and who are peers, which I think is great. For students I think if we encouraged them to get going at the start of their undergrad studies, think of the network they would have established by the end of their studies. This in itself is a valuable outcome of a degree’. One participant reflects upon engagement in relation to recording reflections and its impact on teaching practice (monitoring and encouraging individual students) and on learning practices: ‘I think the benefits are two‐fold. Firstly, recorded, short bursts of reflection are better than no reflection at all. It is my intention that the students will utilise the aggregated Tweflections as the basis of a longer reflective essay at the end of the unit. Secondly, I can monitor individual students and encourage those who are not participating. I can also provide summative feedback where appropriate.’ Another participant trialled the use of Twitter in media, cultural studies and English literature courses. He aimed at experimenting with re‐enactments of Shakespearean 13 http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2398
- 34. 34 dialogues and at engaging students in identifying links with popular culture. He experienced reluctance and extremely low levels of uptake or enthusiasm by students: ‘This may change but it's clear that the students ‐ media and cultural studies and Eng. Lit and Popular culture ‐ aren't perceiving the relevance of the activities and technology to their learning in the same way as their tutors do.’ Other comments in this cloud and related clouds (e.g. ‘Twitter in academia’ ‘is Twitter killing blogging’, ‘Twitter for teaching and learning’) revolve around tools to archive Twitter conversations, and mechanisms for linking Twitter threads into specific courses. Also there are reflections about effective teaching practices, and alternative means of encouraging use without resorting to coercion. Several participants comment that aggregating short bursts of text and capturing the serendipity of the moment is a powerful feature of blogging. Others cited the value of micro‐blogging as a mechanism for sharing interesting links and references. The way in which uncertainties on the use of such tools is dealt with depends largely on the ways in which the teacher introduces and promotes the tool. Teachers who have been successful with the use of these tools tend to be those that are actively using Twitter more broadly as part of their professional practice. This is a common pattern of Web 2.0 tools, i.e. that really these tools need to be appropriated and used pro‐actively before they can be incorporated into a course design and used in a learning context. This is a distinct shift from earlier technologies, where how the tools could be used was more self‐evident. For example, personal use of an interactive computer package was not necessary before a teacher could make a judgment about its use in their teaching. The difference lies in the extent to which Web 2.0 tools are indeed used for networking, sharing and socialising; hence understanding what constitutes productive behaviour in these spaces is something one learns by doing. Parry describes the use of Twitter in his class and identifies the following as key factors to consider at the learning design stage (see Briggs, 2008): • Create a sense of classroom community. • Familiarise students with both disciplinary and professional discourses. • Conduct just‐in‐time case studies and encourage them to be reflexive about their own communicative practices, through the sharing of ideas and negotiation. • Develop a social and ubiquitous presence: As Parry notes, ‘I think people end up being a lot more comfortable with classroom discourse and get a sense that [the instructor] isn't just someone who comes in and talks for an hour and 30 minutes twice a week. It has the very positive effect of altering the classroom state to not just be contained by the four walls, and by meeting twice a week.’ (cited in Briggs, 2008: n.p.). • Using backchannels to generate instant feedback within lectures is another factor for potential success. This is consistent with Yardi (2008: 145) who notes that: Online backchannel chat rooms offer the potential to transform classroom learning in unexpected and powerful ways. However, the specific ways in which they can influence teaching pedagogy and learning opportunities are less well understood. Activities in a backchannel may include the dissemination of ideas, knowledge building, asking and answering questions, engaging in critical discourse, and sharing information and resources.
- 38. 38 • The need to take advantage of the unique properties of the space, enabling people to have experiences that they might not otherwise be able to have or providing a mechanism for them to connect with and interact with people they might not otherwise have met. • Teachers need to adjust their thinking within these environments. The locus of control is no longer with them and there is an evident blurring of boundaries. Teachers need to be comfortable with this shift and think about how to use it to best effect. • The best use of Second Life is not to replicate the dynamics of the classroom, but rather to innovate with new ways of teaching and attempt to pass over the activity of learning to our students. • Second Life appears to be particularly good for a number of constructivist pedagogies – such as discovery learning, learning through trial and error, problem‐based learning, scenario‐based learning and authentic learning. • Second Life is also ideally suited to supporting playful learning A pioneering example of Second Life being used in legal education is 'CyberOne: Law in the court of public opinion', a module offered at Harvard Law School during 2006.15 As part of the module a mock trial was held on Berkman Island, the Second Life presence of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Similarly, the Glasgow Graduate School of Law (GGSL) at the University of Strathclyde set up the virtual town of Ardcalloch, with the objective to facilitate the transition from academic law studies to vocational legal practice in Scotland. It allows learners to take up the role of legal practitioners operating in Ardcalloch, supported by databases of legal documents and templates, forums for discussion with practitioners as tutors, video course lectures and other additional multimedia tools. Initially students had some concerns with the departure from the conventional methods of teaching and learning. However, student feedback is mostly positive, indicating that students appreciate the tools' value in supporting ‘transactional learning’ or action learning. Thus, immersion can be used as a basis for 3D‐real world simulations that assist in integrating scientific practice into theoretical and vocational training (Chittaro and Ranon, 2007). Bromby and Jones (2009) describe their experience of using Second Life in legal education. One issue for them was how students would react to the immersive environment in Second Life and how this might impact on learning. McCallum et al. (2009) designed a module for the development of non‐technical skills such as decision‐making in nursing education at Glasgow Caledonian School of Health, using a scenario‐based learning activity. Although only a small number of students completed the study, it reveals that both students and staff were reflective about outcomes and simulatory experience of participating in Second Life. The extent to which learners and teachers are already familiar with these kind of game playing and decision‐making activities through real situations and gaming worlds is important and has an impact on their perceptions and the perceived value of these kinds of scenarios. Teaching styles and the kinds of support offered need to be different in these context, so support for participation is important, as is understanding the immediacy and 15 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cyberone/
- 40. 40 research on ‘virtual reality’ studies. Although drawing on this older and broader educational research work is important, it is also important to recognise that these new environments also challenge existing concepts and theories and indeed these might need to be altered when applied to virtual worlds. As Carr (2009) notes it is already possible to point to gaps in the literature and suggest the following as areas for future research in this field: i) exploration of new approaches to pedagogy and curricular design, ii) better understanding of the factors involved in supporting social learning in these spaces, iii) identification of viable alternatives to Second Life, iv) addressing quality and access issues in relation to disability or broadband, for example, and v) identification of what institutional policy will need to be put in place. Summing up The contextual examples described in the previous section illustrate the ways in which Web 2.0 tools are being used in specific contexts. These reinforce the general consensus that these technologies provide new and exciting opportunities for education, providing students with new ways to interact with materials and with others. In particular there appears to be a good match between what is considered to be ‘good pedagogy’ and the general properties of these various tools. Table 2 demonstrates how some of the examples discussed here map to different types of learning and teaching approaches. The table shows how there is also a match in terms of mechanism for supporting teacher practice, in terms of facilitating a scholarly, reflective approach and mechanisms for sharing and critiquing practice Table 2: Examples of the use of Web 2.0 tools in different contexts Types of learning and teaching practices Web 2.0 tool and approaches Examples Personal learning The ability to adapt, customise and personalise, use of RSS feeds, mash ups and APIs. The Digital Learning Communities project Situated learning, experiential learning, problem‐based learning, scenario‐ based learning, role play Use of location aware functionality, immersive 3D‐worlds. Use of search engines and other online resources as sources of evidence, connection with peers and experts via social networking tools. Scenario‐based and authentic tasks in virtual worlds, application of gaming technologies for educational purposes The iCamp project, Use of Second Life to support different disciplines (Kirriemuir). Cyberone law role‐play. Inquiry learning, Resource‐based learning Tools to support user‐generated content and facilitating easily sharing and discussing these. These include media repositories (Flckr, YouTube, SlideShare), social bookmarking sites (Delicious), digital repositories and tools for content creation. Use of search engines, participation in distributed, virtual communities, Use of folksonomices and The Open Educational Resource movement and associated tools and repositories. Wikiversity and Wikieducator.
