Emerging technologies for learning
It is not the person ignorant of writing but the one ignorant of photography who will be the illiterate of the future.
Introduction
This chapter investigates the issue surrounding the increasing use of new digital technologies, for example social networking, in the lives of learners outside the formal education setting and argues that it is becoming a natural and useful experience. It is argued that technology in itself is not good or bad, but may have good and bad effects, many of which will be unintended and unforeseen.
The debate on IT is also explored, including its development from mainframe to handheld devices, and its impact. This debate is not new and echoes ancient arguments made by the likes of Socrates, who bemoaned the invention of the alphabet, believing it would affect students’ ability to engage in meaningful dialogue. Many new and potential technologies are examined, in particular the potential of the semantic web (Web 3.0) and the mobile web.
The debate about technology and its utility is discussed and considered to be over; now there is a focus on how best to use the potential of new technologies to have a positive impact on education. What is needed are agile systems, which balance what education needs and what technology can do in an informed synergy where learners control their own learning; technology is most exciting and most transformational when it enables us to do something previously impossible. These novel possibilities include new types of community and collaboration, dialogue, co-construction of knowledge, and new styles of creativity. The chapter moves on to explore how the widespread adoption of digital technologies has had an impact on learners, businesses and people in general. However, it is not all plain sailing and the barriers and problems in implementing new technologies are examined.
The discourse below also highlights the ways in which new technologies, especially the potential of social networking, match many parts of the educational agenda and indeed pedagogical theories such as Vygotsky’s social constructivism and Seymour Papert’s constructionism. How these approaches can be implemented, particularly constructivist approaches, can be seen in Chapter 3. It is argued that these developments plus the increasingly visual nature of interfaces can influence and shape learning, learner autonomy, motivation and engagement. Although it investigates and explores the plethora of new developments, this chapter also explores the issue of the changing nature of young learners and argues that ‘digital natives’, the ‘net generation’ and the new knowledge workers have a new way of learning and that increasingly they seek problems to solve rather than knowledge to apply. In all, this chapter provides an informed journey into the landscape of new technologies and the users who inhabit it.
The invention of photography changed our understanding of the world and our perception of it. Photographs did not actually capture reality, but gave us a new view of another ‘virtual’ world. So the technology changed the way we relate to the world and each other. It allowed Muybridge to investigate the gait of a galloping horse and by putting the means to make pictures in everybody’s hands, let us all capture the ‘decisive moment’.
Today, digital information and communication technologies are having a similar and even more profound effect, allowing the ‘annihilation of space and time’ (Alexander Pope). They are visibly and invisibly a part of all aspects of modern life and their effects resonate across the boundaries that used to separate work from home, learning from pleasure. Most technology is not conceived or designed for education; it has a life of its own and impacts on society and culture over time. Learners are increasingly using new digital technologies in their lives outside formal education and these are becoming a natural and useful part of their experience. Education can no longer control or limit technology use to a defined set of tools, or it risks becoming irrelevant to 21st-century learners.
A classic essay question is ‘Does technology control society or does society control technology?’. Of course this is a false dichotomy, as both are inextricably intertwined and influence and inform each other in a synergistic relationship. However, society and therefore education changes more slowly than technology. Technology itself is not good or bad, but will have good and bad effects, many of them unintended.
Despite this, we need to guard against technology determinism. The problems of education cannot be easily fixed by simply applying technology. In recent years many have talked about the speed of technological change, even exponential change. However, other than for the increase in the number of transistors on a chip (Moore’s Law), this rarely holds true. Often our perspective is skewed and we overestimate the impact of the new and underestimate the impact of older technologies (Seidensticker, 2006).
Conversely, by denying change and not accepting the potential of new technologies and approaches, technology detractors risk making education irrelevant to learners, the needs of society and the increasingly globalised economy. These debates about new technologies are not new: Socrates bemoaned the invention of the alphabet, which he thought would prevent his students from memorising information and reduce the quality of their dialogue (Socrates, 470 BC).
The argument about whether digital technologies should be used in education should now be over. The debate is moving to how best to use the clear potential of technologies to have a positive impact on education, so a balance is needed between what education needs and what technology can do. Both need to inform each other, so that we can create an agile system that understands the power of technology, understands its learners and learning, and creates future citizens with the power to control their own learning. In Chapter 4 Jenny Yorke and Helen Walmsley explore how staff effort can be maximised, and in Chapter 3 Geoff Walton looks at the emerging e-pedagogy to support deliver online learning opportunities.
The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn.
Technology in education has often been used to digitise existing practice, and it is most exciting and transformational when it enables us to do something that was previously impossible. This chapter looks at three new types of technology-mediated interaction and learning: new kinds of community and collaboration, dialogue and co-construction of knowledge, and new styles of creativity. It goes on to explore the impact that the widespread adoption of digital technologies has had on learners, businesses and people in general.
Web 2.0 and social software
The term Web 2.0 (attributed to Dale Dougherty, of O’Reilly Media, but extended and popularised by Tim O’Reilly of the same company), although loosely defined, describes a range of technologies, services, trends and behaviours that have evolved to create what is sometimes called the read/write web. Becta has described Web 2.0:
It is about using the internet as a platform for simple, light-weight services that leverage social interactions for communication, collaboration, and creating, remixing and sharing content. Typically, these services develop rapidly, often relying on a large community of users to create and add value to content or data. The availability and ease of use of Web 2.0 tools and services has lowered the barriers to production and distribution of content. Some examples of Web 2.0 services include: social networking sites, blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, media sharing sites, rich internet applications and web ‘mashups’.
This shift in the web from being about passive consumption of information to more active participation is claimed by Tim Berners Lee always to have been part of the vision for the web. But this more participatory web has only become possible because of the critical mass of broadband-connected users (supported by inexpensive PCs, cheap storage, internet innovators and media convergence). Indeed, most of the technology behind Web 2.0 is not new, but is being used in new ways to enable new social interactions.
Paul Anderson has taken the range of Web 2.0 type approaches – blogs, wikis, social networking, podcasting, social bookmarking, content creation and sharing, user – defined tagging, rich internet applications and open access to data and programming interfaces – and identified six key ideas or characteristics that define them (Anderson, 2007):
We know that many learners are using Web 2.0 websites and services in their lives outside formal education (Lenhart and Madden, 2005; Dutton and Helsper, 2007; Ofcom, 2007). However, the question has been whether these approaches can be used in education to improve the learning experience and, if so, what the barriers and issues are in their implementation.
Web 2.0 has received a great deal of attention from educationalists, as its attributes seem to match many parts of the educational agenda and indeed pedagogical theories such as Vygotsky’s social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) and Seymour Papert’s constructionism (Papert, 1980). More research is needed into the impact of learning of using Web 2.0 tools and services. For example, does this collaborative model of learning suit all learners? It has been estimated that only around 1 per cent of the users of most sites regularly make contributions (BBC News, 2007). Are the communities created usually made up of the same type of people from the same background? Are they in fact reinforcing their own prejudices and subjective views?
Web 2.0 characteristics match many of the aims of the personalising learning agenda (Leadbeater, 2005; Gilbert, 2006), allowing learners to take more control of their own learning (learner autonomy), and directly access their own customised sources of information, data, tools and services.
