21st c tech n learners_unisa_Edirisingha_11june2012

New
technologies
and
21st
Century

learners
and
their
impact
on

research
in
teaching
and
learning
at

Unisa

#unisa12

Palitha
Edirisingha

University
of
Leicester

Unisa
ODL
Research
Workshop

11
June
2012,
Unisa,
South
Africa

New

technologies:

social
and

parIcipatory

media
(web
2.0)

New

technologies:

Digital

mobile
and

literacy
digital

technologies

Terms
and

concepts

21st

Century

Digital

learners:

divide

broadly

deﬁned

A
‘digital
/

net

generaIon’

An
Learners’

assessment
of
access
to,
and
An
assessment

current
the
use
of
of
learner

technologies
expectaIons,
Conclusions
–

pedagogies,

and
learning
employer
what
can
we

technologies

resources.
expectaIons
take
from
the

and
research
What
are
the
and
session

at
Unisa,
and
emerging
employability

where
to
research
topics
prospects

next?
and
problems?

1.
AcIvity
1

•  An
assessment
of
current
pedagogies
and

technologies
at
Unisa,
and
where
to
next?
[10

minutes]

•  Pedagogy
–technology
framework
(Conole
et

al
(2004)

•  Photocopies
of
the
framework
to
be

distributed
to
the
parIcipants.

•  ParIcipants
to
work
in
pairs,
3s
or
small

groups

Mapping
pedagogies
to
technologies

Social

Informa:on

Informal
Formal

Experience

(Conole
et
al.
2004)

Individual

AcIvity:

Mapping
e-‐pedagogies
to
technologies

Pedagogies

Technologies

•  CollecIve
group
aggregaIon
•  Social
bookmarking

•  Dialogic
Learning
(Dial)
•  Sykpe

•  DemonstraIon
of
assessment
•  ePorolio

•  DidacIc
learning
–
•  InteracIve
mulImedia/
reinforcement
MCQs

•  Pick
another
example
•  Pick
another
example

(Conole
et
al.
2004)

Social

Informal
Formal

Experience

Individual

Informal
Formal

Informa:on

(Conole
et
al.
2004)

AcIvity
1

Working
in
your
group,

please
consider:

-‐
What
are
the
pedagogies

and

technologies
that
you
Report
back
to

use
in
your
current
teaching?

the
whole
Drawing
a

group.
One
key
general

-‐
What
are
the
assumpIons
point
from
picture

and
realiIes
that
underpin
your
group

your
choices?

-‐
What
changes
in
the
next
5

years?

2.
PresentaIon

[30
minutes]

Learners’
access
to,
and
use
of
technologies

and
learning
resources
–
an
overview

Applicability
to
Unisa
and
Southern
Africa?

What
are
the
emerging
research
topics
and

problems?

21st
century
learners,
learning
and

Access
to,
and

competence
with,

technologies?

technologies
(web-‐
based
parIcipatory

media
and
mobile
digital

devices)
“digital
naIves”,

“net
generaIon”
Age-‐related?

Economic,
other
factors?

Access
to
non-‐
insItuIonal
learning
Digital
divide?
Implica:ons?

resources
OERs
(‘small’,
‘big’)
Research?

Digital
literacy?

Skills:

employees
or

Graduate
skills
employers?

AspiraIons,
Transferable
skills

expectaIons;

employment;
lifelong

learning

Linked
concepts

‘digital
/
net

generaIon’

‘digital

divide’

‘digital

literacy’

QuesIons…?

•  Validity
of
‘digital
naIve’
claims?

•  Can
we
ignore
it
altogether?

•  Themes
/
topics
for
research?

–  Digital
divide

–  Digital
literacy

A
‘digital
/
net
generaIon’

‘Digital
naIves’
and

‘digital
immigrants’

A
generaIon?

•  ‘an
age
cohort
that
comes
to
have
social

signiﬁcance
by
virtue
of
consItuIng
itself
as
a

cultural
iden:ty’
(Edmunds
and
Turner,
2002,
p.

7).

•  ‘a
cohort
of
individuals
born
within
a
par:cular

:me
frame’
(Buckingham,
2008,
p.
2)

•  a
cohort
having
a
relaIonship
with
a
parIcular

traumaIc
event’
(Edmunds
and
Turner,
2002),
for

example
a
world
war...,
a
deﬁning
moment
in
the

history.

