Social exclusion or inclusion - the implications of social and partici-

patory media on education

Gráinne Conole

The Open University, UK

Keywords: Social exclusion, social networks, participatory culture, Open Education Resources,

Cloudworks, learning design

Introduction

In the last five years we have seen the emergence of a range of new social and participatory media.

These include blogs, wikis, social networks like Facebook, microblogging sites such as Twitter, and

media sharing repositories such as Flickr and YouTube. Many of these tools are free, and clearly

they offer new and exciting ways to support learning, and to enable learners and teachers to com-

municate and share. In parallel we have seen the emergence of the Open Source (Iiyoshi and Ku-

mar, 2008 )and the Open Educational Resource (OER) movement (Aitkins et al., 2007). and there

are now many high-quality digital resource repositories in a range of languages. Coupled to this

there has been a growth in user-generated content, enabling more learner-centred pedagogies. This

chapter will focus on the implications of this changing digital landscape for education and in partic-

ular the implications for learners, teachers and institutions. It will begin by providing an overview

of these new technologies and their associated characteristics. It will then provide some examples of

the ways in which these technologies are being harnessed to foster different pedagogical ap-

proaches. It is evident that these technologies have immense potential to support more innovative

approaches to learning, enabling more personalised and learner-centred approaches. However there

is also a number of downsides to using these technologies, the chapter will outline these and suggest

1

that a new digital divide is being created, between those who are able to be part of this new partici-

patory culture and those who are excluded. It will argue that we need to change the ways in which

we design, support and assess learning, to take better account of the affordances (Gibson, 1979) of

these new technologies. It will provide three case studies that are attempting to do this: the creation

and use of Open Educational Resources and associated practices, Cloudworks, a social networking

site for sharing and discussing learning and teaching ideas, and a new learning design methodology

which aims to help guide practitioners in creating learning interventions that make effective use of

new technologies.

Social and participatory media

The range of social and participatory media now available is truly daunting. Conole and Alevizou

(2010) categorised these into ten types of tools: media sharing, media manipulation, chat, online

games and virtual worlds, social networking, blogs, social bookmarks, recommender systems, wikis

and syndication/RSS feeds. Reviewing the ways in which they are being used a number of common

characteristics emerge. Firstly, they enable new forms of interaction and communication. Secondly,

many provide functionality to enable users to peer critique each others’ content or dialogue. Thirdly,

there are now a range of tools that enable users to collectively aggregate resources, Fourthly, there

are many tools to enable user-generated content, that can be shared with others in a variety of ways.

Fifthly, they are participatory, enabling users to produce and share their own content and interact

with others. Sixthly, they are open and exploratory, users can undertake inquiry-based queries get-

ting access to rich resources and often near instant feedback from the social collective. Finally, there

is an evident networked effect, possible through the connection of millions worldwide sharing, dis-

cussing, aggregating and co-constructing knowledge. Within this context we are seeing a number of

trends:

• A shift from the Web as a content repository and information mechanism to a Web that en-

ables more social mediation and user generation of content.

2

• New practices of sharing (see for example: images: Flickr; video: YouTube and presentation:

Slideshare), and mechanisms for content production, communication and collaboration (through

blogs, wikis and micro-blogging services such as Twitter). There are also social networking sites

for connecting people and supporting different communities of practice (such as Facebook, Elgg

and Ning).

• A network effect is emerging as a result of the quantity of information available on the Web,

the multiplicity of connectivity and the scale of user participation.

Much has been written about the characteristics of these new technologies and in particular so

called Web 2.0 practices (OReilly, 2005; Alexander; 2006; Anderson, 2007) but for the purposes of

this chapter I want to focus in particular on the following:

• Peer critiquing – the ability to openingly comment on other people’s work. This has become

standard practice within the blogosphere for instance and is being used in general society (for ex-

ample many journalists are now active bloggers, and traditional book writing is being supplemen-

ted by writers using blogs to invite potential readers to comment on the evolving plot), by aca-

demics (through self-reflective blogs on digital scholarship and research ideas) and in a teaching

context (with students keeping their own reflective blogs or contributing to a collective cohort

blog).

• User generated content – there are now many free tools for creating content (ranging from

those which are primarily text-based, through to rich multimedia and interactive tools), meaning

that the Web is no longer a passive media for consumption but an active, participatory, productive

media. Sites such as YouTube, Flickr and Slideshare facilitate simple sharing of user-generated

content and embedded code functionality means this content can be simultaneously distributed via

a range of communication channels.

• Collective aggregation - hierarchy and controlled structures make little sense in an environ-

ment that consists of a constantly expanding body of content that can be connected in a multitude

3

of ways. Collective aggregation refers both to the ways in which individuals can collate and order

content to suit their individual needs and personal preferences, as well as the ways individual con-

tent can be enriched collectively (via tagging, multiple distribution, etc.). Social bookmarking, tag

clouds and associated visualisation tools, tagging, RSS feeds and embedding code all enable col-

lective aggregation to occur.