Personalising learning is about:
providing greater customisation, match to individual needs and greater choice and opportunity for learners and developing more responsive and flexible arrangements for learning both in and outside of the formal curriculum in schools, colleges, higher education, skills training and lifelong learning.
Just as Web 2.0 applications are now being offered to business, learning management system providers are also adding the functionality to their products. Education-specific products certainly offer advantages for school age learners where the issue of control and e-safety are perhaps more paramount than for higher education. However, many proponents of Web 2.0 approaches for education argue that the current organisation of learning around instructor-led units does not necessarily fit well with the more organic, collaborative, bottom-up style of Web 2.0. Lee Bryant believes Web 2.0 development will go together with a change in educational focus: ‘the peak of… e-learning “content delivery” systems will coincide with the peak of target-driven, test-based education policy, and what follows will be more personal and aimed towards a broader set of personal development goals in both technology and pedagogy’ (Bryant, 2007).
One response to this has been the idea of the personal learning environment, which builds on the Web 2.0 idea of ‘small pieces loosely joined’ (Weinberger, 2002a; CETIS, 2005). The personal learning environment is a loose collection of tools, services, people and resources, which harness the power of the network.
Increasingly it is felt that 21st-century learning needs to evolve to create learners suited to the new priorities of the world of work, who are digitally literate and able to adapt and learn throughout their lives. Web 2.0, with its ability to help foster the building of communities of learning, encourage collaboration, co-creation and sharing, and to make it easy to connect to networks of people, information and services, seems to fit well with this model:
All learning technology will be at least to some degree network technology, since it is designed to facilitate the interaction between public knowledge and personal knowledge. learning technology that promotes autonomy, encourages diversity, enables interaction and supports openness will, in the main, be more effective than technology that does not.
The use of Web 2.0 in education is only just beginning to be explored through small-scale trials by innovative practitioners and some more institutional-level implementations and evidence of impact is limited (Crook and Harrison, 2008). The potential of these approaches is clear, but there remains a range of issues to be addressed. There are technical and security issues around the use of consumer services that do not have service level agreements, robust security or back-ups, but it is not yet clear whether education-specific Web 2.0 approaches that could offer this level of control negate the advantages of learner autonomy in being able to select and integrate their own set of tools. Intellectual property rights, copyright issues and concerns over control of hosting, content and interoperability worry IT managers. For teachers there are issues to do with how collaborative work is preserved and assessed, and what pedagogies are most appropriate to Web 2.0 integration. There are very real concerns over e-safety, cyber-bullying, child protection and privacy.
It has been suggested that learners today may have a different notion of privacy from older users. An article in New York Magazine (Nussbaum, 2007) discusses how American youth were more relaxed about their details being available on the net. Indeed they accepted that they had an audience online. However, learners need to be made aware of the potential consequences of what they publish online. For example, the notion of ‘digital persistency’ – that information published online lasts forever and cannot be readily deleted – is not always appreciated by students. At Warwick University, where all students are given a blog space, student bloggers may not be so keen on potential employers being able to read about their weekend exploits after a quick Google search. Students may now be putting great efforts into maintaining their online reputations, but their audience at the time of writing may be different from that in the future.
Web 3.0?
Although the term Web 2.0 suggests a future technology, it is no longer an emerging technology. It is simply the web today. Discussion has already moved to Web 3.0. This has no clear definition as yet, but is commonly accepted to be about the semantic web and/or the 3D web. The semantic web is about giving meaning to web data so that it can be retrieved and understood by machines or applications that can then draw connections between disparate pieces of information. This would be an important part of enabling the intelligent agents (proactive, autonomous, software tools and systems that can determine appropriate actions based on a range of data from multiple sources) that would work for us in the full vision of ubiquitous computing (see ‘Ubiquitous computing’, below). However, many believe the requirements of the semantic web are too onerous, too rigid and unachievable (Weinberger, 2002b; Shirky, 2003).
The beginnings of a more visual, 3D web can be seen in online virtual worlds such as Second Life. Many companies such as IBM and Cisco are exploring the possibilities of this new way of presenting information and interacting online, and universities and schools are also beginning to experiment with innovative approaches in these ‘metaverses’ (Twining, 2007).
Social software on mobile devices
As the internet has extended to our mobile devices, so too has social software. Mobile Web 2.0 applications are now seen as a major driver for the uptake of the mobile internet. Mobile devices now offer a pervasive and trusted interface, the social aspects of which have already made them a natural and personal extension of our lives. The mobile web means people today are connected to a permanent ‘info-cloud’ (Wal, 2009) of information, services and people, which has interesting socio-cultural implications. Using friend locator services, mobile blogging and micro-blogging sites like Twitter, people are seeing the world, their actions and relationships through a new lens of declarative living (Squidoo, n.d.).
Mobile learning
Mobile devices are now a widely accepted and invaluable part of modern life and there has been interest in using them to enable flexible, anytime, anywhere learning for some time. However, now a variety of devices are likely to be in the pockets of learners, the potential for employing mobile learning has greatly increased. Mobile learning is about much more than just delivering digital learning content to a mobile device. It enables new ways of learning and digitally enhanced experiences across different contexts. Education needs to explore ways of using the power of these increasingly available devices, while addressing some of the issues such as equality of access and management overheads.
The range and functionality of mobile devices continues to improve. They include laptops, netbooks and tablet PCs, but it is handheld devices that could offer the greatest opportunities for learning in new ways. The proliferation of these devices beyond the personal digital assistants means that learning devices today could include mobile phones, smartphones, ultra-mobile PCs and mobile internet devices, handheld games consoles, internet tablets, media players, e-book readers and digital cameras.
The boundaries between learning, working, socialising and entertainment, and where and when these activities take place, are increasingly blurred. Similarly, the roles and functionality of mobile devices have converged, as they are all likely to have to meet diverse needs of users. Having said that, devices still broadly fit into three categories, albeit with overlapping capabilities:
computer-centric devices, such as personal digital assistants and ultra-mobile PCs
communication-centric devices such as mobile phones and smart phones
entertainment-centric devices such as games consoles, media players and e-book readers.
In general, devices are becoming more powerful, more connected and more versatile. Typically all these devices can now offer a range of functionality, such as wireless connectivity, more powerful processors and applications, multimedia capabilities, integrated cameras, content creation tools, GPS and sensors.
At the same time some of the barriers of mobile devices – poor battery life, small displays, difficult interfaces and high cost – are beginning to be addressed.
Battery life
Battery life is improving through the use of more efficient components and designs. Energy efficiency is now a key driver for processor and chipset manufacturers and simpler system on a chip (SoC) designs will decrease size and power requirements. The move towards solid state hard drives and emerging display technologies (see below) also help. New battery designs, super capacitors and micro fuel cells have yet to reach market, but hold some promise for the future.
Displays
The size, resolution and brightness of mobile displays has gradually improved, but have always been limited by the size of the device itself. Developments in organic LED (OLED) and light-emitting polymer displays offer great potential in this area. These displays, already used in a small number of devices, are electroluminescent, so don’t require a backlight, and are extremely thin and bright. By putting these displays on flexible substrates, manufacturers have shown prototypes of rollable displays. This offers the promise of displays that can be larger than the mobile device itself.