- 41. 41 social bookmarking as mechanisms for finding and organizing resources. Reflective and dialogic learning, peer learning Tools for fostering peer reflection such as blogs and e‐portfolios. Commenting on other students’ blog posts, co‐creation of learning artefacts in wikis. Digital learning communities, Peer‐to‐peer mentoring framework (McLoughlin et al.) Communities of Practice Use of social networking tools to participate in communities of learning and/or educators. Application of tools such as Facebook, Ning and Elgg to support informal social interactions between students or as spaces for reflection on professional practice around a shared interest (eg. The Elesig community in Ning) Scholarly practice and the sharing of designs and good practice Use of Web 2.0 tools to participate in a distributed network of educators and researchers. Use of blogs and wikis to co‐ create knowledge and understanding and to critique practice. The use of blogs and Twitter to share professional practice Edublogs, LeMills Conclusions As this report has indicated, Web 2.0 tools offer characteristics that have clear potential in an educational context to support a range of pedagogical approaches. The report describes illustrative empirical accounts that demonstrate the ways in which Web 2.0 technologies have indeed been used to support innovative approaches to supporting and facilitating learning. However, a number of challenges remain in terms of getting greater adoption of these tools in education. Although national variations regarding the deployment and pervasiveness of Web 2.0 exist, several common themes emerge: • The key theoretical and policy underpinnings for using Web 2.0 methods and tools in higher education. Technological innovation and participatory learning cultures can only be implemented effectively in higher education if they are supported by appropriate national policies. These need to ensure that institutional structures are in place to take advantage of these new technologies, but also link to a wider vision of innovation in academic institutions. While adoption of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning is growing in the HE sector, the need to address these issues in a systematic way is paramount (e.g. JISC, 2009; OECD, 2009). Web 2.0 tools provide new opportunities for learning, which complements the general shift away from didactic to constructivist approaches that dominates current discourse on education. Firstly, they have the potential to provide new forms of immersion through for example 3D‐environments like Second Life. Secondly, they offer a range of new ways in which knowledge can be represented, discussed and shared. Thirdly, they offer a range of ways in which collaborative learning activities can be supported. Fourthly, they support reflective practice and mechanisms for peer critiquing. However, there is also a host of associated
- 42. 42 challenges with trying to embed such practices in institutional systems. Promoting Web 2.0 approaches challenges traditional forms of assessment and current validation mechanisms. We address these questions in relation to existing evidence regarding drivers for adoption in higher education at international and institutional levels. • Teachers and learners; teaching versus learning. There is now a significant body of research on learner experiences and their use of technologies. What is evident is that learners and teachers are not homogeneous. In addition, there is a gap between the expectations/promise of the use of technologies and the actual experiences and uses. The digital divide is still evident; within the student body, but also between tutors and learners. As we noted earlier, the expansive learning domain challenges traditional teaching practices, yet evidence also suggests that expert guidance is required (JISC, 2009; Ipsos Mori, 2008; OECD, 2009) and that a more explicit, learning design based approach to the creation of courses is needed. This raises a set of fundamental questions. What are the implications of shifting from the notion of teacher as instructor to teacher as facilitator? What are the barriers for low levels of experimentation? What institutional infrastructures and support mechanisms will be required to shift to greater use of technology? More importantly, what are the ways in which new technologies can enhance the process of research into teaching and as result, teaching methodologies and strategies? • Skills, media, information and networked literacies. New literacies are needed to make sense of and to participate with these new technologies. Yet, despite widespread agreement about the impotrance of digital literacies, integration of training programmes in the field of higher education remains scant. While academic tutors need to ensure technical proficiency, reflection on approaches to teaching and learning, e‐ pedagogy (learning with and/or through technology) is also paramount. Multi‐ located/fragmented content and the potential for multiple pathways through content have an impact on how educational interventions are designed. And although such multiplicity offers increased choice in an educational context, this also has the potential to lead to confusion. How familiar are learners and education practitioners with the tools of editing and blending digital material? What are the novel perceptions of creativity and originality? What is the scale of the responsibilities that the nuances of literacy brings to educators? Is there a representation of the wider literacies in institutions and in the projects they pursue? • The need for a better connection between research, policy and practice. There is now a significant body of research exploring technologies and how they can be used to support all aspects of Higher Education practice – learning and teaching, research, and administration. E‐science and e‐social science research is giving fascinating insights into exploitation of large, distributed research datasets and more recently into the use of cloud computing. Openness is becoming a trend, both in terms of the production and sharing of educational materials, as well as making research publications (and even research data) freely available. However, as Conole (forthcoming) has argued, this research is neither feeding properly into policies on the use of technology, nor is it impacting on actual teaching practice. • The challenges of trying to change embedded practice and culture. Despite increasing evidence on the benefits of Web 2.0 in supporting constructivist and situative learning approaches, as this report reviews, the challenge of translating this
- 54. 54 Appendix 3: A review of e‐learning models and frameworks Learning theories are frequently captured in pedagogical models or frameworks that emphasise a particular approach. A recent review of the key models or frameworks that have been used in e‐learning described twenty common models or frameworks across the different theoretical perspectives (Conole, 2010). In the review the terms ‘models’ and ‘frameworks’ were considered together, because these terms are contested and appear to be used fairly interchangeably in an educational context. The table below comes from the review. It articulates the relationship between learning theories and practice. Perspectives relate to the fundamental assumptions about the processes and outcomes that constitute learning. Mayes and de Freitas’ three perspectives described earlier: associative (learning as activity), cognitive (learning through understanding) and situative (learning as social practice), can be sub‐divided into a number of different approaches, each emphasising different aspects of learning. At a finer level of detail it is possible to identify a number of approaches within the three perspectives. For example the cognitive perspective includes a range of approaches to learning such as Problem‐Based Learning, Inquiry‐Based Learning and Dialogic Learning. The characteristics of each of these approaches is described, along with examples of how these are reflected in an e‐learning context. Finally individual approaches can then be translated into specific frameworks or models. Table: Learning theories, models and frameworks (derived from Conole, 2010) Perspective Approach Characteristics Elearning application Models and frameworks Associative Behaviourism Instructional design Intelligent tutoring Didactic E‐training Focuses on behaviour modification, via stimulus‐response pairs; Controlled and adaptive response and observable outcomes; Learning through association and reinforcement Content delivery plus interactivity linked directly to assessment and feedback 1. Merrill’s instructional design principles 2. A general model of direct instruction