• Community formation – clearly the connectivity and rich communicative channels now

available on the Web provide an environment for supporting a rich diversity of digital communit-

ies. Boundaries of professional and personal identity are eroding and the notion of tightly knit

Communities of Practice (Wenger 1998) are giving way to a spectrum of communities from indi-

vidualistic spaces through loosely bound and often transitory collectives through to more estab-

lished and clearly defined communities. See Dron and Anderson (2007) for a more specific dis-

cussion of collectives, networks and groups in social networking for e-learning.

• Digital personas – each of us is having to define our own digital identity and how we present

ourselves across these spaces. The avatars we choose to represent ourselves, the style of language

we use and the degree to which we are open (both professionally and personally) within these

spaces, give a collective picture of how we are viewed by others.

Key questions

In this chapter I want to consider the following questions in relation to the impact of social and par-

ticipatory media on learning and teaching practices:

• How are new open, social and participatory media changing educational practice?

• What are the implications for formal and informal learning?

• How are learner and teacher roles changing?

• How should institutional structures and systems be adapted to accommodate these new tech-

nologies?

4

• What new digital literacies will learners and teachers need to make effective use of these

new technologies?

• How can we design effective learning interventions and environments to harness the affor-

dances that these new technologies provide?

• What social exclusion issues arise and how can we minimise these?

Technology trends

In terms of extrapolating the changing digital landscape I draw on a number of reviews of technolo-

gies and in particular their impact on both society generally and education in particular. These in-

clude the NSF cyber-structure report (Borgman, et. al., 2008), the IPTS review of e-learning 2.0

(Redecker et al., 2008), a recent review of Web 2.0 tools and practice in Higher Education (Conole

and Alevizou, 2010) and the Horizon reports on new technologies (NMC, 2011).

The latest Horizon report (NMC, 2011) predicts six new technologies that are likely to have the

most impact in one, three and five years time. E-Books and mobiles are cited as being likely to have

the most impact in the next year. Augmented learning and game-based learning are listed as being

most important within a three-year timeframe. Finally, gesture-based learning and learning analytics

are predicted as having the most impact within five year’s time. The report observes a number of

trends on how technologies are being used and their impact on practice. Firstly, it is increasingly the

case (certainly in the developed world) that people expect to be able to work and learn, anywhere

and anytime. This is a consequence of near ubiquitous access to the Internet and the increasing so-

phistication of mobile devices with the emergence of smart phones, e-books and hybrid devices like

the iPad. Secondly, the world of work is increasingly collaborative. People no longer work in isola-

tion, team work is becoming more common and interdisciplinarity1 is increasingly seen as a means

of addressing today’s complex and ‘wicked’ problems. Thirdly, technologies are increasingly cloud-

1 See Conole et al. (2010) for a review of the nature of interdisciplinarity in Technology-En-hanced Learning.

5

based (Katz, 2008) and many institutions are now outsourcing core technology services to third par-

ties. Fourthly, to harness the potential of these new technologies, individuals need to develop new

digital literacies (Jenkins et al, 2006, Jenkins, 2009). Fifthly, the nature of academic discourse,

scholarship and mechanisms for sharing knowledge are being transformed by new publication chan-

nels such as blogs and wikis (Weller, 2011). This is challenging traditional metrics for evaluating

academic worth and value and traditional mechanisms for publishing via journals and books. New

evaluation metrics need to be developed to take account of this paradigm shift. Sixthly, the in-

creased prevalence of free tools and resources is challenging current educational business models

and new models will be needed to address this. Finally, both learners and teachers are finding it in-

creasingly challenging to keep abreast of the range of new technologies that are emerging. It is

likely that we will need to develop new learning pathways to guide learners through this complex

digital landscape and new guidance to support teachers in designing and supporting effective learn-

ing interventions and environments that make effective use of these new tools.

Harnessing new technologies and mapping to good pedagogy

The previous section, looked at technological trends and associated characteristics generally. This

section will focus in on how these technologies can be harnessed to support different approaches to

learning. In their conclusion to the review of Web 2.0 tools and practices, Conole and Alevizou

(2010) reflect on the implications of how these tools are being used in Higher Education as follows:

Effective use of new technologies requires a radical rethink of the core learning and teaching

processes; a shift from design as an internal, implicit and individually crafter 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 educational inno-

vation.

6

Table 1 considers a number of commonly used pedagogical approaches and shows how these can be

supported through use of a range of social and participatory media. What is notable is the way in

which the affordances of these technologies can be used to promote what are considered to be good

pedagogical approaches; such as constructivist and socially situative pedagogies. However to

achieve these effective practices, as Conole and Alevizou (2010) observe, will require a rethinking

of the ways in which learning interventions are designed and supported.

Table 1: Mapping of different pedagogical approaches to tools

Pedagogical approach Tools

Personalised learning Ability to customise tools to create a personal digi-

tal learning environment, use of RSS feeds

Situated, experiential and problem-based

learning

Location aware devices, 3D-worlds like SecondLife

Role play and inquiry-based learning Search engines, online resources, social networking

and micro-blogging sites

Resource-based learning User-generated content tools, media repositories,

Open Educational Resources

Reflective, dialogic and peer-based learning Blogs, wikis and e-portfolios

Positive and negative aspects

Table 2 looks at five common effects associated with new technologies and suggests some of the

consequences or paradoxes that arise as a result.