Electronic paper
Electronic paper, which offers high resolution paper like reflective displays, is being used in a new range of e-book readers. Currently, slow and monochrome, developers are considering adding colour and transition speeds fast enough for use as general displays. Again, flexible versions of electronic paper could offer large, inexpensive displays, which could be formed to fit in a variety of innovative applications. Other display technologies for mobile devices currently emerging are heads-up displays and integrated nano projectors.
Interfaces
On the desktop the interface has remained focused on the keyboard and mouse. There have been developments in handwriting recognition, voice recognition, gesture recognition, haptics, eye-tracking and wearable computers. These have not become mainstream because of usability issues and the fact that in most situations and for most users they do not offer a compelling advantage or improvement in productivity. However, for smaller mobile devices the desktop model is inappropriate (despite the persistence of miniature keyboards).
Developments are happening in two main areas. The first is the physical interface, where some of the technologies mentioned above are beginning to appear. For example, an increasing number of mobile devices now have touch screens. The next step will be to use haptics technologies to add ‘feel’ to the touch screen displays. Accelerometers that detect movement (as seen in the Wii controller) are also being deployed in mobiles (research from InStat suggests that MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical systems) in mobile handsets will be worth $1 billion by 2010 (In Stat, 2006). The second main area of development is that of rethinking the visual interface itself, to minimise the need for text input and to have smarter systems that understand what the user is trying to achieve. Eventually miniature cameras coupled with human scale storage opens the possibility of life-recorders, for example Microsoft Sensecam (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/sensecam/).
Cost
As with most technologies the price of mobile devices has fallen and performance has improved. However, more recently there has been an effort to produce low-cost devices aimed at education, particularly in the developing world. The One Laptop per Child (OLPC; http://www.laptop.org/) scheme to create a rugged $100 laptop for the developing world is now taking orders (if at nearer $150 per laptop). Other companies are also offering low-cost devices such as the new range of inexpensive, small notebook computers known as netbooks.
Connectivity
Wireless connectivity transforms mobile devices and enables anytime, anywhere networked learning and learner interactions. Many future visions of education are predicated on there being ubiquitous access to inexpensive (or free), fast, reliable wireless connections. Most educational institutions now have wireless local area networks (WLANs), using wi-fi access points. In the UK, 80 per cent of secondary and 50 per cent of primary schools have wireless networks (Becta, 2007). Many people are using the same technology to share their broadband connections at home. However, outside these locations connectivity can be slow, unreliable, expensive or just unavailable. A number of technology and market developments are beginning to address some of these issues.
WiMAX
WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) is an emerging wireless broadband technology based on IEEE 802.16 standards. There are currently two main versions: fixed or nomadic and mobile, which are incompatible with each other. Despite early hype around the technology talking of data rates of 75 Mbps over ranges of 45 km, the reality is that typical speeds will be between 1 Mbps and 10 Mbps (synchronous), delivered in WiMAX cells of 1–5 km. The mobile version has most potential and suitable licensed spectrum is being made available in many countries. Commercial WiMAX networks have now been deployed in a number of countries. Early indications are that WiMAX is likely to be priced at similar levels to fixed broadband. An upgrade to the standard (802.16 m) is expected to offer peak speeds up to 1 Gbps. In developed countries WiMAX is likely mainly to be available in urban areas and will face strong competition from mobile phone operator networks. However, in developing countries where there is no existing wired infrastructure it is seen as a technology for linking rural areas. India, for example, is planning a major deployment of WiMAX to villages that will also connect 40,000 schools.
3.5G and 3.9G
Third generation (3G) mobile phone network upgrades to GSM (global system for mobiles) were to a certain extent disappointing. Maximum data rates of 384 Kbps, limited coverage, limited ‘walled garden’ internet access and expensive per MB price plans largely relegated it to business users. However, an upgrade to 3G networks known as high speed packet access, or 3.5G, has improved download rates significantly. HSPA + should increase these speeds to over 20 Mbps. Operators have also begun offering flat rate data plans and providing open internet access. The next major shift will be the move to long term evolution (LTE), also known as 3.9G. Early testing of this technology has shown speeds of 100 Mbps at very low latencies. However, this is unlikely to begin to appear until 2010–12.
Wi-fi
Wi-fi connectivity is now provided by most institutions and is found in public and commercial locations such as libraries, transport systems, cafés, bars, restaurants, hotels and airports. Some cities have implemented municipal wireless schemes to provide coverage over a large area for public sector workers, infrastructure management and citizen access. Standards keep developing with the faster 802.11n having been ratified in September 2009. However, the standards process is widely seen as too slow and cumbersome and many manufacturers are moving towards testing interoperability themselves and releasing products before full ratification of final standards.
4G
Fourth generation networks have not yet been fully defined by the International Telecommunication Union, but it is expected to specify 100 Mbps mobile connectivity. What is more certain is that 4G will be an all IP-based technology, also using orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) and multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) communications. Both WiMAX and Long Term Evolution (LTE) are strong contenders to be adopted as 4G technologies. However, the distinction between computer network technologies and mobile phone technologies will blur in 4G. Already the two camps are starting to adopt each other’s technologies. It is likely that 4G devices will actually be able to roam seamlessly between a variety of different network technologies, selecting the most appropriate connection at any one time, depending on availability, application and cost.
Personal area networks
Short range, ad-hoc wireless connections between mobile devices, computers and peripherals have been dominated by relatively slow Bluetooth connections. Developments are addressing three main areas: speed, power requirements and security and ease of use. Although ultra wideband (UWB), a low-power, short range (< 10 m), high speed, cable replacement technology, has failed to take off, a number of other wireless technologies with similar characteristics have been developed. Near Field Communication (NFC) is also likely to appear in increasing numbers of mobile devices for mobile commerce applications such as ticketing and e-payments.
The mobile internet
Until very recently, the mobile internet had struggled to become a reality for the majority of users, because of the high costs, poor interfaces on mobile devices and limits imposed by operators. However, there is an increasing trend towards devices that can deliver the full internet experience, supported by operators offering flat rate data tariffs, with fewer restrictions on access. In a speech at the Mobile Internet World conference in 2007, Tim Berners-Lee called for vendors to adopt open standards for the mobile internet and avoid proprietary technologies (Hamblen, 2007).
Competition for control of the mobile internet between hardware manufacturers, network operators (who fear becoming merely ‘bit pipes’), software vendors and internet companies is intense. This can only help drive innovation and lower prices for users. Location-based services, social software, mobile commerce and unified communications are expected to continue to increase use.
Impact on learning
Many projects have looked at how to use these new mobile and personal technologies to improve learning (Naismith et al., 2004). These are some of the benefits of using them:
flexible access: can be used where and when needed, in and outside the classroom
embed ICT in classrooms: quick deployment; take up little space; easy for ad-hoc use; user centred; immediate access to information and tools (many devices offer instant-on); ad-hoc collaboration
learner autonomy: 1:1 access to ICT; ‘ownership’ encourages student-initiated learning and sense of responsibility; can enable learner autonomy and help deliver personalised learning
improve home–school links: help engage parents in learning process; potentially tackle digital divide
motivation, engagement: evidence of increased motivation, particularly for boys
situated learning: facilitate location- and context-based learning (e.g. field trips, museums), ambient learning, mediascapes and augmented reality (see below).