- 55. 55 Cognitive Constructivism Constructionism Reflective Problem‐based learning Inquiry‐learning Dialogic‐learning Experiential learning Learning as transformations in internal cognitive structures; Learners build own mental structures; Task‐ orientated, self‐directed activities; Language as a tool for joint construction of knowledge; Learning as the transformation of experience into knowledge, skill, attitudes, and values emotions. Development of intelligent learning systems & personalised agents; Structured learning environments (simulated worlds); Support systems that guide users; Access to resources and expertise to develop more engaging active, authentic learning environments; Asynchronous and synchronous tools offer potential for richer forms of dialogue/interaction; Use of archive resources for vicarious learning; 3. Kolb’s learning cycle 4.Laurillard’s conversational framework 5.Community of Inquiry framework 6.Jonassen’s et al. constructivist model 7. N‐Quire model Situative Cognitive apprenticeship Case‐based learning Scenario‐based learning Vicarious learning Collaborative learning Social constructionism Take social interactions into account; Learning as social participation; Within a wider socio‐ cultural context of rules and community; New forms of distribution archiving and retrieval offer potential for shared knowledge banks; Adaptation in response to both discursive and active feedback; Emphasis on social learning & communication/ collaboration; Access to expertise; Potential for new forms of communities of practice or enhancing existing communities 8. Activity Theory 9. Wenger’s Community of Practice 10. Salmon’s 5‐ stage e‐ moderating model 11. Connectivism 12. Preece’s framework for online community Assessment Focus is on feedback and assessment (internal reflection on learning, and also diagnostic, formative and summative assessment) E‐learning applications range from in‐text interactive questions, through multiple choice questions up to sophisticated automatic text marking systems 13. Gibbs and Boud models 14. Nicol and the REAP framework Generic Do not align to any particular pedagogical perspective but provide a useful overview Often translated into underpinning ontologies or learning systems architectures 15. The OU (SOL) model 16. The OU LD & Course Business Models 17. The 3D
- 57. 57 Appendix 4: Paradoxes created by the networked and digital The enthusiasm that currently surrounds Web 2.0 and learning is tempered by a host of misgivings and real challenges. Zhang (2009), among others, reminds us as researchers, educators, and designers that the potential advantages associated with educational uses of the Web (e.g., generative social interactions and sharing, adaptability, interactivity, dynamic updating, richness of information, public accessibility) can also point to challenges for the ways in which the different properties of Web 2.0 are 'transferred' into an educational context: open and shared practices also direct to ephemeral and changing contexts, and unstructured relationships. So while some celebrate the expansion of knowledge, arguing that collective aggregation of information can lead to better decisions than those any individual might make (Surowiecki, 2004), or enable cognitive improvement (Levy, 1997; Tapscott and Williams, 2006), and others caution against the 'cult of the amateur', arguing that Web 2.0 creates a democratisation of knowledge which may unhelpfully flatten expertise, decimate‚ cultural gatekeepers (critics, teachers, editors, journalists), engender self‐promotion, disorient researchers and encourage plagiarism (Keen 2007). Likewise the changing socio‐technical spaces of the Web challenge interpretation, synthesis, and explicit evolution of ideas or the structured nature of formal education. These factors underscore the tension between control and freedom that characterises much of the debate surrounding the use of Web 2.0 in society (including debates about copyright and intellectual property (Lessig, 2004), autonomy, and privacy). The following is adapted from a Keynote presentation and paper at the Ascilite conference, 200917, the table below lists five common effects associated with digital networked media and suggests some of the consequences or paradoxes that arise as a result. Table: Cause and effect in digital and networked spaces Cause Effect Expansive knowledge domain Death of expertise/everyone an expert Hierarchy & control less meaningful, content can be distributed and located in different ways Multiple (co‐)locations/loss of content integrity Increasingly complex digital landscape Beyond ‘digital space’/New metaphors needed Power of the collective, collective intelligence Social collective/digital individualism Free content & tools, open APIs and mash ups Issues re: ownership, value, business models 17 http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2735
- 60. 60 which put the learner in control of their own learning. Many assumptions are hidden in such scenarios, particularly in relation to the motivation of learning. However, although it is unlikely that Web 2.0 will fundamentally displace that important relationship, the scaffolding perspective on learning draws attention to the special force that arises from joint activities. Multi‐located/fragmented content and the potential for multiple pathways through content have an impact on how educational interventions are designed. And although such multiplicity offers increased choice, in an educational context this also has the potential to lead to confusion. Hence there is an opportunity for teachers to play an important new role in terms of providing pedagogically grounded learning pathways, to help learners navigate their way through this complexity. The digital divide (Norris, 2001) has long been a prominent topic of debate in educational technology research (Seale and Bishop, 2009; Kennedy et al, 2007; Warschauer 2004; Norris et al. 2003). However with the increasingly complexity of the digital landscape the gap between the 'tech savvy' teachers and students, 'non‐users' or those who are not engaged may become deeper. The table below reconsiders the five factors considers here and lists the educational dilemmas that arise as a result. Table: Educational dilemmas arising as a consequence of new technologies Cause Educational dilemma Expansive knowledge domain Challenges the role of the teacher Hierarchy and control less meaningful, content can be distributed and located in different ways Need to rethink the design process, offers the potential for new learner pathways Increasingly complex digital landscape Widening skills gap between ‘tech savy’/others Power of the collective, collective intelligence Potential for new forms of learning; digital and networked literacies Appendix 5: Factors influencing the lack of uptake of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education There are four main reasons according to the OCED report (2009) for gaps regarding positive perceptions or capacities for adopting novel ICTs for teaching and learning and actual implementation: i) the state of readiness of the technological infrastructure, ii) the investing capacity of institutions, iii) competence and iv) predominant approaches to teaching and learning. Levels of maturity Firstly, there is a correlation between the maturity of the technological infrastructure to levels of adoption and population digital literacy skills. E‐learning‐readiness (see Sibis, 2002) positions the US at the top, followed by the UK, Denmark and Finland in Europe. Similar patterns are evident from related research (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2003 cited in OECD, 2009: 32).