A
digital
generaIon

‘a
genera:on
deﬁned
in
and
through
its

experience
of
digital
computer

technology’
(Buckingham,
2006,
p.
1).

GeneraIons

Genera:ons
(according
to
Tapscoi,
1998)

•  The
Boomers
-‐
born
between
1946
-‐
1964.

The
TV
generaIon.
conservaIve,
hierarchical,

inﬂexible,
centralised
(like
the
TV
medium).

‘incompetent
technophobes’.

•  The
Bust
-‐
born
between
1965
-‐
1976.

GeneraIons

The
net
genera:on
/
The
Boom
Echo
-‐
born
amer

1977.

expressive,
savvy,
self-‐reliant,
analyIcal,
creaIve,

inquisiIve,
accept
diversity,
socially
conscious.

possess
intuiIve,
spontaneous
relaIonship
with

digital
technology.

‘using
new
technology
is
as
natural
as

breathing’
(Tapscoi,
1998,
p.
40).

generaIonal
diﬀerences
are
produced
by
the

technology.

Claims
about
the
digital
generaIon

‘Although
speciﬁc
forms
of
technology
uptake

are
highly
diverse,
a
generaIon
is
growing
up

in
an
era
where
digital
media
are
part
of
the

taken-‐for-‐granted
social
and
cultural
fabric
of

learning,
play,
and
social
communicaIon’
(Ito

et
al,
2008,
p.
vii).

Claims
about
the
digital
generaIon

‘…those
immersed
in
new
digital
tools
and

networks
are
engaged
in
an
unprecedented

exploraIon
of
language,
games,
social

interacIon,
problem
solving,
and
self-‐directed

acIvity
that
leads
to
diverse
forms
of

learning.’
(Ito
et
al,
p.
vii,
2008).

QuesIons
for
educators
…

•  Can
students
entering
HE
be
classified
as

belonging
to
a
‘net
generaIon’?

•  Do
young
people
who
are
growing
up
with

digital
media
have
a
different
orientaIon
to

the
world,
a
different
set
of
disposiIons
or

characterisIcs?

•  How
do
the
net
generaIon
learn?
What
are

the
characterisIcs
of
their
learning?

Evidence
from
UK
research

Research
on
ﬁrst
year
students
born
amer

1983,
both
campus
and
distant
learners

‘The
generaIon
is
not
homogeneous
in
its
use

and
appreciaIon
of
new
technologies’

‘…
signiﬁcant
variaIons
amongst
students
that

lie
within
the
Net
generaIon
age
band’
(Jones

et
al.,
2010,
p.
722).

Evidence
from
South
Africa

Brown
&
Czerniewicz,
2008:
Students’
use
of

ICTs
in
higher
educaIon
in
South
Africa.

-‐
similar
to
the
ﬁndings
in
the
UK
and
US.

Other?

-‐

Digital
naIve’s
own
claims

‘I
don’t
ﬁnd
it
hard
to
use
a
computer
because

I
got
into
it
quickly.
You
learn
quick
because

it’s
a
very
fun
thing
to
do.”
(Amir,
15,
from

London).

‘My
Dad
hasn’t
even
got
a
clue.
Can’t
even

work
the
mouse....
So
i
have
to
go
on
the

Internet
for
him”
(Lorna,
17,
from

Manchester).

(Livingstone,
2008).

How
true
are
these
claims?

‘While
these
claims
contain
a
sizeable
grain
of

truth,
we
must
also
recognise
their
rhetorical

value
for
the
speakers.
Only
in
rare
circumstances

in
history
have
children
gained
greater
experIse

than
parents
in
skills
highly
valued
by

society.’
(e.g.,
diasphoric
children’s
learning
of
the

host
language
before
their
parents,
youthful

experIse
in
music,
games,
play).

(Livingstone,
2008).

Growing
up
‘analogue’
Vs
growing
up

digital

How
far
is
this
true
as
far
as
yourself
and
your

students
are
concerned?
Does
a
‘digital

generaIon’
exist
in
your
context?
What
is
their

paierns
of
access
to,
and
use
of
technologies?

Diﬀerent
concepIons
of
digital
divide

Digital
divide

‘the
gap
between
the
technology
rich
and

the
technology
poor,
both
within
and

between
socieIes’
(Buckingham,
2008,
p.

