This is the presentation i used at the Unisa 2012 research workshop

1. 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

2. 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’

3. 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?

4. 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

5. Mapping
pedagogies
to
technologies
Social
Informa:on
Informal
Formal
Experience
(Conole
et
al.
2004)
Individual

6. 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)

7. Social
Informal
Formal
Experience
Individual
Informal
Formal
Informa:on
(Conole
et
al.
2004)

8. 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?

9. 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?

10. 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

11. Linked
concepts
‘digital
/
net
generaIon’
‘digital
divide’
‘digital
literacy’

12. QuesIons…?
• Validity
of
‘digital
naIve’
claims?
• Can
we
ignore
it
altogether?
• Themes
/
topics
for
research?
– Digital
divide
– Digital
literacy

13. A
‘digital
/
net
generaIon’
‘Digital
naIves’
and
‘digital
immigrants’

14. 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.

15. A
digital
generaIon
‘a
genera:on
defined
in
and
through
its
experience
of
digital
computer
technology’
(Buckingham,
2006,
p.
1).

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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).

19. 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).

20. 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?

21. 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).

22. 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?
-­‐

23. 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).

24. 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).

25. 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?

26. Digital
divide

27. Different
concepIons
of
digital
divide

28. 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).

29. 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)

30. Closing
the
digital
divide
• The
‘trickle-­‐down’
principle
• What
are
the
problems
with
the
above
view/
approach
to
solving
the
access
problem?

31. Digital
divide
–
quesIons?
a
‘social
and
poli:cal
problem’
(van
Dijk,
2005,
p.
3),
not
a
technical
one.

32. 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)?

33. 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]

34. 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:
hip://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
[accessed
on
4
June
2012]

35. 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:
hip://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
[accessed
on
4
June
2012]

36. MoIvaIonal
Skills
access
access
Material
or
Usage
physical
Types
of
access
access
access
contribuIng
to
Digital
divide
(van
Dijk,
2005).

37. 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

38. 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

39. Digital
naIves,
digital
immigrants
and
digital
divide
Applicability
of
this
discourse
to
Unisa
/
Southern
Africa.

40. 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

41. 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.

42. some
fun
…
• Visualising
the
internet
growth
and
use
• hip://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/
8552410.stm

43. Digital
literacy

44. 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).

45. 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).

46. Digital
literacy
-­‐
definiIons

47. 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).

48. 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).

49. 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)

50. Digital
literacy
is
‘…
about
mastering
ides,
not
keystrokes’
(Gilster,
1997).

51. 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)

52. Findings
from
research

53. A
Leicester
research
project
on:
Learners’
access
to,
and
competence
with,
technologies
and
digital
literacy
skills
[PELICANS]

54. 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.

55. 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

56. Findings

57. Data
from
the
2010-­‐2011
hip://goo.gl/kraQF
quesIonnaire
survey
at
The
next
three
slides
based
on
2011
-­‐
2012
data

58. 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

59. 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

60. 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’

61. 5
years
ago
at
Leicester
…

62. 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

63. 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

64. 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.

65. 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.

66. 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?

67. 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.

68. More
about
Pelicans
research
project
Please
contact
either:
– Pal
at
pe27@le.ac.uk
or
– Tracy
at
tas1@le.ac.uk

69. Similar
/
comparable
research
at
Unisa?

70. 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]

71. 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?

72. 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.

73. 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.

74. 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.

75. Thank
you!
pe27@le.ac.uk