- 67. 67 in education, and has been used extensively as an approach to trial and evaluate educational interventions on the use of technologies. Research from design science may provide an alternative mechanism for supporting scholarly approaches. Zang (2009) for example, articulates a number of challenges around the use of Web 2.0 environments to support knowledge creation and the ways in which such technologies might be used to support teacher learning and innovation. Integral to his discussion is a design science perspective that focuses on identifying challenges, envisioning new possibilities, and testing improved learning environments and interventions. The approach involves reflective practice, whereby formative research findings are fed back into ongoing cycles of innovative design (Bereiter, 2002). Zang argues that design‐based research provides an approach to developing and testing learning environment design that is theoretically informed. Design‐based research can put educational researchers and practitioners into proactive positions, so that they can actively contribute to evidence‐informed changes in learning environments (Zang, 2009: 274). It might also provide a mechanism for guiding teachers in the use of new technologies and help develop their understanding of how these technologies can be used. Professional wisdom, as described by Dede (2009), is therefore possible with such an approach, as getting practitioners to actively engage in online spaces and explicitly reflect on their experiences, will help them acquire new knowledge and give them an understanding of how to apply it to new teaching context contexts. An evaluative approach is inherent in design‐based research and provides a mechanism for teachers to formalise their understanding, alongside more informal mechanisms of sharing their knowledge‐in‐practice. Promoting change through the technologies The second example explores how practice can be changed through the new technologies, using them to facilitate the sharing of good practice. There have been a lot of studies and projects around mechanisms for sharing practice. These include initiatives that have focussed on cross‐institutional sharing, those that explore how to adopt more evidence‐ based approaches and collaboration on educational research activities and subject‐specific initiatives. Some examples will be given around the following approaches: • Professional networks and support centres • Promotion of learning design as a mechanism for articulating and representing practice • Use of pedagogical patterns • The development and fostering of OER communities • Emergent communities around educational tools such as Learner Management Systems • Research‐based communities Professional networks and support centres Over the past ten years or so a range of professional networks and support centres have emerged which have as part of their remit a role in promoting good practice. Some have a specific focus on technologies25 , others are either focused on educational practices26 or subject disciplines (the Higher Education Academy subject centres). These networks and 25 See for example, for example ALT, http://www.alt.ac.uk/ 26 See for example, SEDA, http://www.seda.ac.uk/
- 68. 68 support centres provide a range of mechanisms for supporting practice – facilitation of workshops and conferences, online events and discussions spaces, repositories of resources and case studies of good practice. Learning design Much of the learning design research is concerned with mechanisms for articulating and sharing practice, and in particular the ways in which designs can be represented. Lockyer et al. (2008) and Beetham and Sharpe (2007) have produced edited collections on work in this area. The AUTC learning design project was one of the first major pieces of work around this27 . It presents a comprehensive suite of designs across different types of pedagogy. JISC has funded a number of projects in this area under its design for learning programme28 and more recently the Curriculum design and delivery programmes29 . A slightly tangential approach has been adopted by the University of Albany Knowledge Network for Innovations in Teaching and Learning30 . Their goal is ‘to use our knowledge of instructional design and learning technology to produce a suite of professional development resources, organized as an open Wiki site, that can help teachers of different levels to understand new learning approaches and environments and work towards innovative classroom practices’. Pedagogical patterns A closely related body of work to learning design is research into the development and use of pedagogical patterns. Derived from Alexander’s work in Architecture, pedagogical patterns is an approach to developing structured case studies of good practice (See for example Goodyear, 2005 for an outline of the field). An example of an initiative that tried to foster a community around the creation and use of patterns is the Pedagogical Patterns project31. Open Educational Resources With the rise of the Open Educational Resources movement in recent years not surprisingly a number of support centres and community sites have emerged. OpenLearn32, alongside its repository of OER, created Labspace which provides a range of tools for fostering community engagement, such as a free tool for video conferencing (flashmeeting) and a tool for visualisation (Compendium). The aim is to provide an environment for sharing of good practice and promoting the reuse of OER. LeMill is a web‐based community for finding, authoring and sharing open educational practices33. Similarly, Connexions34 provides a space for educators and learner to use and reuse OER. Carnegie Mellon, through its Open 27 AUTC learning design project: http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au 28 JISC Design for Learning Programme: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/designlearn.aspx 29 JISC Curriculum Design and Delivery Programme: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/curriculumdesign.aspx 30 University of Albany Knowledge Network for Innovations in Teaching and Learning: http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/knilt 31 Pedagogical Patterns: http://www.pedagogicalpatterns.org/ 32 http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/ 33 http://lemill.net/ 34 http://cnx.org/
- 69. 69 Learning Initiative35, adopts a more evidence‐based approach. Carnegie Mellon and the Open University in the UK are developing a global network of support for researchers and users of OER, through Olnet36. There has been a shift towards focusing on the practices around the creation, use and management of OER. The OPAL project has recently undertaken a review of over 60 case studies of OER initiatives and from these abstracted eight dimensions of Open Educational Practice37. At the time of writing an online consultation and validation process around these is underway. Learner management systems With the emergence of Learner Management Systems (LMSs)/Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) in the last ten years, a number of satellite communities have developed. The open source tool, Moodle38, has a very active community but the focus is primarily on development issues rather than the ways in which Moodle is actually being used in teaching. The LAMS community39 is arguably more successful in terms of concentrating on educational aspects and has over 500 LAMS design sequences available online. In addition, many institutions instigated staff development programmes linked to their VLE, to promote its use and uptake. Research-based communities In addition to the practitioner‐orientated sites and communities described above it is worth touching upon a number of the more research‐focused communities. As e‐learning has developed as a research field, a range of professional bodies, specialised conferences and journals have arisen. In addition, communities and associated activities tend to spontaneously arise around funding initiatives in this area, for example projects supported by the JISC and Academy or more research‐focussed initiatives such as the current ESRC/EPRSC TLRP Technology‐enhanced learning programme40 . Similar patterns of behaviour are evident around international collaboration, although understandably this is more complex. For example in Europe the Stellar Network of Excellence41 aims to ‘build upon, synergise and extend the valuable work we have started by significantly building capacity in TEL research within Europe’. One specific example, relevant to the discussion here, includes the ELESIG (Evaluation of Learners' Experiences of e‐learning Special Interest Group) community42. This consists of over 800 members interested in looking at students' uses of, and experience with, technologies. Elesig runs a range of events and has a ning‐based online site and also on Cloudworks. 35 http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/ 36 http://olnet.org 37 http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/2019 38 http://moodle.org/community/, 39 http://www.lamscommunity.org/ 40 ESRC/EPRSC TLRP Technology‐enhanced learning programme: http://www.tlrp.org/tel/ 41 Europe the Stellar Network of Excellence (http://www.stellarnet.eu/ 42 ELESIG: http://elesig.ning.com/ ; ELESIG team on Cloudworks: http://cloudworks.ac.uk/user/view/1973