10)

'the
gap
between
those
who
do
and
those

who
do
not
have
access
to
computers
and

the
Internet’
'
(van
Dijk,
2005,
p.
1).

…access
considered
as
'physical
access'
-‐

'having
personal
computer
and
Internet

connecIon'
(van
Dijk,
2005,
p.
1).

Digital
divide

‘the
gap
between
individuals,
households,

businesses
and
geographic
areas
at
diﬀerent

socio-‐economic
levels
with
regard
both
to
their

opportuniIes
to
access
informaIon
and

communicaIon
technologies
(ICTs)
and
to
their

use
of
the
Internet
for
a
wide
variety
of

acIviIes’
(OECD,
2001,
p.
5)

Closing
the
digital
divide

•  The
‘trickle-‐down’
principle

•  What
are
the
problems
with
the
above

view/
approach
to
solving
the
access

problem?

Digital
divide
–
quesIons?

a
‘social
and
poli:cal
problem’
(van
Dijk,

2005,
p.
3),
not
a
technical
one.

Digital
divide
–
quesIons?

•  What
are
the
disadvantages
of
being
in
the

‘have
not’
side
of
the
digital
divide?
What
are

the
consequences
of
digital
divide
for
learners,

for
teachers,
for
educaIon
as
a
whole?

•  Does
digital
divide
intensify
the
exisIng
social

inequaliIes
(of
age,
gender,
ethnicity,
social

class,
disabiliIes)?

Internet
use
–
world
regions

World
total

Ocenia/Australia

LaIn
America
/
Carib.

Noth
America

Middle
East

Series1

Europe

Asia

Africa

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

Source:
hip://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
[accessed
on
4
June
2012]

South
Africa

•  Literacy
rate:
81.8%
total
(1995
est.)

•  6,800,000
Internet
users
(Dec
2010),
13.9%
of
the
populaIon

•  4,822,820
Facebook
users
(Dec
2011),
9.8%
penetraIon
rate.

Source:
[accessed
on
4
June
2012]

South
Africa
–
internet
growth

% Penetration of
YEAR internet access
2000 5.5
2001 6.2
2002 6.8
2003 7.1
2004 7.4
2005 7.4
2008 10.5
2009 10.8

Source:
[accessed
on
4
June
2012]

MoIvaIonal

Skills
access

access

Material
or

Usage

physical

Types
of
access

access
access

contribuIng

to
Digital

divide

(van
Dijk,
2005).

Digital
divide
–
stories

“India
unveils
'world's

cheapest
tablet
computer”

“Nairobi's
digital
divide
“

“India's
government
unveiled
its

‘…
with
broadband
internet
access
computer
tablet
which
will
sell
at

cosIng
more
than
the
average
only
$35US.

Kenyan
annual
wage,
the
digital

divide
appears
set
to
remain’
(BBC,
By
oﬀering
the
Aakash
tablet
at

2010).

highly
subsidised
prices
to
millions
of

students
and
teachers,
oﬃcials
says

hip://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ they
aim
to
revoluIonise

in_pictures/8259533.stm
educaIon.”
(BBC,
2011)

hip://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-‐
south-‐asia-‐15192624

Approaches
to
closing
digital
divide?

Sugata
Mitra:
Can
kids
teach
themselves?

“…
Sugata
Mitra
talks
about
his
Hole
in
the
Wall
project.
Young

kids
in
this
project
ﬁgured
out
how
to
use
a
PC
on
their
own
-‐-‐

and
then
taught
other
kids.
He
asks,
what
else
can
children

teach
themselves?”

hip://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRb7_ﬄ2D0
and

hip://www.ted.com

Digital
naIves,
digital
immigrants
and

digital
divide

Applicability
of
this
discourse
to
Unisa
/

Southern
Africa.

Percent

Missing
0.08%

MulImedia
Sharing
Sites
(e.g.,
YouTube)
25.08%

Social
Bookingmarking
Sites
(e.g.,

del.ici.ous)
1.42%

Percent

Social
Networking
sites
(e.g.,
Facebook)
42.08%

Wikis
(e.g.,
Wikipedia)
24.08%

Blogs
7.25%

0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%

N
=
1,200
parIcipants

Age
range
=
16
–
35+
Can
you
guess
which
country
/
world
region!

