This document discusses the emergence and impact of open, social, and participatory media technologies like social networking sites, blogs, and wikis. It argues that these Web 2.0 technologies are changing how users interact, communicate, participate, and learn. They require new digital literacy skills and raise questions about teaching, learning, and organizational structures in education.

2. Media manipulation and data/web mash ups – tools to design and edit digital media files and combine data from multiple sources to create a new application, tool or service

3. Instant messaging, chat and conversational areas – to enable one-to-one or one-many conversations

4. Online games and virtual works – rule-governed games or themes environments

5. Social networking – enabling social interactions between friends

6. Blooging – where users can post text that others can comment on

7. Social bookmarking – aggregation and tagging of web resources

8. Recommender systems – that aggregate and tag user preferences and make recommendations

9. Wikis and collaborative editing tools – where users can collaborative create, edit and link pages

10. Syndication – where users can subscribe to RSS feed-enabled websites.Jenkins et al. ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth=quot;
1quot;
><Author>Jenkins</Author><Year>2009</Year><RecNum>249</RecNum><record><rec-number>249</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app=quot;
ENquot;
db-id=quot;
2wap2tes5rfwtleve0mx9wpuw5xvvxape25zquot;
>249</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name=quot;
Bookquot;
>6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Jenkins, H.</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century</title></titles><dates><year>2009</year></dates><publisher>Mit Pr</publisher><urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(2009) argue that a new set of digital literacies are needed for learners and teachers to be part of what they describe as this new ‘participatory culture’. These are: play, performance, simulation, appropriation, multi-tasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgement, transmedia navigation, networking, negotiation and visualisation. Similarly Beetham et al. ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth=quot;
1quot;
><Author>Beetham</Author><Year>2009</Year><RecNum>414</RecNum><record><rec-number>414</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app=quot;
ENquot;
db-id=quot;
2wap2tes5rfwtleve0mx9wpuw5xvvxape25zquot;
>414</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name=quot;
Reportquot;
>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Beetham, H.</author><author>McGill, L.</author><author>Littlejohn, A.</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Thriving in the 21st Century: learning literacies for the digital age (LLiDA project report</title></titles><dates><year>2009</year></dates><urls><related-urls><url>http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/llida/LLiDAReportJune2009.pdf</url></related-urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(2009) provide a comprehensive framework of new literacies relating to social and situated practice. These include: meaning making and situated knowledge, technological and media literacies, and scaffolded and metacognitive literacies.<br />Conole and Alevizou provide a map of the ways in which Web 2.0 technologies are being used to support learning and teaching and how these map to different pedagogical approaches. An adapted version of this is shown in Table 3. What is evident is that the characteristics of Web 2.0 technologies appear to align well with modern pedagogical good practice in terms of promoting constructivist and situative approaches to learning. However de Freitas and Conole (2010) argue that:<br />The description above paints a picture of a rich and exciting technological environment to support learning; with a multitude of mechanisms for: rendering content, distributing information and communicating. There seems to be a tantalising alignment between many of the social capabilities of the tools and practices evident with new technologies and what has emerged as ‘good’ pedagogy in recent years.<br />Table 3: Mapping of Web 2.0 tools to different pedagogical approaches<br />Pedagogical approaches Web 2.0 tools and approachesExamplesPersonal learningThe ability to adapt, customised and personalise, use of RSS feeds, mash ups and APIsThe digital Learning communities projectSituated learning, experiential learning, problem-based learning, scenarios-based learning, role playUse 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 purposesThe iCamp project, use of SecondLife to support different disciplines, cyberone law role-playInquiry-based learning, resource-based learningTools to support user-generated content and facilitating easy sharing and discussion, media repositories (Flckr, YouTube, and SlideShare), social bookmarking sites (Delicious), digital repositories and tools for content generation, use of search engines, participation in distributed virtual communities, use of folksonomies and social book marking as mechanisms for finding and organising resourcesThe Open Educational Resource movement and associated tools and repositories, like OpenLearnReflective and dialogic learning, peer learningTools for fostering peer reflection such as blogs and e-portfolios, commenting on other leanrers’ blog posts, co-creation of learning artefacts in wikisDigital learning communities, the peer-to-peer mentoring frameworkCommunities of PracticeUse of social networking tools to participate in communities of learning and/or teachingApplication of tools such as Facebook, Ning and Elgg to support informal social interactions between learners and as