- 74. 74 As Iiyosh and Kumar argue 'the key tenet of open education is that education can be improved by making educational assets visible and accessible and by harnessing the collective wisdom of a community of practice and reflection' (Iiyosh and Kumar, 2008: 10, emphasis added). Open Education it has been argued not only creates avenues for a) engaging educators around the world and b) offering additional resources for classroom students; but also, c) as support for independent learners, auto‐didacts and self‐learners. Participation, whether as an educator or casual learner is often framed as an opportunity for experimenting and gaining information, digital, networking and media literacy skills, through, and within, the field of curricular design and instruction. It is too framed as an opportunity for developing a supportive dialogue for the representation of pedagogies and pedagogical knowledge. In a recent discussion between Stephen Downes and David Wiley – both advocates, scholars and practitioners in OER – what was suggested was that: Institutions are invited to explore the effectiveness and viability of open solutions to address large‐scale educational reform. Teacher training and faculty development efforts are areas of particular interest, along with opportunities for continuous education. […] ‘if open educational resources are to represent a rich tapestry of the ways in which we manifest ourselves – the ways in which we immerse ourselves in multiple creativities – they too offer an inviting, lower‐ risk and lower‐cost platform for being experimental and innovative in the field of education' (paraphrased from the Wiley‐Downes discussion at the OpenEd preconference, Alevizou, 2009). Indeed a body of literature has emerged from research into OERs that come from conventional universities and points towards these directions (Petrides and Jimes, 2006; Petrides et al., 2008; Kanchanaraksa et al., 2009; Schuwer and Mulder, 2009). McAndrew et al. (2009) note that the OpenLearn initiative has provided new means of working with both formal partnerships and to build also less formal partnerships and collaborations. It has also helped towards examining and improving organizational structures and processes, as well as pedagogical philosophies among educators that shared their materials in an OER form. Another strand in the literature points to informal learning communities forming around open educational resources (Bourbules, 2007; Ala‐Mutka, 2009). Burbules focuses on what he describes as 'self‐educating communities' groups engaged in formal, informal, or non‐formal teaching and learning activities amongst themselves. His primary interest is with online self‐educating communities, using the web as an educational medium. He offers a typology of the kinds of online networks of ‘improvement’ and co‐education. He also discusses the internal practices and norms that allow these networks to act successfully as self‐educating communities, and points to the areas in which these practices produce tensions and contradictions. While tensions between informal environments and given and measured tasks (such as accreditation) need to be recognized, establishing presence in informal spaces helps institutions to get visibility. It also enables institutions to connect with prospective students and self‐learners that have the potential to contribute to developing pedagogical innovations coming from people from within institutions and external communities (Gurley and Lane, 2009). Community, creative participation and collaboration in both formal and informal contexts are central to the effectiveness and sustainability of OER.
- 75. 75 Understanding the nature and interface of openness in the context of a rapidly changing educational context, is important from a research perspective, but also has a number of tangible and practical benefits. Firstly, it is likely to lead to better understanding of how OER can be designed and repurposed, which ultimately may lead to a greater uptake and use. Secondly, adopting more open approaches to the design process could lead to better understanding of learning and teaching ideas as well the creation of a vibrant community of scholarship around learning and teaching (Conole, 2009/Learning in an Open World Vision Statement61). Educators’ motivations and OER teaching practices A significant body of research is now available on how educators and learners are accessing and using OER materials (Wiley and Henson, 2006; Harley et al,. 2006; Hylen, 2006) McAndrew et al., 2009). In a survey of 452 college instructors conducted in 2007 Petrides et al. (2008a) found that 92% had searched for course‐related materials on the Internet. Reasons included: • the desire to integrate new materials into their courses • to improve their teaching methods and knowledge • to connect with colleagues who had similar teaching interests (Petridis, et al. 2008a cited in Petridis et al, 2008:100). These results are on par with MIT’s consecutive evaluation reports of its OCW collection, which too reveal that educators are accessing OER to support their course planning and preparation and to enhance their personal knowledge (MIT, 2006; 2009a). The sharing of one’s own materials and the reuse of others’ OERs is less expansive (see Harley et al., 2006; Hatakka, 2009). In Petrides et al's (2008a) study of online instructors, evidence directs to the following: while 67% of those surveyed were willing to share their course materials with others over the Internet, only 25% were willing or intending to make their course materials available in an OER form. Evident in the literature and in our own research is that issues of ownership, confidence, relevance and quality are prominent inhibitors, alongside issues relating to legal constraints and technical literacy, lack of professional incentives and a culture (or expertise) in sharing and remixing openly. The last two aspects are closely associated with awareness raising strategies, policy and institutional support. As several interviewees that participated in our study ‘on collaboration and context in OER’ (see Alevizou, 2009a) note: The one thing is the use of the technology, new technology and wikis. An the other is opening to the world, right. So that, that barrier has been well discussed I think. It’s an emotional thing I think, cos play it out rationally, its advantageous to teachers largely, and researchers. But emotionally it’s scary, they are unprepared, their resources aren’t good enough, they think there might be commercial gains (Wikieducator, Interviewee, 13/08/09). 61 http://cloudworks.ac.uk/index.php/cloud/view/2804
- 78. 78 peer learning. The same can also be said of other crowd‐sourced projects such as Wikieducator, Wikiversity, Deviant Art and Smarthistory. OER classroom communities George Siemens and Stephen Downes created an ambitious course and delivered it for the first time in 2009 – not only were the tools and resources they used in the course free, but so was the expertise. (See this blog post for a reflection on the experiment by George Siemens63) The twelve‐week course was called ‘Connectivism and Connective Knowledge Online Course’64 They described the course as a MOOG (Massive Open Online Course). The content, delivery and support for the course was totally free, anyone could join and an impressive 2400 did, although the actual number of very active participants was smaller (ca. 200). The course provides a nice example of an extension of the open movement, moving a step beyond the Open Educational Resource movement to providing a totally free course. Siemens, reflecting on the course said the following: Did we change the world? No. Not yet. But we (and I mean all course participants, not just Stephen and I) managed to explore what is possible online. People self‐organized in their preferred spaces. They etched away at the hallowed plaque of “what it means to be an expert”. They learned in transparent environments, and in the process, became teachers to others. Those that observed (or lurked as is the more common term), hopefully found value in the course as well. Perhaps life circumstances, personal schedule, motivation for participating, confidence, familiarity with the online environment, or numerous other factors, impacted their ability to contribute. While we can’t “measure them” the way I’ve tried to do with blog and moodle participants, their continued subscription to The Daily and the comments encountered in F2F conferences suggest they also found some value in the course65. David Wiley, Associate Professor of Instructional Technology and director of the Center for Open and Sustainable Learning (COSL) at Utah State University is a well‐known researcher in the area of Learning Objects andOpen content. Using wikis and blogs, he runs a course entitled, “Introduction to Open Education”66. The novelty of the course (launched in 2007) was that it was free and offered to anyone in the world. The only requirement was the availability of a blog, to be used to publish weekly posts on the various topics of the course. The course could be attended in different ways: • credit: students who needed credit had to sign up for an independent study at their university and find a supervisor to whom the instructor should send a grade at the end of the term, • noncredit: students could attend the course without any grading from the instructor. If they completed it they could get a certificate at the end of the course stating its successful conclusion, • informal: fully non‐credit attendance of the activities. 