Levels
of
study
=
CerIﬁcate
to
Postgraduate

Percent

Missing
0.08%

MulImedia
Sharing
Sites
(e.g.,
YouTube)
25.08%

Social
Bookingmarking
Sites
(e.g.,

del.ici.ous)
1.42%

Percent

Social
Networking
sites
(e.g.,
Facebook)
42.08%

Wikis
(e.g.,
Wikipedia)
24.08%

Blogs
7.25%

0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%

Munguatosha,
G.
(2011)
A
Social
Networked

N
=
1,200
parIcipants

Age
range
=
16
–
35+
Learning
Model
for
Higher
Educa9on
in
Tanzania,

Levels
of
study
=
CerIﬁcate
to
Postgraduate
MSc
Disserta:on,
Makerere
University.

some
fun
…

•  Visualising
the
internet
growth
and
use

•  hip://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/
8552410.stm

Digital
literacy

UK
Policy
concerns:

•  ‘Digital
Britain
Report’
(DCMS,
2009):

–  sets
out
the
strategy
of
the
government
in
placing

technology
at
the
centre
of
the
UK’s
economic

recovery

–  recognises
the
importance
of

people
having
the

‘…
capabiliIes
and
skills
to
ﬂourish
in
the
digital

economy’
(DCMS,
2009,
p.
1).

Digital
literacy

In
Higher
EducaIon

•  Prof.
Sir
David
Melville
(2009)
Commiiee
of

Inquiry
into
learners’
use
of
Web
2.0
in
HE

–  students
in
HE
may
well
be
pervasive
users
of

social
networking
sites,
blogs,
virtual

environments
and
other
mulI-‐media
forms,
but

they
lacked
deep
criIcal
skills
to
analyse
and

validate
informaIon
on-‐line
(Melville,
2009).

Digital
literacy
-‐
deﬁniIons

Digital
literacy

•  “the
ability
to
access
networked
computer

resources
and
use
them….the
ability
to

understand
and
use
informaIon
in
mulIple

formats
from
a
wide
range
of
sources
when
it
is

presented
via
computers”
(Gilster,
1997,
p.
1).

•  literacy
means
much
more
than
just
reading
and

requires
“a
set
of
core
competencies”
including,

“the
ability
to
make
informed
judgments”
and

others
that
derive
from
criIcal
thinking
(ibid,
p.

1-‐2).

Digital
literacy
in
HE

CapabiliIes
which
equip
an
individual
for
living,
learning
and
working
in
a

digital
society
(JISC
LLiDA,
2009).

examples
of
skills:

•  the
use
of
digital
tools
to
undertake
academic
research,
wriIng
and
criIcal

thinking

•  digital
professionalism

•  the
use
of
specialist
digital
tools
and
data
sets

•  communicaIng
ideas
eﬀecIvely
in
a
range
of
media

•  producing,
sharing
and
criIcally
evaluaIng
informaIon

•  collaboraIng
in
virtual
networks

•  using
digital
technologies
to
support
reﬂecIon
and
personal
development

planning,
and

•  managing
digital
reputaIon
and
showcasing
achievements
(Knight,
2011,

p.
8).

Digital
literacy
in
HE

JISC
UK
context.
Funded
research
since
2001.

-‐  ICT
/
computer
literacy

-‐  InformaIon
literacy

-‐  Media
literacy

-‐  CommunicaIon
and
collaboraIon

-‐  Digital
scholarship

-‐  Learning
skills

-‐  Life-‐planning

(JISC
brieﬁng
paper)

Digital
literacy
is
‘…
about

mastering
ides,
not

keystrokes’
(Gilster,
1997).

Digital
literacy
-‐
deﬁniIons

‘…
much
more
than
a
funcIonal
maier
of
learning
how
to

use
a
computer
and
keyboard,
or
how
to
do
online

searches.
[…]
As
with
print,
[students]
also
need
to
be
ale

to
evaluate
and
use
informaIon
criIcally
if
they
are
to

transform
it
into
knowledge.

This
means
asking
quesIons
about
the
sources
of
that

informaIon,
the
interests
of
its
producers,
and
the
ways

in
which
it
represents
the
world
[…].

(Buckingham,
2006:

267,
in
Ryberg
and
Dirckinck
–Holmsﬁeld,
2010,
p.
173)

Findings
from
research

A
Leicester
research
project
on:

Learners’
access
to,
and
competence

with,
technologies
and
digital
literacy

skills

[PELICANS]

Aims

1.  To
idenIfy
HE
students’
access
to
and
the
use

of
digital
technologies
and
web
2.0
tools
for

their
formal
and
informal
learning
in
HE.

