21st c tech n learners_unisa_Edirisingha_11june2012


Published on

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

Published in: Education, Technology, Travel
1 Like
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

21st c tech n learners_unisa_Edirisingha_11june2012

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 5. Mapping  pedagogies  to  technologies   Social   Informa:on  Informal   Formal   Experience   (Conole  et  al.  2004)   Individual  
  6. 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. 7. Social  Informal   Formal   Experience   Individual   Informal   Formal   Informa:on   (Conole  et  al.  2004)  
  8. 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. 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. 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. 11. Linked  concepts   ‘digital  /  net   generaIon’  ‘digital  divide’   ‘digital   literacy’  
  12. 12. QuesIons…?  •  Validity  of  ‘digital  naIve’  claims?  •  Can  we  ignore  it  altogether?  •  Themes  /  topics  for  research?   –  Digital  divide   –  Digital  literacy  
  13. 13. A  ‘digital  /  net  generaIon’   ‘Digital  naIves’  and   ‘digital  immigrants’  
  14. 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. 15. A  digital  generaIon    ‘a  genera:on  defined  in  and  through  its   experience  of  digital  computer   technology’  (Buckingham,  2006,  p.  1).  
  16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 26. Digital  divide  
  27. 27. Different  concepIons  of  digital  divide  
  28. 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. 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. 30. Closing  the  digital  divide  •  The  ‘trickle-­‐down’  principle    •  What  are  the  problems  with  the  above   view/  approach  to  solving  the  access   problem?  
  31. 31. Digital  divide  –  quesIons?    a  ‘social  and  poli:cal  problem’  (van  Dijk,  2005,  p.  3),  not  a  technical  one.    
  32. 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. 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. 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. 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 10.8Source:  hip://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm  [accessed  on  4  June  2012]    
  36. 36. MoIvaIonal   Skills  access   access  Material  or   Usage   physical   Types  of   access     access   access   contribuIng   to  Digital   divide   (van  Dijk,  2005).  
  37. 37. Digital  divide  –  stories   “India  unveils  worlds   cheapest  tablet  computer”  “Nairobis  digital  divide  “   “Indias  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. 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. 39. Digital  naIves,  digital  immigrants  and   digital  divide   Applicability  of  this  discourse  to  Unisa  /   Southern  Africa.  
  40. 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. 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. 42. some  fun  …  •  Visualising  the  internet  growth  and  use  •  hip://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/ 8552410.stm  
  43. 43. Digital  literacy  
  44. 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. 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. 46. Digital  literacy  -­‐  definiIons  
  47. 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. 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. 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. 50. Digital  literacy  is  ‘…  about  mastering  ides,  not  keystrokes’  (Gilster,  1997).    
  51. 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. 52. Findings  from  research  
  53. 53. A  Leicester  research  project  on:  Learners’  access  to,  and  competence  with,  technologies  and  digital  literacy   skills   [PELICANS]  
  54. 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. 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. 56. Findings  
  57. 57. Data  from  the  2010-­‐2011   hip://goo.gl/kraQF  quesIonnaire  survey  at     The  next  three  slides  based  on   2011  -­‐  2012  data  
  58. 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. 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. 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. 61. 5  years  ago  at  Leicester  …  
  62. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 68. More  about  Pelicans  research  project   Please  contact  either:   –  Pal  at  pe27@le.ac.uk  or     –  Tracy  at  tas1@le.ac.uk    
  69. 69. Similar  /  comparable  research  at   Unisa?  
  70. 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. 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. 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. 73. References  and  further  resources  Gill,  T.  (ed)  (1996)  Electronic  children:  How  children  are  responding  to  the  informa,on  revolu,on.  London:  NaIonal  childrens  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. 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. 75. Thank  you!  pe27@le.ac.uk