Mike Sharples has noted the fit between current educational priorities and the attributes of mobile learning (Sharples, Taylor and Vavoula, 2005):
| Educational priority | Mobile learning |
| Personalised | Personal |
| Learner-centred | User-centred |
| Situated | Mobile |
| Collaborative | Networked |
| Ubiquitous | Ubiquitous |
| Life-long | Durable |
However, there is still much discussion (e.g. Pachler, 2007) on what learning mediated by personal digital device means. It seems to be about more than having ubiquitous access to learning opportunities and raises questions about how far these approaches fit with the structured curriculum and assessment systems prevalent today. There is evidence of benefit, but not yet transformation.
Ubiquitous computing
The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.
Ubiquitous computing, pervasive computing, calm computing, invisible computing, ambient computing and the real world web are all terms used to describe a vision of miniature connected processors and sensors embedded in objects, devices and locations in the world around us and working for us, often without the need for explicit interaction: ‘Its highest ideal is to make a computer so embedded, so fitting, so natural, that we use it even without thinking about it’ (Weiser, 1991).
Weiser and Brown (1996) described three waves of computing: the mainframe wave, when many people shared a computer; the personal computer wave, when each person has their own computer; and finally the ubiquitous computing wave, where each person shares many computers, most of which remain invisible. This implies a major shift to a more human centred relationship with computers, with technology working for us, adapting to our needs and preferences, but remaining invisible until needed. This new computing power needs to be accessed through new intelligent interfaces that are adaptable, responsive and intuitive to use.
Weiser was writing before the advent of the internet and mobile devices in every pocket and his vision has been criticised for being too complex, unnecessary and having profound social, political and ethical issues. However, even if his vision of computing seamlessly connected and deeply embedded in objects, places and devices is never quite achieved, elements of the vision are beginning to appear and offer new interactions and functionality in their own right.
The increasing performance and miniaturisation of processors, sensors, memory, networking technologies and displays is allowing more objects and devices to become addressable (have a unique ID) and connected (usually wirelessly). This new ‘internet of things’ (ITU, 2005) will collect huge amounts of data, and allow new interactions in the real world between people and things, between people and places, and between things and things. The web moves from being purely a virtual space to one that interacts with the real world and provides us with real time information, help and services. This should enable more personalised, context-aware interactions and smarter decisions. As will be explored, this also helps with a move to more experiential learning: learning by doing, interacting, communicating and sharing.
The ubiquitous computing world is underpinned by four main elements: identification, location, sensing and connectivity.
Identification
Unique identification is key to enabling objects and locations to be recognised and become part of a wider intelligent, information-sharing network. This also allows objects and locations to be interrogated by learners or other users, or for information to be provided automatically.
RFID
Radio frequency identification (RFID) is a generic term for technologies that use radio waves to identify objects, locations or people. In recent years it has particularly been associated with RFID tags. These are miniature microchips (as small as 0.05 mm2) attached to transponders that can be read by transceivers. Currently these are mainly being used in the retail supply chain in order to replace barcodes. There are two main types of RFID tag:
passive tags that harvest energy from the reader device in order to transmit their data over a distance of a few centimetres
active tags that have their own power supply and can transmit over longer distances up to 100 m, and often have data read–write capabilities.
RFID tags allow computer systems to identify, locate and track things in the real world. This is potentially a transformational technology, although technical issues, concerns about privacy and high costs will need to be addressed before they become mainstream. RFID is already in use in retail, payment systems, contactless travel cards, security/door entry and a range of other applications. Analysts believe that many of the eventual uses of RFID have not yet been thought of today.
In education RFID is beginning to be used for some practical applications such as library management systems, asset tagging and ID cards. Indeed, some schools around the world use RFID-enabled badges to monitor student attendance and track movements (http://ubiks.net/local/blog/jmt/archives3/005856.html and http://www.sankei.co.jp/seiji/seisaku/070103/ssk070103000.htm), information that can even be provided to parents. However, it can also be used in more innovative learning projects allowing users to interact with objects in the real world, for example with exhibits in museums (Campbell, 2005). By bringing a mobile device close to a tagged item, information about it can be displayed on learners’ screens. RFID tags are also embedded in some mobile phones and used with NFC in order to make secure connections.
2D barcodes
2D barcodes are printed ‘pictures’ with data embedded in them. When a photo of a 2D barcode is taken with a suitably enabled cameraphone, the user is taken to a website or provided with other data. Newer versions can be invisibly embedded into photos. They are seen as a way of hyperlinking the world, allowing users quickly and easily to interact with posters, objects, vending machines, magazine articles and so on using their mobile devices. Unlike RFID, 2D barcodes rely on explicit actions of the user, so do not have the privacy issues of RFID. Widely found in Japan, they are beginning to appear elsewhere. For example the BBC placed them on signs to provide additional content to walkers involved in the Coast project (NeoMedia, 2009). In education they have been used as an easy way to provide additional resources to learners such as lists of URLs (Fujimura and Doi, 2006), but also can be used to allow interaction with real world objects.
IPv6
Currently the internet and most other networks rely on Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4), which has a limit of 232 unique addresses. Already the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and Vint Cerf have warned that we are running dangerously short of new addresses, as China, India and other countries adopt widespread use of the internet. IPv6, the next generation protocol, largely only used by researchers and government and military organisations, offers 2128 unique addresses. This is enough for every device, person and object to have its own unique IP address.
Location
The ability to locate objects, devices and people in the real world not only provides a valuable layer of information about the world, but is key to enabling a new set of interactions between people, locations and computer systems and the web.
Location can be established in a variety of ways and to varying levels of accuracy. The main distinction is between systems that understand relative location (e.g. an RFID tag passing a fixed wireless reader) and those that establish absolute positions (e.g. GPS satellite navigation).
Some systems can use triangulation to pinpoint the location of wi-fi-enabled device (for example Ekahau systems (http://www.ekahau.com/). Mobile phones can be located using the same technique, but the accuracy will likely to be measured in hundreds of metres and may be even worse in rural areas where the cell sizes are much larger.
Satellite positioning technologies that provide absolute location information to within a few metres are now widely available in dedicated units as well as appearing in PDAs, smartphones, cameras and other objects, such as school bags or badges. A European system, known as Galileo, is also in development. It promises better coverage, more accuracy and freedom from US government control.
Most wireless systems such as RFID tags are essentially proximity based, so rely on a user or device coming near to them before an event is triggered. This ‘event’ could be relevant learning materials downloaded to a user’s device, or automatic connection to a large display, for example. Other location services are about knowing your relationship to other people or devices. MIT’s iFind service (http://ifind.mit.edu/) allows students and staff to let other people know their location on campus. Mobile-location-based services (http://www.mologogo.com/) are increasingly combining presence (information about the status of a user) with location information.