2.  To
idenIfy
their
level
of
digital
literacy
and
to

develop
strategies
for
addressing
gaps
in

levels
of
literacy.

3.  To
make
recommendaIons
for
supporIng

students
to
further
develop
their
digital

literacy
skills.

Research
design
and
methodology

2.
Focus
groups
with

•  to
idenIfy
students
•  to
develop
and

students’
validate
appropriate

ownership
of
and
online
acIviIes
and

use
of
digital
•  to
gain
a
deeper
learning
tools
to

devices
and
web
insight
into
their
improve
their
level

2.0
tools
use
of
web
2.0
of
digital
literacy

tools
in
a
learning
skills

1.
QuesIonnaire
context

surveys
of
100+

undergraduates
and
3.
Workshops
with

postgraduates
students

Data
from
the

2010-‐2011
hip://goo.gl/kraQF

quesIonnaire
survey
at

The
next
three
slides
based
on

2011
-‐
2012
data

Ownership
of
computer
and
other
digital
devices
(%
reporIng)

2012
data

0
20
40
60
80
100
120

Desktop
35

laptop
100

Smartphone
82.5

Phone
17.5

Camera
92.5

MP3Player
87.5

Tablet
42.5
[8%
in
2011]

eReader
10
[4%
in
2011]

GameDevice
25

2012
data
set
1,
n
=
40

Devices
used
to
access
internet
during
term-‐Ime
(%
reporIng)

2012
data

0
20
40
60
80
100
120

UniComputer
85

OwnComputer
100

MobilePhone
77.5

[55%
in
2011]

iPodTouch
7.5

OtherDevices
10

Tablet
25

2012
data
set
1,
n
=
40

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

Update
SNS

Watch
Television

Listen
to
radio

Frequency
of
using
Web
2.0
tools
and
acIviIes
–
2012
data

Write
blog

Use
SBMS

Contribute
to
wikis

Play
video
games

Download
/
share
music

Use
3-‐D
virtual
worlds
Missing

Chat
(e.g.,
MSN)

Rarely/never

VOIP

Share
digital
photographs

SomeImes

Share
videos

Record
own
music

Frequently

Mix
music

Make
graphic
art

Contribute
to
bulleIn
boards

Microblogging

Subscribe
to
RSS
feeds

Programming

Selling
on
ebay

Online
shopping

Online
banking

Use
‘Apps’

5
years
ago
at
Leicester
…

2006
data
from
Impala
project
(www.impala.ac.uk)

Not
applicable

1

Both
a
desktop
and
a
laptop
computer

10

Series1

A
laptop
computer

65

A
desktop
computer

24

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

N
=
243

2006
data
from
Impala
project

Other

Studies

Listening
to
podcasts

Sharing
/
broadcasIng
video
(e.g.
YouTube)

Sharing
bookmarks
(e.g.
del.icio.us)

Sharing
photos
(e.g.
Flickr)

ContribuIng
to
Wikis

Series1

Blogging

Chat
rooms

Internet
telephony
(e.g.
Skype)

Selling
items
(e.g.
eBay)

On-‐line
shopping

Play
games

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

N
=
256

Findings
…

•  Students
use
a
range
of
digital
devices
to
access
and

organise
informaIon
and
plan
their
studies.
Laptops,

smart
phones,
MP3
players,
and
e-‐readers.
Checking

availability
of
library
books,
arranging
to
meet
off-‐line

for
group
work,
and
many
more.
seamlessly
both
in

virtual
and
physical
spaces,
involving
input
from
their

teachers
and
non-‐formal
study
groups.

•  Students’
familiarity
and
preference
for
the
use
of
web

2.0
tools
and
digital
devices,
and
competencies
are

diverse
reflecIng
the
internaIonal
and
other

demographic
profile
of
our
students.
No
homogeneous

net
generaIon.

Findings
…

•  Students
maintain
their
established
virtual

structures
and
‘aﬃnity
spaces’
(Frances,
2010)

from
their
geographical
area
of
origin
(naIonal

and
overseas)
that
serve
as
informal
sources
of

support
for
studies.
University,
teachers
and

library
are
no
longer
the
‘gate
keepers’
of
what
is

deemed
‘expert’
informaIon.