63 http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/?p=182 64 http://e4innovation.com/?p=370 - _ftn1 65 http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/?p=182 66 http://open.byu.edu/ipt692r‐wiley/
- 80. 80 Despite the widespread marketing and media discourses around the idea that ‘content is free; it’s a matter of editorialising’, comments such as these are representative of a position more widely shared amongst those who teach: ‘Without a teacher, learning is difficult and, often, impossible’. ‘It took me six months to find my way around something I could have learnt in a week, if I had some stepping stones’. ‘Even strongly motivated groups of learners quickly collapse without a teacher’. Whilst some of the underlying concerns amongst some colleagues seem to revolve around views that construe ‘openness’ as a potentially destabilising element, less reactionary views revolve around concerns with ‘quality’ as something that can be assessed, measured, and used as evidence of ‘success’: ‘quality’ of learning resources, ‘quality’ of the learning experience afforded by the involvement of a teacher and ‘quality’ of the individuals produced by such experiences. But are these concerns rooted only in politics and its questions of power? [...] From this perspective, a major area of impact of OERs is that their availability is not only creating new challenges but also bringing to light previously veiled tensions and questions regarding identity and boundaries, and this provides a fascinating area for further investigation (Ferreira, 2009: 48‐9). Repurposing and reflecting: designing resources, designing collaborative communities Motivations for contribution in OER platforms or Open Courseware repositories follow similar patterns to open publishing. Petrides et al. (2008) offer useful insights regarding ‘author’ use and reuse in OER. They focused on the Connexions platform and performed a rigorous statistical analysis of log files of activity over a five‐year period, along with follow up interviews with a selection of participants within the platform. While the qualitative data provided insights into use and reuse practices, the qualitative data added depth to the findings by delving into the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ that goes behind use and reuse practices, collaborative authorship, as well as challenges and discontinuation of use and reuse. Among the factors influencing contribution and continuous use cited in the findings were: • prior familiarity with publishing online content • a sense of improvement of teaching practices • and support in professional development, which helped feed a continuum in publishing, augmenting and re‐using content. As the authors note: ‘Users explained that as teaching professionals they had a heightened need for timely content for their students and colleagues’ (Petrides et al., 2008: 112). Incentives for persistent users included ideology, technical know‐how and a recognition that this type of engagement helped their professional development; they also saw it as useful for connecting with subject‐specific instructors and teaching scholars across geographical boundaries. However, intermittent and eventual non‐users (some of whom were also educators) were disincentivised by lack of technical skills, relevance of content, and reluctance to the idea of group authorship (see below for more about collaborative co‐ authorship and community structures). Certainly, educators’ prior knowledge and familiarity with Web 2.0 or technical skills, as well as motivations towards openness and crowdsourced education, are key components for the sustainability and success of the OER movement (see for example, Downes, 2007). As research in the field has indicated, educators’ concerns over relevance and quality hinder use and reuse. The relevance of content incorporates several layers, e.g.
- 83. 83 'Upload this unit' and 'Make a copy for revising'. The Connexions site offers variable content and structure complicate en mass operations, but individual modules and collections are accessible, structured, and supported for reuse/remix with the most liberal Creative Commons license. In terms of providing a social and community interface, the site is similar to OpenLearn’s LabSpace, providing not only packaged content but also resources and tools to facilitate reuse, remixing, and republishing OERs. Connexions enables members to create online content individual as well as collaboratively; author users can create private work areas, and versions of modules created can be improved or augmented in these areas or others when published (at the author's discretion). Authors can create online shared workgroups and invite others to join. As Petrides et al. note (2008: 112), workgroup members cited the overarching structures of groups as an important factor in maintaining collective efforts, alongside clear role assignation for ensuring regular maintenance and updating. Nonetheless, common tensions and conflicts often surface around attribution and ownership. McAndrew at al. (2009: 50‐4) offer several examples of collaborations and repurposing within LabSpace and claim the most common motivations for collaboration are the following: • Benefits from a space in which to create and support a community • Informal association with the Open University • Researching tools for teaching purposes • Publishing own materials • Translation into different languages With sophisticated technical capabilities and community architectures in place, the role of mentorship in facilitating repurposing, comes forward in many OER platforms, as several of our interviewees from OpenLearn, Wikieducator, Connexions and Wikiversity note. On the other hand, endorsing cultures of reflection and connecting the nodes in existing networks of teacher‐learners and students‐learners is also seen as a way to cultivate existing communities of interest and practice. As Seely Brown and Adler (2008) note: ‘We need to construct shared, distributed, reflective practicums in which experiences are collected, vetted, clustered, commented on, and tried out in new contexts. One might call this “learning about learning,” a bootstrapping operation in which educators, along with students, are learning among and between themselves. This can become a living or dynamic infrastructure— itself a reflective practicum.’ (n.p.). We are starting to see examples of initiatives which are exploring ways of achieving this. Within the OU, we have developed Cloudworks, which provides a platform for sharing ideas and designs about teaching and learning. Another example of such a practicum is the online Teaching and Learning Commons72 launched in 2008 by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Commons is essentially an open version of the Foundation’s Gallery of Teaching and Learning73 which has been operating for the past nine years. The Gallery provides an online showcase for case studies of successful teaching and learning 72 http://commons.carnegiefoundation.org/ 73 http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/,