A third way of obtaining location information is scene analysis. This combines a variety of techniques, including GPS, digital compasses and camera phones. GeoVector Corporation (http://www.geovector.com/appdemos/) offers one such system to Japanese mobile phone users. When a mobile phone is pointed at buildings or other locations, information and services related to that place are shown on the device. A variety of innovative uses from mapping, tourist information, local search, mobile commerce, entertainment guides, shopping guides and advertising are envisaged, but these could easily be extended to educational content.
Mediascapes
Various innovative educational projects have explored the use of location-based systems to deliver context-related content to learners. These allow teachers to ‘tag’ content such as sound files, photos, videos or text to locations in the real world, or exhibits in museums. Using mobile devices, learners then navigate through the mediascape or learning trail with relevant content automatically delivered to their device when they reach a certain point of interest. Learners can also add their own content (or ‘digital graffiti’) to locations to share with others and build up understanding collaboratively. The systems often record the learning journey a student has made for later reflection in the classroom. Examples of such projects include: Mobile Bristol (http://www.mobilebristol.com/flash.html), Mudlarking in Deptford (http://www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/mudlarking_in_deptford) and Equator (http://www.mrl.nott.ac.uk/). These mediascapes are relatively straightforward for teachers to create, using online tools (http://createascape.org.uk/).
Augmented reality
Augmented reality is about superimposing digital information onto our view of the real world. Ultimately this may be achieved with heads-up displays, or using retinal scan displays, but these have so far been restricted to specialist applications. However, augmented or mixed reality can also be implemented on mobile devices with cameras. The mobile augmented reality application (MARA; http://research.nokia.com/research/projects/mara/index.html) being developed by Nokia is one example and a number of other augmented reality applications are now coming to market for use on smartphones, such as Layar and Wikitude.
Sensing and sensor networks
Adding sensing to ubiquitous computing networks allows the collection of a range of real time data. By adding MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical systems) actuators can respond to events and take action.
Sensors usually measure pressure, temperature, speed, air and water quality, stress, humidity or acceleration. More recently sensors have been combined with micro-controllers, memory and radios to create sensor networks. These mesh networks of sensor nodes are self-configuring and extremely robust, making them easily scaleable to cover large areas even in harsh conditions. Many sensor networks require little power and could potentially be deployed for a number of years. Future developments in this area are focusing on the creation of ‘smart dust’ (Arvind and Wong, 2004). These are sensor networks with nodes, potentially as small as a grain of rice, which could quickly be deployed into a range of environments to provide real-time data.
For education these remote sensing technologies are providing opportunities for experiential learning. Instead of learning about things, learners have the opportunity to use the same data, tools and techniques as professionals. This corresponds to Bruner’s concept of ‘learning to be’ (Bruner, 1969).
By collecting and manipulating real information from sensors in the environment, learners can take readings, analyse data, model concepts and test hypotheses. The Coastal Ocean Observation Laboratory (http://www.coolclassroom.org/home.html) based at Rutgers University (USA) can be accessed online, enabling learners to use and manipulate real time data collected from sensors in the ocean.
Learners are also beginning to be able to control and interact with remote locations. This currently involves video conferencing or controlling scientific equipment. For example, the MIT iLab (http://icampus.mit.edu/ilabs/) allows students to conduct experiments remotely over the internet. The Bradford robotic telescope (http://www.telescope.org/) allows learners to request images from a professional space telescope located in Tenerife. An evaluation of the project found that it was:
a new type of learning website supported by a real world facility which provides real time access to operational data to support learning programmes. The learner has a degree of freedom to define which data they wish to obtain from the facility and to generate information in support of their learning programme. This could be extended to many other areas of the curriculum, by looking at the real world science used across a range of industries.
These telepresence technologies are likely to develop over time and allow learners to experience, explore and interact with remote locations, often in foreign countries or environmentally sensitive places. The next step is to use immersive interfaces (virtual reality, haptics) to allow users to connect to and control cameras, robots and other devices remotely. These kinds of technologies already have military and medical applications, but as cost and complexity reduce, they could provide compelling learning experiences for all:
Context awareness
At the front-end of an AmI [ambient intelligence] system are a variety of tiny devices that can hear, see, or feel an end-user’s presence. At the back-end, wireless-based networked systems make sense of these data, identifying the end-user and understanding his/her needs.
As identification, location and sensing technologies come together in wirelessly connected networks linked to the World Wide Web, our computer systems will be increasingly context aware. This means providing relevant information, in the right form, at the time and place it is needed. Context-aware systems should help filter the increasing amounts of information we have to deal with and make IT work for us. This would also allow learners to concentrate on the task rather than the technology.
Context aware computing is about a change from computer systems that need direct user input before carrying out a task to systems that can understand context and automatically and dynamically modify their behaviour. Ultimately this will mean systems that know who you are (your role, your preferences, previous actions), your location, what device you are using, what connectivity options and other services are available to you, your environment, what you are doing (are you in a meeting?) and possibly your emotional state and receptiveness to learning – affective computing. ‘Affective computing’ detects the emotional state and attention of the user through technologies such as voice analysis, gaze tracking, skin conductivity, facial expression analysis (machine vision) and user actions.
This should result in devices and software that intelligently adapt their behaviour based on a range of context related information, offering customised and personalised experiences: ‘just in time’ computing, which remains unobtrusive until needed. In ubiquitous computing the computer will have become embedded all around us in a variety of devices, objects and locations, for example MIT Project Oxygen (http://www.oxygen.lcs.mit.edu/E21.html) and EU MUSIC (http://www.appearnetworks.com/EU-Research-Project-MUSIC.html). This has been likened to the role of electricity and writing (Weiser and Brown, 1996) in our environment, both of which are fairly ubiquitous, but largely go unnoticed until needed.
Changing society, changing learners
In order to deliver engaging and meaningful education we need to understand our learners and what we are preparing them for.
Digital natives?
Twenty-first-century learners have never known a world without computers, instant communications and other digital technologies. Marc Prensky popularised the term ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001a) to describe this generation, as opposed to the rest of us who are ‘digital immigrants’ and who despite adopting and using technology always retain ‘an accent’. Prensky argues that this generation of learners are products of their digital, connected environment and experiences and therefore think and learn differently from previous generations. This follows the idea of neuroplasticity (Prensky, 2001b), whereby the brain adapts and reorganises itself from experience. The implication is that the current organisation of learning and its associated teaching methods do not necessarily meet the learning styles, preferences and expectations of today’s students.
Many studies have shown the extent of young people’s use of digital and connected technologies:
the use of digital technology has been completely normalised by this generation, and it is now fully integrated into their daily lives.
For the 12–15 age groups, use of the internet is the most important technology in their lives – more important than television.
As children age they begin to spend more time on the internet, and make heavier use of mobile phones. This is an important way in which the world has changed for all children and families in the last decade. These tools are now a popular part of older children’s lives, and integral to the way in which many children learn about the world, and socialise with their friends.