•  Students
engage
in
a
‘parIcipatory

culture’
(Jenkins
et
al,
2006),
for
example,
reading

and
contribuIng
to
book
recommendaIon
sites.

RecommendaIons
and
thoughts

•  The
cultural
context
of
digital
literacy
needs
to
be

focused
on
more
closely.

•  ParIcipatory
cultures
vary
-‐
Jenkins
very
much
rooted

in
US
and
parIcular
types
of
acIviIes
online
(gaming

for
example).

•  As
learners
and
teachers
we
need
to
recognise
this

cultural
context.

•  Provide
direcIon
and
intervenIon
(where
there
is

scant
access
to
physical
books,
the
web
is
seen
as
a

soluIon).
Not
all
students
have
the
ability
to
determine

good
quality
sources
online.

•  SupporIng
students
to
create
their
own
PLE?

Finally…

•  VerIcal
and
horizontal
space
of
the
new
media

environment
raises
a
number
of
challenges

•  Expert
and
‘non-‐expert’
informaIon

•  Moving
across
‘expert’
or
‘academic’
informaIon
that

ﬂows
downwards:
reading
lists,
Library
e-‐link,

alongside
peer
to
peer
(horizontal)
informaIon.

•  Seamless
spaces
on-‐line
QQ,
oﬀ-‐line:
group
study

rooms
in
the
library.

•  Students
have
useful
mobile
technology
an
iPhone

provides
mulIple
uses:
mini
photocopier,
access
web

material,
arrange
group
meeIngs
etc.

More
about
Pelicans
research
project

Please
contact
either:

–  Pal
at
pe27@le.ac.uk
or

–  Tracy
at
tas1@le.ac.uk

Similar
/
comparable
research
at

Unisa?

3.
AcIvity
2

An
assessment
of
learner
expectaIons,
employer

expectaIons
and
employability
prospects
[10

minutes]

Digital
literacy
skills
in
the
context
of
employability
in

South
Africa.
How
important
are
digital
literacy
skills?

What
are
the
expectaIons
from
employers?

Professional
organisaIons?
[5
minutes]

QuesIons
for
consideraIon

•  How
can
universiIes
/
formal
educaIon
system

help
learners
growing
in
a
digital
age?

•  How
might
we
deploy
new
digital
technologies
to

improve
learning
and
studying
at
our

universiIes?

•  How
might
we
prepare
learners
work
and
for

lifelong
learning?

References
and
further
resources

Buckingham,
D.
&
Willei,
R.
(eds)
(2006)
Digital
Genera,on:
Children,
Young

People,
and
New
Media.
Mahwah
(New
Jersey):
Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Conole,
G.,
Dyke,
M.,
Oliver,
M.
and
Seale,
J.
(2004).
Mapping
pedagogy
and
tools

for
eﬀecIve
learning
design,
Computers
and
Educa,on,
43
(1-‐2):
17-‐33.

Cuban,
L.
(1986)
Teachers
and
Machines:
The
Classroom
Use
of
Technology
Since

1920.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.

Cuban,
L.
(2001)
Oversold
and
Underused:
Computers
in
the
Classroom.
London:

Harvard
University
Press.

DCMS
(2009)
Digital
Britain:
Final
Report
hip://interacIve.bis.gov.uk/
digitalbritain/report/being-‐digital/ge€ng-‐britain-‐online/.
accessed
3
Sept
2009.

Edmunds,
J.
&
Turner,
B.
(2002)
Genera,ons,
Culture
and
Society.
Buckingham:

Open
University
Press.

Facer,
K.
(2011)
Learning
Futures:
Educa,on,
technology
and
social
change.

London:
Routledge.

Facer,
K.,
Furlong,
J.,
Furlon,
R.
&
Sutherland,
R.
(2003)
ScreenPlay:
Children
and

Compu,ng
in
the
Home.
London:
RoutledgeFalmer.

Frances,
R.J.
(2010)
The
decentring
of
tradi,onal
university:
the
future
of
(self)

educa,on
in
virtually
ﬁgured
worlds,
Oxford,
UK:
Routledge.

References
and
further
resources

Gill,
T.
(ed)
(1996)
Electronic
children:
How
children
are
responding
to
the
informa,on

revolu,on.
London:
NaIonal
children's
Bureau.