7

The first is the fact that there are now many free tools, resource and services; leading to an ever ex-

panding body of knowledge. Digital technologies amplify this body of knowledge, by providing

easy access to information, new ways of aggregating resources and multiple ways of disassembling

and recombining information. In a world of increasing complexity and knowledge, it is no longer

possible to know everything about a domain. Whereas a century ago a professional Chemist could

have a pretty good grasp across all the main sub-domains of Chemistry; today’s Chemist struggles

to keep up with their own area. Some celebrate this expansion, arguing that it means everyone had

the potential to be a ‘just-in-time’ expert and to be able to access and use knowledge for different

purposes. There is a vast array of information available online on medical conditions, so arguable

before seeking the advice of a doctor individuals can look up information on symptoms from the

Web. Surowiecki coined the term ‘wisdom of the crowds’ (Surowiecki 2004) arguing that collective

aggregation of information can lead to better decisions than those any individual might make. Oth-

ers caution against this, lamenting the death of expertise. Keen in particular cautions against the

‘cult of the amateur’ (Keen 2007), arguing that the Web 2.0 revolution is not providing more depth

of information, rather it is leading to superficial observations and judgement. He talks of the ‘sheer

noise of a hundred million bloggers; simultaneously talking about themselves’ and argues that we

are decimating our ‘cultural gatekeepers’ (critics, journalists, editors, etc.).

On the positive side, these tools mean that leaners have access to a rich set of

resources, which they can adapt and personalise. The abundance of tools and

resources also means it is possible to support niche specialist disciplines, the so

called long-tail effect (Anderson, 2004). On the negative side, in a world where

tools, resources and services are increasingly free, what is the role of formal

educational institutions? What should be the balance of institutionally suppor-

ted services verses free ones? Institutions are increasingly seeing learners pick-

ing and mixing the tools they use and they are no longer solely reliant on insti-

tutional systems.

8

Change Positive impact Negative impact

Free tools, resources and ser-

vices

Access and personalisation, abil-

ity to support niche specialisa-

tions - the so called ‘long tail’

phenomenon

Raises questions about the role

of institutions and increasing ev-

idence of a lack of institutional

control

Ubiquitous access Technologies as core tools for

learning and teaching

A narrower, but deeper digital

divide

Multiple communication and

distribution channels

Increasing opportunities for

peer, tutor and expert dialogue,

beyond the confines of the for-

mal course boundaries

Fragmentation and no central

repository or sole learning path-

ways

Rich media representation New forms of sense making Learners and teachers not

equipped with the necessary new

digital literacy skills

User-generated content Increasing variety and forms of

knowledge and more opportuni-

ties for leaner control

Quality assurance issues in

terms of the validity and worth

of these materials, issues in

terms of whether learners and

teachers have the right skills to

make effective evaluation judg-

ments about these materials

Social profiling and networking Increased opportunities for

knowledge sharing and commu-

nity build, a network of distrib-

uted communities possible

Inappropriate digital voices and

potential fragmentation of iden-

tity

9

Table 2: The positive and negative aspects of new technologies

Secondly, ubiquitous access is becoming the norm, learners and teachers are expecting to be able to

access tools and resources from anywhere, and hence be able to learn and teach anywhere, anytime.

In particular mobile devices make it easier to access information and communicate online. Users are

using a range of communication channels to connect with others all over the world. Learners are

able to access expertise beyond the confines of their formal courses. The downside of this is that

those that either choose not to connect or are unable to connect are becoming increasingly isolated;

the digital divide is narrower but deeper (Norris, 2001; Warschauer, 2004).

Thirdly, there are now numerous communication and distribution channels available for learners

and teachers. Content can be accessed, shared and discussed through a variety of mechanisms.

Users are posting across inter-related sites such as blogs, Twitter and facebook. Users are using a

range of communication channels to connect with others all over the world. Learners are able to ac-

cess expertise beyond the confines of their formal courses. However this is also leading to learner

confusion and to fragmentation of voice.

Fourthly, there are a rich range of multimedia and ways of representing content. This can be har-

nessed by learners to view ideas and concepts in different ways. There are also now a range of inter-

active sensemaking tools - such as concept mapping and argumentation tools that learners can use

to make sense of their understanding and to connect and represent ideas (Okada et al., 2008). But to

effectively use these representations and tools learners and teachers need appropriate new digital lit-

eracies skills, which arguably many do not have at the moment.

Fifthly, there is now a critical mass of Open Educational Resources, as well as tools for the creation

of user-generated content. This means that learners can augment their course materials with related

10

materials developed elsewhere. They can compare and contrast these resources to triangulate their

understanding of new concepts. But finding and making effective judgements on the worth and rel-

evance of materials is non trivial. Furthermore there can be quality assurance issues as many of

these resources are not quality assessed for accuracy and relevance.