spaces for reflection on professional practice around shared interests (for example the ELESIG community in Ning)Scholarly practice and the sharing of designs and good practiceUse of Web 2.0 technologies to participate in a distributed network of educators and researchers, use of blogs, Twitter and wikis to co-create knowledge and understanding, to critique practice, and to share professional practice and resources Edublogs, LeMills, Cloudworks<br />Conclusion<br />As the examples in this chapter demonstrate Web 2.0 tools have much to offer for learning and teaching and can be used in different ways to support a wide range of pedagogical practices. Despite pockets of good practice, on the whole Web 2.0 technologies have not being taken up extensively in learning and teaching. Therefore a number of challenges remain in terms of their use. These include the changing nature of learning and teaching in such spaces, the new skills media, information and networked literacies needed, the need for a better connection between research on the use of these tools and associated policy and practice, and the challenges with trying to change existing practice and to get learners and teachers to adopt more open approaches. <br />Conole and Alevizou (2010) conclude that <br />‘effective use of new technologies requires a radical rethink of the core learning and teaching processes; a shift from design as an internalised, implicit and individually crafted process to one that is externalised and shareable with others. Change in practice may indeed involve the use of revised materials, new teaching strategies and beliefs – all in relation to education innovation’.<br />The use of these technologies has significant implications for learners, teachers and educational institutions. Sharpe and Beetham ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth=quot;
1quot;
><Author>Sharpe</Author><Year>2010</Year><RecNum>113</RecNum><record><rec-number>113</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app=quot;
ENquot;
db-id=quot;
2wap2tes5rfwtleve0mx9wpuw5xvvxape25zquot;
>113</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name=quot;
Bookquot;
>6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Sharpe, Rhona</author><author>Beetham, Helen</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Rethinking learning for the digital age: how learnes shape their own experiences</title></titles><dates><year>2010</year></dates><pub-location>London</pub-location><publisher>Routledge</publisher><urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(2010) provide a summary of recent research looking at the ways in which learners are using and perceiving new technologies. The research indicates that learners are changing, in terms of how they interact with technologies and how they are using them to support their learning. Learners are adopting more social, participatory and just-in-time learning practices, using search engines to find relevant resources and communicating and collaborating though a variety of mechanisms. Much of the research suggests that they are adopting more problem-based and experiential learning. However a note of caution is also needed; although good learners are using tools effectively, weaker learners struggle to make sense of the vast array of tools and resources at their disposal. Arguably they need guided learning pathways and support to use these effectively to support their learning. <br />Despite significant investment in promoting the use of technologies in education, use by teachers is far from ubiquitous. Certainly teacher roles are changing as a consequence of the introduction of new technologies and arguably the boundaries between teachers and learners is blurring. However there are a number of barriers to the increased uptake of technologies. Teachers lack the necessary skills to design and support learning with new technologies. There is a tension between their role as researcher and their role as teacher, with research more often than not being privileged over teaching. They also cite a lack of time and support as barriers to experimenting with new technologies. <br />Finally, the increased used of technologies have a number of implications for institutions. Firstly in terms of the types of support needed to enable learners and teachers to use new technologies. Secondly most institutions are working with legacy systems, which are fundamentally at odds with these new approaches. There is a tension between in-house systems and Learning Management Systems and freely available Web 2.0 tools and services. The nature and structure of educational institutions is also under threat. In a world where tools and resources are increasingly free, what is the role of a traditional institution? <br />Despite the hype and rhetoric, web 2.0, and more specifically learning 2.0 has not yet penetrated mainstream education. Nonetheless the affordances of web 2.0 technologies and analysis of how they are beginning to be adopted in educational contexts, suggest they could have a profound impact in the near future and that there are a number of potential side effects of the increased use of web 2.0 technologies which we need to be aware of. There are issues in terms of equity of access and the new digital literacy skills needed to make sense of these new digital spaces. <br />This chapter has considered the characteristics of new technologies and their impact on both organisations and individuals within an educational context. It has argued that there are significant implications for both learners and teachers. At the institutional level, there is little evidence that there is a corporate understanding of these tools either and there is the lack of vision for how social computing can be used. Policies