Search

Social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have been subject to much recent debate within the educational community. Whilst growing numbers of educators celebrate the potential of social networking to (re)engage learners with their studies, others fear that such applications compromise and disrupt young people's engagement with 'traditional' education provision. With these ongoing debates in mind, the current paper presents an in-depth qualitative analysis of the Facebook 'wall' activity of 909 undergraduate students in a UK university. Analysis of these data shows how much of students' education-related use of this social networking application was based around either the post-hoc critiquing of learning experiences and events, the exchange of logistical or factual information about teaching and assessment requirements, instances of supplication and moral support with regards to assessment or learning, or the promotion of oneself as academically incompetent and/or disengaged. With these themes in mind, the paper concludes that rather than necessarily enhancing or eroding students' 'front-stage' engagement with their formal studies, Facebook use must be seen as being situated within the 'identity politics' of being a student. In particular, Facebook appears to provide a ready space where the 'role conflict' that students often experience in their relationships with university work, teaching staff, academic conventions and expectations can be worked through in a relatively closed 'backstage' area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we report on survey and focus group data relating to the activities and perceptions of learning with Web 2.0 technologies of students aged between 11 and 16 years in 27 UK secondary schools. The study confirms that these learners had high levels of access to Web 2.0 technologies and that Web 2.0 activities were prolific. However, patterns of use were complex. The types of activity evidenced by the study suggest that learners can be categorised into four main groups: (1) researchers: mainly in terms of reading with little evidence of critical enquiry or analytical awareness; (2) collaborators: mainly with respect to file sharing, gaming and communicating; (3) producers and (4) publishers: mainly in terms of sharing experience through social networking sites. Whilst most expressed an interest in using online technologies to support familiar school activities, such as presentations or for communication, learners seemed cautious about other values associated with Web 2.0 tools, such as the shared construction of knowledge in a public format. Few learners were familiar with the complete spectrum of Web 2.0 activities and only a small number were engaging in more sophisticated activities, such as producing and publishing self-created content for wider consumption. There was little evidence of groundbreaking activities and only a few embryonic signs of criticality, self-management or metacognitive reflection. The paper concludes that these higher order thinking skills need to be encouraged and supported in any attempt to use Web 2.0 for learning in formal education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The internet presents many potential opportunities for people to learn for both formal and informal purposes. However, not everyone is able to make the most of the internet for learning. This paper utilises quantitative nationally representative survey data of internet use in Britain in order to explore the digital divide in relation to learning activities online. The results from this analysis give a detailed picture of the digital divide in Britain; illustrating those who are non-users and users of the internet and the reasons that are important in explaining the diversity in non-use and use of the internet for learning (e.g., age, educational background, skills, attitudes and experience). The findings may assist in the development of policies that seek to support under-served groups to make the most effective use of the internet for formal and informal learning opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]