Sixthly, there are opportunities for social networking and profiling. This means it is possible for

learners and teachers to be part of global, distributed communities and to actively participate and

co-construct knowledge and understanding. A key feature of social and participatory media is the

power of the collective; the potential to tap into a collective mass. This suggests ‘expertise at one’s

fingertips’ as well as a collective endeavour to tackle problems, where the ‘sum will be greater than

the individual parts’ – why tackle an issue with one mind, when one can use hundreds or thousands,

with different perspectives and different types of expertise? This gives rise to the concept of ‘col-

lective intelligence’ (Lévy, 1997) i.e. a shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collabora-

tion and competition of many individuals. Although this is a well-established field of enquiry, the

sheer capacity of the Internet means that huge numbers of people can now work together on a

shared problem, as the same time utilising the vast quantity of information and tools available on

the Internet. Lévy for example, predicted as far back as 1997 that new communications technologies

could profoundly effect the range of social bonds (Levy, 1997: 40).

However this social collective co-exists with what Wellman and Gulia termed ‘networked individu-

alism’ (Wellman and Gulia, 2001), i.e. the notion that there is a shift away from tightly bound

groups to loosely knit networks of individuals. Furthermore, these networks are also complex and

can lead to confusion in terms of digital identities.

The general increasingly complex digital landscape is challenging our existing vocabularies and

means of description. The very terms digital spaces and landscapes hark back to a time when the di-

gital was considered as a mere extension of the real. Terms such as ‘virtual universities’ and ‘virtual

11

cafés’ give the impression of the digital as a ‘bounded place’. Whereas the kinds of patterns of be-

haviour we are now seeing in the digital realm, the distribution of content and tools, the multi-fa-

ceted and inter-connected nature of the digital means that the vocabulary of ‘time’ and ‘space’ is no

longer adequate. We need new vocabularies and metaphors to describe what is happening. I have ar-

gued previously that:

There is a need for new approaches to help navigate through the digital environment and

also to help make sense of it and the impact it is having on our lives. Simplistic descriptions

of the digital environment replicating physical spaces are no longer appropriate, it is neces-

sary to take a more holistic view and describe technologies and users together emphasising

the connections between them (Conole, 2008).

Finally the apparent utopian drive towards an Internet where tools and content are free, and where

open source principles, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and mash ups appear to offer an

evolving, collectively improved set of content and tools, which can be used in a multitude of ways,

may not be all that clear cut. Such practices challenge existing ideas around quality and ownership

and do not fit in with current business models for commoditising knowledge. This suggests there is

far more to do in terms of understanding these and redefining our ideas around ownership, quality

and business models.

Social inclusion and exclusion

The previous section highlighted some of the paradoxes which can arise as a result of new social

and participatory media. This section will focus on how these relate specifically to notions of social

inclusion and exclusion. It provides a definition of the terms and considers the ways in which new

social and participatory media can result in certain groups being excluded, but also how these tech-

nologies can be used to enable inclusion. It will provide some case study examples of how this is

being achieved. One definition of social exclusion is that it is

12

‘a multidimensional process of progressive social rupture, detaching groups and individuals

from social relations and institutions and preventing them from full participation in the nor-

mal, normatively prescribed activities of the society in which they live’.2

This can include lack of access to earnings, education, technology, community or simply basic hu-

man rights. Cullen et al. (2009) define it as the:

process whereby individuals are pushed to the edge of society and prevented from partici-

pating fully by virtue of their poverty of lack of competences and lifelong learning oppor-

tunities or by discrimination.

They go on the define social inclusion as the:

process that ensures that those at risk of poverty and social exclusion gain the opportunities

and resources to participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life.

Clearly social and participatory media can result in social exclusion in a number of respects; indi-

viduals may not have access to the technologies, they may lack the necessary digital literacy skills

to use them or they may be prevented in some way from accessing them. However, Cullen et al.

(2009) also suggest that there are two ways in which Web 2.0 technologies can be used to promote

social inclusion, namely by: i) preventing digital exclusion and ii) by exploiting new technologies

for better inclusion.

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exclusion

13

They describe eight case studies which have attempted to use new technologies to support different

pedagogical approaches and types of learners (Table 3). It is interesting to see the ways in which

each of the case studies harnessed new technologies in particular contexts; utilising blogs, wikis, e-

portfolios and virtual worlds to meet the needs of particular excluded groups, coupled with imple-

mentation of different pedagogical approaches, such as story telling, peer coaching and open, col-

laborative pedagogies. The examples are drawn from across both formal and informal learning con-

texts and demonstrate how technologies can be used to support learners of different learning levels,

needs and in different contexts.

←

Case study Description

Notschool

www.notschool.net

Online school for drop outs

Constructivist pedagogy, peer buddy system

Assistive technology wiki

abilitynet.wetpaint.com

Supports knowledge creation around assistive

‘Routes of desire’ pedagogy model

Mundi de Estrellas

www.juntadeandalucia.esAimed at young people in hospital, shared stories

ALPEUNED

adenu.ia.uned.es/alpe/Students with disabilities at the Open University in Spain

Conecta Joven

www.conectajoven.orgeSkills for at risk and excluded groups

MOSEP

www.mosep.orgSelf-esteemed through e-Portfolios, learning companions

Schome Park

www.schome.ac.uk

Gifted kids and those with autism, in SecondLife, open

pedagogy based on collaboration

14

BREAKOUT

www.breakoutproject.odl.orgOffending and drug prevention, a life-swapping model

Open Educational Resources and Practices

Having defined social inclusion and exclusion, this section will consider ways in which the Open

Educational Resource movement (Atkins et al., 2007) is fostering more open and socially inclusive

practices. I draw in particular on the work being undertaken by the Olnet3 and OPAL4 initiatives, but

also broaden this to discuss how this work sits within a wider context of adopting more open prac-

tices.