on the use of Web 2.0 technologies are generally inadequate and there is a lack of appropriate training and support to migrate towards greater usage of these tools. <br />What is evident is that uncertainty and change are the norm; it is clear that we are now working in an environment of constant flux where the future is unpredictable and where changes appear to be ever more rapid and fundamentally radical in terms of their implications. No one individual can be an expert in all the tools and the potential ways in which they can be used; the approach needs to shift to harnessing the networked aspects of new technologies, so that individuals foster their own set of meaningful connections to support their practice; whether this is a teacher in terms of connections to support them develop and deliver their teaching or a learner in terms of connections to support and evidence their learning. <br />The implications of these new technologies for learning and teaching are profound. Unintended consequences of use will arise, misuse and abuses of the system will happen, the digital divide is still present; those not engaging with technologies are getting left further and further behind. The chapter has argued that a range of new skills are needed; for learners, teachers, support staff and senior policy makers. Skills to enable them to navigate through and make sense of digital space, skills to cope with change and the exponential development of new tools, skills to deal with new notions of space, time and boundaries and skills to cope with a multi-faceted and fast moving environment. We have to accept that it is impossible to keep up with all the change so we need to develop coping strategies which enable individuals to create their own personal digital environment of supporting tools and networks to facilitate access to and use of relevant information for their needs. These skills are needed across the range of stakeholders involved in education from students to senior managers; not just a selective minority. The ultimate goal has to remain harnessing the potential of these technologies to provide better and more engaging learning environments and opportunities for students. <br />References<br /> ADDIN EN.REFLIST Anderson, C. (2004). The long tail. Wired.<br />Atkins, D. E., Seely Brown, J., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the Open Educational Resource movement: acheivements, challenges and new opportunities, report to the William and Hewlett Foundation.<br />Beetham, H., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Thriving in the 21st Century: learning literacies for the digital age (LLiDA project report.<br />Borgeman, C., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K., Linn, M., et al. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: the cyberlearning opportunity and challenge, Report of the NSF task force on cyberlearning.<br />Conole, G. (2009). Stepping over the edge: the implications of new technologies for education.<br />Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). Review of the use(s) of Web 2.0 in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/1895<br />Crook, C., Cummings, J., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., Lewin, C., et al. (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: the current landscape - opportunities, challenges and tensions, a BECTA report.<br />De Freitas, S., & Conole, G. (2010). Learners experiences: how pervasive and integrative tools influence expectations of study Rethinking learning for the digital age: how learnes shape their own experiences. London: Routledge.<br />Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine, 2005(10).<br />Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2007). Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-Learning, Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education Quebec. Retrieved Feb (Vol. 16, pp. 2008).<br />Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century: Mit Pr.<br />Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Digital literacies: Policy, pedagogy and research considerations for education. Nordic Journal of digital literacy, 1(1), 226.<br />McAndrew, P., Godwin, S., & Santos, A. (2008). Identifying Web 2.0 learning in Open Educational Resources. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, special issue on Web 2.0 and learning: a revolutionary paradigm or a variation of CSCL.<br />O'Reilly, T. (2004, 17/01/2011). The architecture of particaption. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/articles/architecture_of_participation.html<br />O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0 - Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html <br />Oecd. (2007). Giving knowledge for free - the emergece of Open Educational Resourcs: OECD.<br />Okada, A., Shum, S. B., & Sherborne, T. (2008). Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques: Springer %@ 1848001487 %7 1.<br />Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: The impact of web 2.0 innovations in education and training in Europe. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies %U http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2899.<br />Seely Brown, J. (2006). New learning enviroments for the 21st century - exploring the edge. The magzine of higher learning, 38, 18-24.<br />Sharpe, R., & Beetham, H. (2010). Rethinking learning for the digital age: how learnes shape their own experiences. London: Routledge.<br />Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of the Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations: Doubleday.”.<br />Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide: the MIT Press.<br />Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.<br />