- 84. 84 projects that have been supported by the Foundation, along with a set of web‐based tools (the KEEP Toolkit74) for creating these case studies . The Commons is an open forum where instructors at all levels (and from around the world) can post their own examples and can participate in an ongoing conversation about effective teaching practices, as a means of supporting a process of “creating/using/re‐mixing (or creating/sharing/using). Research into how these types of platforms can be used to support sharing and discussion of practice is beginning to emerge (Alevizou et al, 2010; Conole and Culver, 2009; Conole and Culver, 2010). A number of other fields of enquiry including motivations and experiences of learners in an OER context have generated a lot of attention and a burgeoning body of literature is emerging. Appendix 9: Issues raised by the introduction of new technologies A number of key insights emerge from comparative studies we outlined throughout the review. These include: • Institutional arrangements • The educator's role • The attitudes and roles of students • Tensions around the nature of openness • Assessment practice Institutional arrangements The introduction of Web 2.0 technologies impacts on existing organisational structures. There needs to be a balance of experimentation by individuals and institutional coordination. Such a balance is not easy and of course this tension accompanies the introduction of any new technology. However the problem is exacerbated with Web 2.0 technologies, which in many respects are fundamentally at odds with institutional systems. Appropriate support mechanisms are also needed, and clear articulation of the kinds of institutional support provided is paramount. For example if external sites such as Flckr are used in a course, the institution needs to have a clear policy statement on what happens if the Flckr site goes down. Inclusion of specialists (such as educational technologists and learning designers) who have a broad understanding about Web 2.0 technologies is also important and should be bought into any discussions about the use of Web 2.0 technologies at an early stage in the design process. As Fitzgerald, Steele et al. (2009) note, relying on scholarly enthusiasm is not enough to ensure effective use, other factors need to be considered as well. There are also different views on the value of institutional systems verses open source or external tools and services. Many argue that existing VLEs and Walled Garden models to blogging or wikis are actually taming staff and students’ creative experimentation, and that such protected spaces are not fully exploiting the pedagogical potential of these genres (Hemmi et al., 2009; See also Roberston, 2008; Elgort, 2007; Choy and Ng, 2007; Reimann and Weinel, 2007, Minocha, 2009, BECTA, 2008). However it is also true that there are significant challenges associated with the technical and functional 74 http://www.cfkeep.org
- 98. 98 Farmer, J. (2006) ‘Blogging to Basics: How Blogs Are Bringing Online Education Back from the Brink’, in: Bruns, A. and Jacobs, J. (2006) (eds.). Uses of Blogs. Peter Lang: New York. Felix, U. (2005) ‘e‐Learning pedagogy in the third millennium: the need for combining social and cognitive’, ReCALL, vol. 17(1): pp. 85–100. Ferreira, G. (2009) Communicating, Learning and the inbetween: a study of the impact of openaccess, informal online learning environments. Project Report. http://www.open.ac.uk/colmsct/activities/details/detail.php?itemId=474446756caad Fini, A. Formiconi, A. Giorni, A. Nuccia, S, Spadavecchia, E. and Zibordi, E. (2008) Open Education and virtual communities: an experience http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.142.6896andrep=rep1andtype =pdf Franklin, T. and van Harmelen, M. (2007) 'Web 2.0 for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education'. London: The Observatory of borderless higher education. http://www.obhe.ac.uk/documents/view_details?id=24 Gee, J. P. (2004) Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. New York: Routledge. Gibbs G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford: Oxford Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, J. A. and Weigel, M. (2006) 'Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century' White Paper, The MacArthur Digital Media and Learning Series. http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/10932/Confronting_the_Challenges_o f_Participatory_Culture.pdf?x‐r=pcfile_d Jones, C. and Cross, S. (2009). 'Is there a net generation coming to university?' Proceedings In dreams begins responsibility: Choice, evidence and change, ALT‐C 2009, 8‐10 September 2009, Manchester, UK. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/18468/ Johnson, L.F., Levine, A., and Smith, R.S. (2009) Horizon Report, Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Faculty Focus (2009) Twitter in Higher Education: Usage Habits and Trends of Today‚ College Faculty http://www.facultyfocus.com/freereport/twitter‐in‐higher‐education‐ usage‐habits‐and‐trends‐of‐todays‐college‐faculty/
- 101. 101 GoodWork Project Report Series (N54). MacArthur Foundation and Harvard Graduate School of Education, Retrieved July 1 2008 from http://www.pz.harvard.edu/eBookstore/PDFs/GoodWork54.pdf Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A.J., and Weigel, M. (2006) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. MacArthur Foundation. http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/{7E45C7E0‐A3E0‐4B89‐AC9C‐ E807E1B0AE4E}/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF JISC (2009) Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/generalpublications/2009/heweb2.aspx#downloads JISC (2009)a Getting Started with Second Life http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/generalpublications/2009/gettingstartedSecond Life.aspx JISC (2009)b JISC Strategy review 20102012 Jones, C., Cook, J. and de Laat, M. (2007). 'Collaboration'. In: Conole, G. and Martin, M. (eds.) Contemporary perspectives in elearning research: themes, methods and impact on practice. London: Routledge. pp. 174–189. Johnson, L.F., Levine, A., and Smith, R.S. (2009) Horizon Report, Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium, 2009. Iiyoshi, T. and Kumar, M.S.V. (2008) 'Introduction' IN Iiyoshi, T. and Kumar, M.S.V. (eds.) Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J. L., Moore, J. L., and Marra, R. M. (2003) Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Kanchanaraksa, S., Gooding, I., Klaas, B. and Yager, J. (2009)' Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health OpenCourseWare', Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning 24(1): 39‐46 Karimi, A. and Song H. S. Y. (2009) ‘Where is the wiki in Wiki?’ Proceedings ASCILITE Auckland, 2009. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/karimi.pdf. Keegan, H. and Fox, A. (Eds.). (2009) Mentoring for 21st Century Skills: It's All About The Learning. EU Education and Culture. ISBN 978‐1905732791. http://www.vitae‐ project.eu/material/handbook/VITAEMentoring%20for%2021st%20century%20skills.pdf Keegan, H. and Lisewski, B. (2007/2009) ‘Living, teaching and learning by social software: some emerging themes and practice issues’, In Hatzipanagos, S. and Warburton, S.
- 106. 106 OECD/ CERI (2008) New Millennium Learners: Initial Findings on the effects of Digital Technologies on SchoolAged Learners. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/51/40554230.pdf OECD‐CERI/ Pedró, F. (2009) New Millennium Learners in Higher Education: Evidence and Policy Implications. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) Directorate for Education, OECD http://www.nml‐conference.be/wp‐ content/uploads/2009/09/NML‐in‐Higher‐Education.pdf Ofcom (2008) Tomorrow’s wireless technologies. Report on future communications technology, available online at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/technology/overview/randd0708/ Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. Parker, K. R., and Chao, J. T. (2007) ‘Wiki as a teaching Tool’. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, Vol 3: 57–72. Pedró, F. (2003) 'Virtual Learning Environments in Higher Education: Institutional Issues'. In M. Barajas (Ed.). Virtual Learning Environments in Higher Education: A European View . Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. pp. 65‐69. Petrides, L., Nguyen, L., Jimes, C. and Karaglani, A. (2008) 'Open Educational Resources: Inquiring into author use and reuse'. International Journal of Enhanced Learning. 1(1/2): 98‐117. Petrides, L. and Jimes, C. (2006) ‘Open educational resources: toward a new educational paradigm’, iJournal Insight into Student Services, Vol. 14, Oct., Available at: http://www.ijournal.us/issue_14/ij_14_04_articleframe_ Petrides_Jimes.html Preece, J.(2001) 'Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and measuring success'. Information Technology Journal. 20(5): 347–365. Preece, J. (2000) Online communities: designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester: John Wliey and Sons. Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’, On the Horizon Report. NCB University Press, vol.9, no.5; also available online at http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/ projects/ resources/ Digital_Natives_Digital_Immigrants.pdf Ramanau, R. and Geng, F. (2009) 'Researching the use of Wikis to facilitate group work'. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol 1: 2620‐2626.