3 http://olnet.org

4 http://oer-quality.org/15

The Olnet initiative is being funded by the Flora and William Hewlett foundation and is a partner-

ship between the Open University, UK and Carnegie Mlelon in North America. It aims to provide a

global social-technical infrastructure to promote the use and reuse of OER. The focus is on ensuring

that OER research findings are translated into practice through fostering a dialogue and exchange

between researchers and users or OER. The rationale behind the initiative is the realisation that de-

spite the plethora of high-quality resources now available, evaluation studies show that they are not

being used as extensively as might have been hoped by teachers and learners and they are being re-

purposed even less (McAndrew et al., 2009). The hypothesis is that if we can better understand how

OER are currently being created, used and reused then we are likely to be able to develop strategies

to help teachers and learners use them more effectively. A central argument around the promotion of

OER is that education should be viewed as a fundamental human right and that therefore resources

should be made freely available. However the focus to date has primarily been on the creation of

OER repositories with the naïve assumption that if resources are made freely available learners and

teachers will use and repurpose them.

16

In trying to tackle the issue of why this is not the case, Olnet ran a series of workshop with teachers

to get them to explore and discuss OER and in particular to consider how they can be designed for

use in a new context, namely to support collaborative learning (Conole, et al., 2011). Evaluation of

the workshop discussions identified a number of issues. Firstly, that an OER has an associated in-

herent design, which is not normally made explicit. Therefore a teacher looking at whether or not an

OER is relevant for their context of use has to first attempt to make this design explicit and then re-

design for use in a new context. It was evident that many teachers do not have the necessary skills

to do this and also that the design can be represented in a range of ways, to foreground different as-

pects of the resource and its associated pedagogical design. Participants reported that they had a lot

of difficulty understanding the OER in their raw state and felt they were missing important informa-

tion. They were also unsure of the quality and provenance of the OER. It was therefore evident that

deconstruction and subsequent reconstruction of OER is complex. Conole et al. (2011) identified

four layers that need to be considered to make most effective repurposing of an OER:

1. Visual representation of the design – how can the implicit OER design be made more expli-

cit and hence shareable?

2. Opinion of goodness – how appropriate is the OER for different contexts?

3. Transferability through pedagogical patterns – how can generic patterns be applied to spe-

cific contexts?

4. Layer of discussion, critique and contextualisation – how can social and participatory media

act as a supporting structure to foster debate between those using the same OER?

17

In addition to having difficulty in deconstructing OER, participants also had problems in terms of

repurposing for a new context. Conole et al. (2011) provided a set of collaborative pedagogical pat-

terns (Hernández et al., 2005, Hernández et al., 2010) as a means of structuring and guiding the re-

design process. Participants reported that these did help them think about how to repurpose the OER

for a new collaborative learning context. Participants cited a number of ways in which the use of

these patterns were useful: i) only a few patterns are needed to get started and to help think about

how a collaborative learning element might be introduced, ii) the patterns were generic enough that

they applied to many different learning situations, iii) they encourage thinking at different levels

and iv) they encouraged a fresh view of the resources.

Building on the experience of Olnet and in particular the importance of understanding the context of

the design and use of OER, I will now go on to consider a related, complementary initiative, OPAL.

The OPAL initiative's focus is on the articulation of dimensions of OER practice, with the hope that

through this we can better understand how to support the use and reuse of OER. OPAL identified

OER practices by analysis of 60 case studies of OER initiatives. Open Educational Practices (OEP)

are defined as a set of activities and support around the creation, use and repurposing of Open Edu-

cational Resources (OERs).Through this eight dimensions of practice were identified initially:

1. Strategies and policies

2. Quality Assurance (QA) models

3. Partnership models

4. Tools and tool practices

5. Innovations

6. Skills development and support

7. Business models/sustainability strategies

8. Barriers and success factors

18

These were then validated with the user community through a series of workshops and an expert

panel, leading to the refinement of the dimensions to four: strategies and policies, tools and tool

practices, skills development and support, and barriers and success factors. It is evident, that each

of these dimensions of practice might either promote social inclusion or negate it. For example if

policies are in place to provide for funding to support the development of OER this will lead to an

increase in the availability of high quality OER. Similarly, staff development activities and support

can be put in place to help address the kinds of digital literacy skills described earlier in terms of ef-

fect design and repurposing of OER. Articulation of barriers can help to put in place policies and

practices to alleviate them. Similarly identified success factors can be replicated in different con-

texts. Finally, innovative use of social and participatory media can lead to fostering more discussion

and engagement amongst practitioners on the use of OER.