Gilster,
P.
(1997)
Digital
Literacy.

New
York:
Wiley.

Hellawell,
S.
(2001)
Beyond
Access:
ICT
and
social
inclusion.
London:
Fabian
Society.

Heverly,
R.
A.
(2008)
Growing
Up
Digital:
Control
and
the
Pieces
of
a
Digital
Life.
In

McPherson,
T.

(ed)
Digital
Youth,
Innova,on,
and
the
Unexpected,
pp.199-‐218.
Cambridge

(Massachuseis):
The
MIT
Press.

Holloway,
S.
L.
&
ValenIne,
G.
(2003)
Cyberkids:
children
in
the
informa,on
age.
London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Ito,
M.,
et
al.
(2008)
Foreword.
In
McPherson,
T.
(ed)
Digital
Youth,
Innova,on,
and
the

Unexpected.
Cambridge
(Massachuseis):
The
MIT
Press.

Jenkins,
H.,
Purushotma,
R.,
Clinton,
K.,
Weigel,
M.,
&
Robison,
A.
J.
(2006)
Confron,ng
the

Challenges
of
Par,cipatory
Culture:
Media
Educa,on
for
the
21st
Century.
Cambridge,
MA:

ComparaIve
Media
Studies
Programme
at
the
Massachuseis
InsItute
of
Technology.

hip://
www.projectnml.org/ﬁles/working/NMLWhitePaper.pdf
accessed
2
Nov
2010.

Jones,
C.,
Ramanau,
R.,
Cross,
S.,
&
Healing,
G.
(2010)
Net
generaIon
or
Digital
NaIves:
Is

there
a
disInct
new
generaIon
entering
university?
Computers
&
Educa,on,

54(3),

722
–

732.

References
and
further
resources

Livingstone,
S.
(2008)
Internet
Literacy:
Young
People’s
NegoIaIon
of
New
Online

OpportuniIes.
In
McPherson,
T.
(ed)
Digital
Youth,
Innova,on,
and
the
Unexpected,pp.
3-‐36.

Cambridge
(Massachuseis):
The
MIT
Press.

McPherson,
T.
(ed)
(2008)
Digital
Youth,
Innova,on,
and
the
Unexpected.
London:
The
MIT

Press.

Melville,
D.
(2009)
Higher
Educa,on
in
a
Web
2.0
World:
Report
of
CommiYee
of
Enquiry
into

the
Changing
Learner
Experience.
hip://www.clex.org.uk/CLEX_Report_v1-‐ﬁnal.pdf.

accessed
29
May
2009.

Munguatosha,
G.
(2011)
A
Social
Networked
Learning
Model
for
Higher
Educa,on
in

Tanzania,MSc
DissertaIon,
Submiied
to
the
School
of
CompuIng
and
InformaIcs

Technology,
Makerere
University.

OECD
(2001)
Understanding
the
Digital
Divide.
Paris:
OECD
PublicaIons.

Ryberg,
T.,
&
Dirckinck–Holmsﬁeld,
L.
(2010).
Analysing
Digital
Literacy
in
AcIon:
A
Case
Study

of
a
Problem-‐oriented
Learning
Process,
in
Sharpe,
R.,
Beethem,
H.,
&
De
Freitas,
S.
(eds).

Rethinking
Learning
for
a
Digital
Age:
How
learners
are
shaping
their
own
experiences.

London:
Routledge.

Sharpe,
R.,
Beethem,
H.,
&
De
Freitas,
S.
(eds)
(2010)
Rethinking
Learning
for
a
Digital
Age:

How
learners
are
shaping
their
own
experiences.
London:
Routledge.

Tapscoi,
D.
(1998)
Growing
Up
Digital:
Rise
of
the
Net
Genera,on.
New
York:
McGrew-‐Hill.

van
Dijk,
J.A.G.M.
(2005)
The
Deepening
Divide:
Inequality
in
the
Informa,on
Society.
London:

Sage.

Wilhelm,
A.G.
(2004)
Digital
NaIon:
Toward
an
Inclusive
InformaIon
Society.
London:
The

MIT
Press.

Thank
you!

pe27@le.ac.uk

21st c tech n learners_unisa_Edirisingha_11june2012

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to 21st c tech n learners_unisa_Edirisingha_11june2012 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

21st c tech n learners_unisa_Edirisingha_11june2012