However, some commentators have been too easily impressed by what they see young people doing with technology, possibly because they lack understanding and experience of the technologies themselves and how easy they can be to use. Although many young people are doing some sophisticated things with technology, this is not a generation of technical experts and much use of technology is superficial and about communicating and recreational activities with friends. What young people have are the characteristics young people have always had: no fear, plenty of spare time and strong cultural influences. So although many young people appear confident in their use of technology, this does not mean that they are all competent. Most possess neither in-depth technical knowledge nor the critical thinking skills needed to navigate the digital world effectively. Indeed a number of studies have recently rejected the ‘digital native’ idea and pointed to the lack of evidence to support it (e.g. Hannon and Green, 2007; Bennett, Maton and Kervin, 2008):
The majority of young people simply use new media as tools to make their lives easier, strengthening their existing friendship networks rather than widening them. Almost all are now also involved in creative production, from uploading and editing photos to building and maintaining websites. However, we discovered a gap between a smaller group of digital pioneers engaged in groundbreaking activities and the majority of children who rarely strayed into this category.
However, the way young people think about technology and its use may be different. As a recent worldwide survey of young people discovered, they do not see technology as a concept, and would not recognise many terms used in this chapter (Microsoft Advertising, n.d.). Only 16 per cent use terms like ‘social networking’. For the others the technology is invisible, a natural part of their lives. This is not surprising. We do not see the things we grew up with as technology. The survey also picked up interesting cultural and sociological differences in the way technology was used in different countries, showing that society affects technology as much as technology society.
No doubt this generation has been influenced by digital technology and its effect on modern culture and society. This influence can be felt in the characteristics, behaviours and preferences of young people, which may present a challenge to educators to adapt to their needs and produce young people suited to the rapidly evolving world of work.
Net generation characteristics
Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) have described the apparent characteristics of this ‘net generation’ as:
Digital. They have grown up with and are at ease with digital technologies; they favour visual displays over text.
Connected. They use technology to keep in touch with their networks; they multitask and use multimodal communications.
Experiential. They prefer to be engaged by learning by doing, rather than passive reading and listening; they also prefer to work on real things that matter.
Immediate. They are used to and expect immediacy (instant messaging over e-mail).
Social. They tend to prefer working in teams, empowered peer-to-peer learning, rather than instructor-led top-down approaches. They distinguish less between virtual and real world connections.
So this generation of learners has been shaped by society, culture and technology, as have we all. With an ageing population and an increased emphasis on life-long learning we need to consider all ages in our design of education and learning. Not surprisingly surveys (Dutton and Helsper, 2007; Ofcom, 2007; ONS, 2007) show that older people are less likely to use the internet, but even among the net generation there remains a digital divide. The reasons given for not using the internet are often to do with lack of knowledge and skills rather than lack of access per se (Dutton and Helsper, 2007).
Informal learning and digital literacy
Learners spend 80–90 per cent of their time not engaged in formal education. It is increasingly understood that the kind of learning that takes place outside institutions is not an extension of formal learning but a different type of learning and acquisition of skills and experience. This ‘hidden curriculum’ is already being enhanced by digital technologies:
Increasingly individuals now have at their disposal the tools to be able to acquire, retrieve, capture and disseminate information for themselves through social networks which they can help develop, organise and play an active role in. Outside formal education, individuals are becoming active creators and producers of knowledge and information. This represents a distinct cultural change in the way people work and collaborate and the tools they use for doing so.
Media and digital literacy (Buckingham, 2005; Jenkins, 2006) are key skills for learners to acquire for both formal and informal use of technology. Even Prensky notes that the digital natives may not be spending time on reflection, which is vital to good learning. Despite their facility with the web, the ability to appraise content critically and gauge its authenticity, credibility, bias (only 15 per cent of web pages link to an opposing view; Barabasi, 2002) and value is not something that comes naturally to the ‘cut and paste’ shortcut approaches of many learners. Indeed some recent papers (Bennet, Maton and Kervin, 2008; UCL, 2008; Hampton-Reeves et al., 2009; Head and Eisenberg, 2009; Melville, 2009) demonstrate quite clearly that the ‘net generation’ or ‘digital natives’ are not information literate in that they do not think critically about the information they find. They also need to be taught about risks (privacy, security, e-safety) and the legal and ethical issues associated with the internet. The new digital divide is not so much about inequality of access to hardware and connectivity, but around knowledge and skills:
We are witnessing an educational deficit between new media activity at home, in private, and that which takes place in formal educational and public environment… Educators and guardians need to ensure every young person, regardless of background and socio-economic position, can access the skills and knowledge to be full participants in the networked knowledge society. New media literacies should be social skills and part of a wider citizenship toolkit for a digital era.
New knowledge workers
The current generation of young people will reinvent the workplace, and the society they live in. They will do it along the progressive lines that are built into the technology they use everyday – of networks, collaboration, co-production and participation. The change in behaviour has already happened. We have to get used to it, accept that the flow of knowledge moves both ways and do our best to make sure that no one is left behind.
The workplace is increasingly valuing the types of softer, 21st-century skills that technology-enhanced learning can best deliver. In a globalised economy, it will be non-routine cognitive tasks that shape our competiveness, the ability to form teams, collaborate, find problems, analyse and apply information, think critically, communicate and be innovative and creative. It is less about applying knowledge to solve known problems.
As those in the net generation move into work, they will increasingly act as change agents and their expectations and preferences will influence the behaviour of forward-looking businesses. These new workers will insist on being able to customise their working structures, resources, tools and services. Workers are likely to change jobs more often, and be part of ad-hoc teams that come together for individual projects and then disperse. Our assumptions about how work is organised are likely to change. For example, location will become less important. Expertise location and being part of professional communities will be key to enabling flatter hierarchies and collaborative ways of working. Moreover, the need to keep learning new skills, reinventing oneself, should be supported by learners already having taken control of their education, learning to learn.
Consumerisation of IT
In the past, computer technology was expensive, complicated and business oriented. Therefore, technology adoption tended to start within business and public sector organisations and gradually filter into the homes of workers. However, we are now seeing a major reversal of this trend and many technology innovations are aimed at the consumer market and knowledgeable users are bringing their own technologies into the work space, as the corporate systems are not meeting their needs or expectations. Analysts have called this the consumerisation of IT (Gartner, 2005). As the cost, ease of use and availability of technologies has changed, users have become comfortable with and reliant on an increasing range of technologies in their personal lives. Indeed, much of the technology innovation and development now taking place, particularly around Web 2.0, is happening in the consumer space. Users are familiar with mobile devices, online communication and collaboration, media creation, computer games and a host of other technologies.
A classic example of the consumerisation trend has been the adoption of instant messaging (IM) by organisations. IM applications allow synchronous text chat between users as well as providing ‘presence’ information, such as informing a user when his or her contacts are online. These applications that now include features such as file sharing, voice communication and video conferencing have been immensely popular. Many people started installing these consumer grade applications on their work computers, usually without the consent of IT departments. IM enabled new ways of communicating and collaborating, with an immediacy not found with e-mail. However, being consumer applications there are serious security and auditing issues around their use. IT departments could either enforce a ban on their use (reducing productivity), turn a blind eye (leaving security issues) or embrace the technology and properly manage it. Now, corporate grade IM systems are common. Consumersiation is underpinned by a number of trends:
an increased range of affordable devices and (often free) services and content aimed at consumers, giving more freedom and choice
technologies that are easier to use and consumers who are comfortable with a wide range of digital technologies in their lives
users who have easy access to the means of digital production and distribution
services and technologies that develop and change rapidly (perpetual beta)
the increasing commoditisation of IT hardware
users who are also shaping technology itself through new open approaches to development such as software being in perpetual beta, Web 2.0 open APIs, mashups and the power of the crowd
the blurring of boundaries between working, learning, playing and socialising, and users who expect to do all these activities on their devices.