The dimensions have been used for the creation of a OEP quality model5 that can be used by organi-

sations and individuals to self assess their level of OEP maturity (Figure 1).

5 This was developed by T. Koskinen for the OPAL project.

19

Figure 1: The OPAL OEP maturity cube

Therefore an organisation that had in place effective OER policies might be placed in 2AX at level

of maturity defined. Similarly an individual who uses uses social and participatory media to organ-

ise and share OER might be placed in 1CX level defined. This model has now been translated into a

set of guidelines for OER stakeholders (learners, teachers, institutional managers/support staff and

policy makers). Figure 2 shows a conceptual overview of the different aspects of the guidelines that

each of the stakeholders need to consider, representing a metromap metaphor to emphasise that the

guidelines provide a structure trajectory for stakeholders to develop their OER practices.

20

Figure 2: The OPAL OER practices represented as a metromap6

Promoting communication and discussion

The previous section discussed how OER might be used to promote social inclusion. This section

will consider the ways in which practitioners can share and discuss learning and teaching ideas and

hence be part of a global network of scholars. When teachers are asked what would most help them

make more effective use of technologies in their teaching, the overwhelming answer is ‘show me

examples of what others have done and give me access to others with similar interests that I can talk

to’ (Clark and Cross, 2010, Wilson, 2007). The social networking site, Cloudworks7, was created to

provide such a site. It amalgamates a range of typical Web 2.0 functionality (such as RSS feeds, fa-

vouriting, following, activity streams, aggregation of resources, and activity streams) to provide a

social space where teachers can share and collectively improve learning and teaching ideas, re-

sources and practices. Conole and Culver (2009) provide background details to the development of

the site and the underpinning theoretical perspectives and in a related paper they describe some of

the initial design and evaluation of the site (Conole and Culver, 2010).

6 Thanks to Inge Richter for producing the metromap7 http://cloudworks.ac.uk

21

From our evaluation data we can see that the site is promoting a range of practices, providing practi-

tioners with different ways in which to communicate and interact. It has been used effectively to

support real and virtual events (conferences and workshops), virtual reading circles, open reviews

and expert elicitation, and is also been used in some instances to share the design of new courses or

by students as a space to share and discuss their learning. The site appears to provide a niche social

space and complements established sites such as Facebook, Twitter and personal blogs. The distinct

feature of the site is that it is based around ‘social objects’ (Engeström, 2005) called ‘Clouds’,

which can be anything to do with learning and teaching (such as a discussion about a tool or re-

source, details of a particular learning intervention or discussion about a particular pedagogical ap-

proach and how technologies can be used to foster it). Clouds can be discussed and also can be col-

lectively improved by the community, through addition of more content (including embedded multi-

media) and by inclusion of relevant links or references. Clouds can be grouped into Cloudscapes.

The site now has a vibrant self-sustaining community of users from around the world and demon-

strates how such sites can promote social inclusion, not only through the sharing of ideas, but also

by breaking down barriers between different educational sectors. Teachers and learners from across

the formal and informal educational spectrum are participating.

Learning design

Finally this section will describe a new learning design methodology that has been developed to en-

able practitioners to make more effective use of technologies in the design of learning interventions

and resources for their students. The methodology is fundamentally socio-cultural in nature and is

based on the notion of the creation of a range of Mediating Artefacts to support design practice. It

aims to help teachers shift from an implicit, belief-based approach to the creation of learning inter-

ventions to one that is explicit and design-based. As part of this methodology we have created a

range of visual representations, which teachers can use to create and document their design activit-

22

ies. These range from a task swimlane representation that can be used to map learning activities

which take place over a few hours up to a holistic whole course map view. In the task swimlane

view, the roles of those involved in the activity (for example learner, tutor etc.) are represented as

lanes of individual tasks (such as read a book, participation in a forum, etc.) and for each task any

associated resource, tools or outputs are connected. The course view map enables the practitioner to

articulate against four aspects of the course: guidance and support, content and activities, commu-

nication and collaboration, and reflection and demonstration. In addition, keywords are used to de-

scribe the nature of the course and a short summary of the course is provided. Three other views

have also bee produced: a pedagogy profile view (which articulates the types of activities the lean-

ers are expected to undertaken, a course dimensions view which gives more details against the four

headings described for the course view map (such as the extent to which the course is tutor or

learner-centred, the degree of formative or summative assessment, the extent to which Web 2.0

tools or Open Educational Resources are used, etc.), and the learning outcomes maps, which en-

ables the practitioner to ensure that the learning outcomes are achieved either through the activities

the learners undertaken or via the assessment.

Recommendations

This section puts forward a number of recommendations to overcome some of the barriers to using

social and participatory media cited in this chapter; for learners, teachers, institutions and policy

makers.

For learners it is important that we provide support and guidance in terms of the development of the

digital literacy skills they need. We should encourage more learner-centred approaches, which

match the affordances of new media. We need to encourage new active and participatory forms of

communication and collaboration, both within formal cohorts and beyond. We need to shift from a

focus on content to activities.