- 107. 107 Ramsden, A., (2009). ‘Using micro‐blogging (Twitter) in your teaching and learning: An introductory guide’. Discussion Paper. University of Bath. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/15319/1/intro_to_microblogging_09.pdf. Recker, M., Dorward, J. and Nelson, L.M. (2004) ‘Discovery and use of online learning resources: case study findings’. Educational Technology and Society. 7 (2): 93–104. Ravenscroft, A. (2003), ‘From conditioning to learning communities: implications of fifty years of research in e‐learning interaction design’, ALTJ. 11(3), 4‐18. Redecker, C. (2009) Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: Study on the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe (23664 EN). Seville: European Commission ‐ Joint Research Centre ‐ Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Redmond, P. and Lock, J. V. (2006) ‘A flexible framework for online collaborative Learning’. Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006), 267–276. Reimann, P., Kate, T. and Weinel, M. (2007) 'Collaborative learning by modelling: Observations in an online setting'. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning Proceedings Ascilite Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/reimann.pdf Richardson, J.T.E. (2006) ‘Investigating the relationship between variations in students’ perceptions of their academic environment and variations in study behaviour in distance education’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol.76: 867–93. Rieh, S. Y. and Hilligoss, B. (2008). ‘College Students’ Credibility Judgments in the Information‐Seeking Process’ in Metzger, J. M. and Flanagin, J. A. (2008) (eds.) Digital Media,Youth, and Credibility. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series onDigital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. pp. 49–72. Rogers, E. M.(1962) Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press Robertson, I. (2008) ‘Learners' attitudes to wiki technology in problem based, blended learning for vocational teacher education’ Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 24(4): 425‐441. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/robertson.html Rudd, T., Gifford, C., Morrison, J. and Facer, K.(2006a) What if … ReImagining Learning Spaces. Bristol: Futurelab Opening Education Reports. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Learning_Spaces_ report.pdf Rudd, T. Sutch, D. and Facer, K. (2006c) Towards new learning networks. Bristol: Futurelab Opening Education Reports. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Learning_Netorks _report.pdf
- 108. 108 Ryberg, T. and Larsen, M. (2008)’ Networked identities: understanding relationships between strong and weak ties in networked environments’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Vol 24: 103‐115. Salmon, G. (2003) Emoderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Press. Schuwer, R. and Mulder, F. (2009) ‘OpenER, a Dutch Initiative in Open Educational Resources’. Open learning Journal 24(1): 67‐76. Seale, J. and Bishop, N. (2009). 'Listening With a Different Ear: Understanding Disabled Students’ Relationships with Technologies'. In H. Beetham, R. Sharpe and S. de Freitas (eds) Rethinking learning in the digital age. London: Routledge. Selinger, M. (2004) ‘Cultural and Pedagogical Implications of a Global E‐learning Programme’. Cambridge Journal of Education. 34: 223‐239. Sharpe, R. (2009) ‘The Impact of Learner Experience Research on Transforming Insitutional Practices’. IN Mayes, T., Morrison, D., Mellar, H., Bullen, P. and Oliver, M. (2009) (eds.) Transforming Higher Education through Technology Enhanced Learning. York: The Higher Education Academy. Accessible at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ourwork/learningandtech/transforming_h e_through_technology_enhanced_learning Sharpe R., Benfield G., Roberts G. and Francis R. (2006) The undergraduate experience of blended elearning: a review of UK literature and practice, available online at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/research/literature_revie ws/blended_elearning_full_review.pdf Selwyn N. (2009) 'Faceworking: exploring students' education‐related use of Facebook'. Learning, Media and Technology. 34 (2): 157‐174. Selwyn N. (2009a) (ed.) Education 2.0? Designing the Web for Teaching and Learning: A Commentary by the Technology Enhanced Learning phase of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. London: London Knowledge Lab, University of London. Selwyn, N. (2007), 'The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical perspective.' Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Vol. 23: 83‐94. Siemens, G. (2004). ‘Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age’. Elearnspace everything elearning, http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Siemens, G. (2006) ‘Knowing Knowledge’, Elearnspace everything elearning http://www.elearnspace.org/KnowingKnowledge_LowRes.pdf
- 110. 110 European Schoolnet and Insight observatory for new technologies and education,http://events.cliro.unibo.it/file.php/5/moddata/forum/5/26/Specia_Report_Fol ksonomies.pdf Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wales, J. (2008) ‘It’s the next billion online who will change the way we think’ The Observer, 15th June, p.23 Warschauer, M. (2003) Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Weinberger, D. (2007) Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Times Books. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiley, D. and Henson, H. (2006) 'An initial characterization of engagement in informal social learning around MIT OCW' Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences, pp. 832 ‐ 837 ISBN:0‐8058‐6174‐2. Wiley, D.A. (2002) (ed.) The instructional use of learning objects, Agency for Instructional Technology. Bloomington: Agency for Instructional Technology. Wilson, T. and McAndrew, P. (2009) 'Evaluating how five higher education instituions worldwide plan to use and adapt open educational resources' Proceedings of INTED2009 Conference. 9‐11 March 2009, Valencia, Spain. ISBN:978‐84‐612‐7578‐6 White, D. (2009) ‘It’s a nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there: using the ‘Visitor‐ Resident’ principle to guide approaches to the participatory web’. Paper presented at the ALTC conference, Manchester, September 2009. http://alt.conferenceservices.net/reports/template/onetextabstract.xml?xsl=template/AL Ttextabstract.xslandconferenceID=1613andabstractID=299362 presentation accessible at http://prezi.com/x0nxciep_mlt/ Yardi, S. (2008) ‘Whispers in the Classroom’ IN McPherson, T. (2008) (ed.) Digital Young, Innovation, and the Unexpected. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 143‐164. Available online at:http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/dmal.9780262633598.143 Zhang, J (2009). ‘Toward a creative social Web for learners and teachers’. Educational Researcher. 38(4): 274–279.
- 111. 111