So for education, more knowledgeable students with higher expectations are likely to demand greater use of digital technologies, and in the new education ‘marketplace’, institutions need to respond in order to compete.
Democratisation of technology
The consumerisation of IT has lowered the barriers to access, both to technology and to the means of media production and distribution. Inexpensive, easy to use technologies enable anyone to create professional looking text, video or audio and to publish it to the whole world via the internet. The media is no longer in the hands of the few, so we are moving from being a massive passive audience consuming content created by the few, to being an active audience of consumers and creators. This trend can be seen in the ‘citizen journalist phenomenon’, which has now become part of mainstream media. The 2007 Burma uprisings and the 2009 Iranian demonstrations reached the world via mobile digital technologies, and the internet and technology can help support democracy (Dutton, 2007). Users are also shaping technology itself through the new open approaches to development such as software being in perpetual beta, Web 2.0 open APIs and mashups, and the power of the crowd.
Autonomy vs control
Developments in technology and the behaviours and expectations of users present challenges to IT departments. Traditionally, IT managers have tightly controlled and locked down the networks, applications and equipment made available to their users. This has been for very sound reasons: it helps ensure security and interoperability, and minimises management and support requirements, thus reducing costs. However, this approach now risks stifling innovation, handicapping increasingly technology savvy users and making IT systems irrelevant and unattractive. As businesses and learning institutions will need to compete for the digital natives who are their employees and students, the failure to change could make them uncompetitive with more agile organisations.
Users will expect to be able to select and customise their own tools and networks of information, and people. So there needs to be a new balance struck between freedom and control of IT systems. IT departments will need to provide robust, reliable base services, while leaving room for users to innovate and be more autonomous in their choice of technology. A one-size-fits-all offering will not be appropriate, although managed infrastructure, policies and guidelines will still be important. This kind of managed diversity will be helped by emerging technologies such as virtualisation. As the boundaries blur between working, learning, playing and socialising, so users will expect to do all these activities on their devices. Virtualisation will allow multiple, discrete environments to run on the same device, enabling secure separation of these different activities and avoiding substantial support overheads.
Conclusion
There are social, technical, ethical, political and security issues with all of the technologies discussed in this chapter. However, the need to adapt our education systems to take advantage of what technology can offer, meet the needs and expectations of our learners, and prepare them for the future cannot be ignored. This will no doubt result in changes to curricula and assessment so that we have a 21st-century system for 21st-century learners:
Imagine a nation of horse riders with a clearly defined set of riding capabilities. In one short decade the motor car is invented and within that same decade many children become highly competent drivers extending the boundaries of their travel as well as developing entirely new leisure pursuits (like stock-car racing and hot rodding). At the end of the decade government ministers want to assess the true impact of automobiles on the nation’s capability. They do it by putting everyone back on the horses and checking their dressage, jumping and trotting as before. Of course, we can all see that it is ridiculous.
The most talented students will still thrive in an instructor led, knowledge transmission heavy education system. But most learners need ‘concrete, visualized, experiential, self-initiated, hands-on, and real-world learning opportunities’ (Semenov, 2005). These are opportunities that digital, connected, social and pervasive technology can enable through allowing richer, context-based interactions backed up with teacher-led interpretation and reflection: ‘The future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed’ (Gibson, 2003).
References
Ambient Intelligence.org, website developed by Giuseppe Riva as part of the EU-funded VEPSY research project, http://www.ambientintelligence.org/ (accessed 8 January 2010).
Anderson, P. What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Bristol: Joint Information Systems Committee; 2007.
Arvind, D.K., Wong, K.J., Speckled computing: disruptive technology for networked information appliances. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Consumer Electronics (ISCE 2004), 2004:219–22. http://www.specknet.org/publications/Steven4_ICSE04.pdf [(accessed 8 January 2010)].
Barabasi, A.-L. Linked: the new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus; 2002.
News, B.B.C., Web 2.0 ‘neglecting good design’, 2007. 14 Ma. http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/technology/6653119.stm [(accessed 7 January 2010)].
Becta. The Becta Review 2006. Coventry: Becta; 2006.
Becta. Web 2.0: what might it mean for developers. Coventry: Becta; 2006.
Becta. Harnessing Technology Schools Survey. Coventry: Becta; 2007.
Becta, Web 2.0 technologies for learning at KS3 and KS4 – project overview, 2008. http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_rp_02&rid=14543 [(accessed 5 February 2010)].
Benford, S. Future Location Based Experiences. Bristol: Joint Information Systems Committee; 2005.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L. The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2008; 39(5):775–786.
Bruner, J. The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1969.
Bryant, L., Emerging trends in social software for educationBecta, ed. Emerging Technologies for Learning, vol. 2. Coventry: Becta, 2007.
Buckingham, D. The Media Literacy of Children and Young People: a review of the literature. London: Centre for the Study of Children Youth and Media, Institute of Education; 2005.
Campbell, A., RFID in museums: another growing market. RFID weblog. 2005 22 Augus. http://www.rfid-weblog.com/50226711/rfid_in_museums_another_growing_market.php [(accessed 7 January 2010)].
CETIS, The personal learning environments blog, Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards. Joint Information Systems Committee. 200. http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/ple/resources/ple_summary [(accessed 7 January 2010)].
Crook, C., Harrison, C. Web 2.0 Technologies for Learning at Key Stages 3 and 4: summary report. Coventry: Becta; 2008.
DCSF. Children and Young People Today: evidence to support the development of the Children’s Plan. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families; 2007.
Downes, S., Learning Networks in PracticeBecta, ed. Emerging Technologies for Learning, vol. 2. Coventry: Becta, 2007.
Dutton, W.H. Through the network (of networks) – the fifth estate, prepared for an inaugural lecture. Oxford: Internet Institute, University of Oxford; 2007. [15 October].
Dutton, W.H., Helsper, E.J. The Internet in Britain. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute; 2007.
Franklin, T., van Harmelen, M. Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Bristol: Joint Information Systems Committee; 2007.
Fujimura, N., Doi, M., Collecting students’ degree of comprehension with mobile phones, 2006. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1190000/1181244/p123-fujimura.pdf?key1 = 1181244&key2=6214984611&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618 [(accessed 7 January 2010)].
Gartner, Gartner says consumerization will be most significant trend affecting IT during next 10 years. Gartner press release, 2005. http://www.gartner.com/press_releases/asset_138285_11.html [(accessed 7 January 2010)].
Gates, B., A robot in every home. Scientific American. 2007. [January].
Gibson, W., Books of the year 2003. The Economist. 2003 4 Decembe. http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_NNGVRJV [(accessed 6 August 2007)].
Gilbert, C. 2020 Vision: report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group. London: Department for Education and Science; 2006.