23

For teachers we need to develop new approaches to the design of learning interventions (Conole,

forthcoming). Teachers will need to adopt more explicit and reflective teaching practices. The best

way for teachers to engage with these new technologies is through technology immersion, learning

by doing in other words. We should continue to encourage the creation of a networked educational

community of teachers and learners, to enable them to share and discuss learning and teaching

ideas.

At an institutional level, we need to ensure that strategies and policies are in place that reflect the

changing context of learning. We need to ensure there are appropriate resources and support to fa-

cilitate the shift in practice needed. Strong leadership is likely to make all the difference, institu-

tional leaders who have a clear understanding of the issues (technical, pedagogical and organisa-

tional) and who have the power to revision structures and infrastructures.

Finally nationally (and indeed internationally) we need to move to the creation and support of high

quality Open Educational Resources, along with the description and sharing of case studies of good

practice. Appropriate strategies, policies and funding should be introduced to help teachers and

learners make more effective use of these media and resources. Professional networks and com-

munities should be encouraged to promote scholarly discourse, and there needs to be an ongoing

horizon scanning of technological changes to feed back into what is happening at both an individual

and institutional level.

There is no doubt that new social and participatory media enable new forms of communication and

collaboration, but communities in these spaces are complex and distributed. Teachers and learners

need to develop new digital literacy skills to harness their potential effectively and are likely to need

support to be able to achieve this. Part of this is that we need to rethink the ways in which we

design, support and assess learning interventions. New social media sites such as Cloudworks can

24

provide mechanisms for teachers to share and discuss learning and teaching ideas and hence im-

prove their practice. Finally we are seeing a blurring of boundaries: learners/teachers, learning/

teaching, content/activities and real and virtual spaces. This is the reality of the context of modern

education. The opportunities are exciting and potentially transformative, the challenges are signific-

ant.

Addressing the challenges of social exclusion/inclusion

A series of questions were listed at the beginning of the chapter in relation to social exclusion/inclu-

sion and technologies, these are each now briefly discussed.

• How are new open, social and participatory media changing educational practice?

As this chapter has described, it is evident that new open, social and participatory media have the

potential to transform educational practice, however to date the impact of these technologies has not

been significant. There are a range of reasons for this, not least that teachers and learners need to

develop new digital literacies skills in order to harness the potential of these technologies. Effective

support in terms of more widespread use of Open Educational Resources and guidance such as the

learning design methodology articulated in this chapter are mechanisms that make help address this.

• What are the implications for formal and informal learning?

New technologies offer a variety of ways in which learners can access and represent information

and ways in which they can communicate and collaborate. New technologies enable learners to be

part of a global distributed network of peers and experts and effectively are blurring the boundaries

of formal and informal learning.

• How are learner and teacher roles changing?

Roles are blurring, teachers are becoming learners and vice versa, learners and teachers participate

in these new technologies in a more equal fashion than was possible in more formal learning con-

texts of the past.

• How should institutional structures and systems be adapted to accommodate these new tech-

nologies?

25

New technologies have significant implications for institutional structures and systems. In particular

institutions need to take account of the fact that learners and teachers are increasingly using non-in-

stitutional systems. They also need to consider how to best integrate the use of institutional Learn-

ing Management Systems (LMSs) and cloud-based services.

• What new digital literacies will learners and teachers need to make effective use of these

new technologies?

To the 11 digital literacies that Jenkin et al. (2006) list, I would add creativity. Learners and teachers

need to develop these skills in order to effective navigate around online spaces and to make effec-

tive judgments about the value of different online resources.

• How can we design effective learning interventions and environments to harness the affor-

dances that these new technologies provide?

Adoption of more design-based research approaches to the development of learning environments is

one way of ensuring that new technologies are used effectively, as well as enabling the designers to

adopt an agile and responsive approach based on user needs and behaviours. The learning method-

ology described in this chapter aims to guide and support practitioners in creating more effective

learning activities and environments that make effective use of new technologies.

• What social exclusion issues arise and how can we minimise these?

Despite the evident benefits and potential of new technologies for learning, some learners and

teachers will be excluded. This may be because they lack the necessary digital literacies skills to

harness their potential or may be due to lack of technical access. There may also be issues in terms

of learners and teachers not having enough time to engage and experiment with new technologies

and hence get a feel for how they can be used in an educational context.

Conclusion

The chapter has considered the implications of new social and participatory media to promote social

inclusion. It has described three instances; namely the use of OER and associated practices, the pro-

motion of communication and interaction through new social media, and application of a new learn-

26

ing design methodology. As stated earlier the digital divide is still evident and as social and particip-

atory media and users behaviour continue to co-evolve it is only likely that the divide between those

who are able to use social and participatory media and those who cannot will increase. It is import-

ant for us to be aware of this and to continue to develop mechanisms to promote social inclusion in

learning and teaching.

To return to the central question posed at the beginning of this chapter: can social and participatory

media support social inclusion?’ The answer is yes in that these media can provide rich multimedia

representations and multiple communication channels, enable learning opportunities to be accessed

from anywhere and provide mechanisms for storing and sharing an abundance of free educational

resources. However the answer is also no, in that these media are resulting in a new kind of digital

divide, the digital environment is increasingly complex and many learners and teachers lack the ne-

cessary digital literacy skills to navigate and effective use this space.

References

Andersen, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0?: ideas, technologies and implications for education: Citeseer, available online at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf.

Atkins, D. E., Seely Brown, J. and Hammond, A. L. (2007), A review of the open educational re-

sources (OER) movement: achievements, challenges and opportunities, a report for the

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, available online at

http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/ReviewoftheOERMovement.pdf

Alexander, B. (2006), ‘Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning?’, Edu-

cause review, 41(2): 32-44.

Anderson, C. (2004), The long tail, Wired, October 2004.

Borgman, C., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K., Linn, M., Lynch, C., Oblinger,

D., Pea, R., Salen, K., Smith, M & Szalay, A. (2008), Fostering learning in the networked

27

world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge. Report of the NSF Task Force on Cyber-

learning.

Clark, P., & Cross, S. (2010). Findings from a series of staff interviews about learning design, repre-

sentations of design, design process, evaluation and barriers, Appendix 2, The OU Learning

Design Initiative Project Phase Two Report, Embedding learning design and establishing a re-

versioning culture. Mltion Keynes: The Open University.

Conole, G. (forthcoming), Designing for learning in an open world, Springer: Verlag.

Conole. G. and Alevizou, P. (2010), A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Edu-

cation, a HE Academy commissioned report, The Open University: Milton Keynes, available

online at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf.

Conole, G. and Culver, J. (2010), The design of Cloudworks: applying social networking practice to

foster the exchange of learning and teaching ideas and designs, Computers and Education,

54(3), 679-692.

Conole, G., and Culver, J. (2009). Cloudworks: Social networking for learning design. Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 763-782.

Conole, G. (2008), Stepping over the edge: the implications of new technologies for education in

M. Lee and C. McLoughin (Eds), Web 2.0-based e-learning: applying social informatics for

tertiary teaching, Hersey, PA: ICI Global.

Conole, G., McAndrew, P. and Dimitriadis, Y. (2011, ‘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. , Scanlon, E., Mundin, P. and Farrow, R. (2010), Technology enhanced learning as a site

for interdisciplinary research, report for the TLRP TEL programme, April 2010.

28

Cullen, J., Cullen, C., Hayward, D. and Maes, V. (2009), Good practices for learning 2.0: promoting

inclusion - an in-depth study of eight learning 2.0 case studies, JRC Technical Notes,

http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC53578_TN.pdf

Dron, J., and Anderson, T. (2007). Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-Learn-

ing, Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare,

and Higher Education Quebec. Retrieved Feb (Vol. 16, pp. 2008).

Engeström, J. (2005), Why some social network services work and others don't ― Or: the case for

object-centered sociality, blog posting, 13th April 2005,  

http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why_some_social.html [1/8/08]

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associated.

Hernández, D. Asensio, J.I. & Dimitriadis, Y.A. (2005). Computational Representation of Collabo -

rative Learning Flow Patterns using IMS Learning Design. Educational Technology and Soci-

ety, 8(4), 75-89.

Hernández, D., Asensio, J.I., Dimitriadis, Y., & Villasclaras, E.D. (2010). Pattern languages for gen -

erating CSCL scripts: from a conceptual model to the design of a real situation. In P.

Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.) E-learning, design patterns and pattern languages (49-64) Sense

Publishers.

Iiyoshi, T., & Kumar, M. S. V. (2008). Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Ed-

ucation through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge, MA: The MIT Press

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A.J., & 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

29

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the

21st century: Mit Pr.

Katz, R. (2008). The tower and the cloud: Higher Education in the age of cloud computing, an Edu-cause ebook, available online at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7202.pdf.

Keen, A. (2007), The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture. Currency.

Lévy, P. (1997). Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace, Trans. Robert

Bononno, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books

McAndrew, P., Santos, A., Lane, A., Godwin, S., Okada, A., Wilson, T., et al. (2009). OpenLearn

Research Report 2006-2008, The Open University: Milton Keynes.

NCM (2011) The Horizon report 2011, available online http://www.nmc.org/publications/2011-

horizon-report [7/4/2011]

Norris, P. (2001), Digital divide – civil engagement, information poverty and the internet world-

wide, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

OReilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of

software. Available at: http://oreilly.com/Web2/archive/what-is-Web-20.html [3/05/2010]

Okada, A., Buckinghamshum, S. and Sherborne, T. (Eds) (2008), Knowledge cartography: softwar

tools and mapping techniques, Springer: New York.

Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: The im-

pact 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 .

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.”.

Warschauer, M. (2004), Technology and social inclusion – rethinking the digital divide, MIT Press:

Massachusetts.

30

Weller, M (2011) The Digital Scholar, Bloomsbury Academic

Wellman, B. abd Gulia, M. (2001), ‘Virtual communities as communities: net surfers don’t ride

along, in Communities in cyberspace, M. Smith and P. Kollock (Eds), New York: Routledge

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Learning in Doing:

Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wilson, P. (2007), Progress report on capturing eLearning case studies, Internal report, The Open

University, Milton Keynes.

31