Hamblen, M., Berners-Lee urges vendors to keep mobile internet open. Computerworld. 2007 14 Novembe. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9046899/Berners_Lee_urges_vendors_to_keep_mobile_Internet_open [(accessed 5 February 2010)].
Hampton-Reeves, S., Mashiter, C., Westaway, J., Lumsden, P., Day, H., Hewertson, H., Hart, A., Students’ Use of Research Content in Teaching and Learning. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), 2009. http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/407/1/Students_Use_of_Research_Content.pdf [(accessed 15 January 2010)].
Hannon, C., Green, H. Their Space: education for a digital generation. London: Demos; 2007.
Head, A.J., Eisenberg, M.B., Finding Context: what today’s college students say about conducting research in the digital age. Project Information Literacy progress report. 200. http://www.projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_ProgressReport_2_2009.pdf [(accessed 15 January 2010)].
Heppell, S. Multimedia and learning: normal children, normal lives and real change. In: Underwood J., ed. Computer-based Learning: potential into practice. London: David Fulton, 1994.
In Stat, MEMS in mobile handsets will top $1 billion by 2010, 2006. http://www.instat.com/newmk.asp?ID=1671&SourceID=00000366000000000000 [(accessed 8 January 2010)].
Institute for the Future. Map of Future Forces Affecting Education. Cincinnati, OH: KnowledgeWorks Foundation; 2006.
ITU. The Internet of Things, ITU Internet Report. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union; 2005.
Jenkins, H. The Challenges of Participatory Culture Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation; 2006.
Leadbeater, C. The Shape of Things to Come: personalised learning through collaboration. London: Department for Education and Science; 2005.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Teen Content Creators and Consumers. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC, 2005. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/Teen-Content-Creators-and-Consumers.aspx [(accessed 8 January 2010)].
Ley, D., Ubiquitous computingBecta, ed. Emerging Technologies for Learning, vol. 2. Coventry: Becta, 2007.
Livingstone, S., Bober, M., UK Children Go Online: final report of key project findings. London School of Economics, London, 2005. http://www.citizensonline.org.uk/site/media/documents/1521_UKCGO-final-report.pdf [(accessed 8 January 2010)].
Melville, D., Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World: report of the independent committee of inquiry into the impact on higher education of students’ widespread use of Web 2.0 technologies, 2009. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/heweb20rptv1.pdf [(accessed 15 January 2010)].
Microsoft Advertising (n.d.) Young Adults Revealed: the lives and motivations of 21st century youth, http://advertising.microsoft.com/norge/WWDocs/User/no-no/ResearchLibrary/Research Report/Young_Adults_booklet.pdf (accessed 5 February 2010).
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., Sharples, M. Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning. Bristol: Futurelab; 2004.
NeoMedia BBC/HP – The Coast Mobile Experience. 2009 (accessed 5 February 2010. http://www.neom.com/casestudy-5.php
New Media Consortium and Educause Learning Initiative. The Horizon Report. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium; 2006.
Nussbaum, E., Say everything. Kids the internet and the end of privacy: the greatest generation gap since rock and roll. New York Magazine. 2007 (accessed 7 January 2010. http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/
Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. Is it age or IT: first steps toward understanding the net generation. In: Oblinger D., Oblinger J., eds. Educating the Net Generation. Educause: Boulder, CO, 2005.
Ofcom. The Communications Market Report. London: Ofcom; 2007.
ONS. Focus on the Digital Age. Newport: Office of National Statistics; 2007.
Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., Facer, K. Social Software and Learning. Bristol: Futurelab; 2006.
Pachler N., ed. Mobile Learning: towards a research agenda. London: WLE Centre, Institute of Education, 2007.
Papert, S. Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Hassocks: Harvester Press; 1980.
Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. 9(5), 2001.
Prensky, M. Do they really think differently? On the Horizon. 9(6), 2001.
Raisinghani, M.S., Benoit, A., Ding, J., Gomez, M., Gupta, K., Gusila, V., Power, D., Schmedding, O. Ambient intelligence: changing forms of human-computer interaction and their social implications. Journal of Digital Information. 5(4), 2004.
Roush, W. Social machines: computing means connecting. August: MIT Technology Review; 2005.
Rudd, T., Colligan, F., Naik, R. Learner Voice. Bristol: Futurelab; 2006.
Rundle, M., Conley, C. Ethical Implications of EmergingTechnologies: a survey. Paris: Unesco; 2007.
Sefton-Green, J. Literature Review in Informal Learning with Technology Outside School. Bristol: Futurelab; 2004.
Seidensticker, B. Future Hype: the myths of technology change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; 2006.
Semenov, A. ICT in Schools. Paris: Unesco; 2005.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., Vavoula, G. Towards a theory of mobile learning. 2005 (accessed 7 January 2010. http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Sharples-%20Theory%20of%20Mobile.pdf
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., Vavoula, G. A theory of learning for the mobile age. In: Andrews R., Haythornthwaite C., eds. The Sage Handbook of E-learning Research. London: Sage, 2007.
Shirky, C. The semantic web, syllogism and world view. 2003 (accessed 7 January 2010. http://www.shirky.com/writings/semantic_syllogism.html
Smith, P. An evaluation of the Bradford Robotic Telescope. 2006 Hoshin, (accessed 7 January 2010. http://www.telescope.org/articles/YFRobotics.pdf
Squidoo (n.d.) A guide to declarative living, http://www.squidoo.com/declare/ (accessed 7 January 2010).
Stead, G., Mobile technologies: transforming the future of learningBecta, ed. Emerging Technologies for Learning, vol. 2. Coventry: Becta, 2006.
Twining, P. The Schome-NAGTY Teen Second Life Pilot Final Report. Milton Keynes: Open University; 2007.
Twist, J. The challenge of new digital literacies and the hidden curriculum. In: Becta, Emerging Technologies for Learning, vol. 2. Coventry: Becta; 2007.
UCL Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: a CIBER briefing paper, executive summary. University College London, 2008 (accessed 19 March 2008. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slais/research/ciber/downloads/ggexecutive.pdf
Vygotsky, L.S. Mind and Society: the development of higher mental processes, translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.
Wal, T.V. Personal InfoCloud. 2009 (accessed 7 January 2010. http://personalinfocloud.com/
Ward, M., Van Kranenburg, R., Backhouse, G., RFID: frequency, standards, adoption and innovation. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. 2006 (accessed 7 January 2010. http://www.rfidconsultation.eu/docs/ficheiros/TSW0602.pdf
Weinberger, D. Small Pieces Loosely Joined: a unified theory of the web. Jackson, TN: Perseus Books Group; 2002.
Weinberger, D. The semantic argument web. 2002 (accessed 7 January 2010. http://www.hyperorg.com/backissues/joho-jun26-02.html#semantic
Weiser, M. The computer for the 21st century. 1991 Scientific American, February, (accessed 7 January 2010. http://www.ics.uci.edu/~dutt/ics212-wq05/weiser-sci-am-sep-91.pdf
Weiser, M., Brown, J.S. The Coming of Age of Calm Technology. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox PARC; 1996.
Wijngaards, G., de Jong, J., van Rooijen, O. Profile Sites: a survey of young people and social networking sites. Rotterdam: INHOLLAND School of Communication & Media; 2007.