•
them on board is key. They need to feel a sense of ownership and control of their own teaching practice. Sharing of good practice. Finally if we are to build collectively on experiences, mechanisms are need to share good practice and enable teachers to adopt more scholarly approaches.
Table 1: Summary of different strategies for change National levels
Broad government strategies that include the use of Web 2.0 and provide incentives to deliver integrated services (e.g. for student retention, innovation in teaching and learning such as the Australia Learning Performance Fund (DEEWR, 2008) or investment into infrastructure and training. HE funding agencies and policy makers who can provide drivers for institutions through specific mandates, some of which involve the adoption of social media (in the UK, JISC harnessing technology for learning programmes/ CETIS OER programme; HEA [in particular EvidenceNet and ELESIG Ning]. Central investment in agencies that promote – often through funding – the development of innovations through research projects, delivery tools, resources and infrastructure for communities of practice (Australia/Edna; US (Library of Congress; NSF; The Learning Federation).
Intergovernmenta Integrated policies and funding strategies to support research on the ways in l agencies and which ICTs are changing the ways that people learn, play or participation in civic nonprofit activities (e.g. UNESCO IIEP; OECD CERI; OECD’s Education Management and funding agencies Infrastructure Division (Directorate for Education). Also in terms of promoting innovation and collaboration for the development of digital literacy curricula and Open Education Resources (OERs). Projects focusing on understanding the impact of widespread use of digital media in youth learning (see for example, MacArthur; Carnegie, Hewlett; NSF, EDUCAUSE, National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE) in the US; ESRC, EPSCR, AHRC, BECTA in the UK). Institutional strategies
Institutional strategic plans and support: Some HE institutions are developing more integrated strategies through administrative, marketing and pedagogical mandates (for example Warwick, Edinburgh, Open University in the UK) and for more effective use of Web 2.0. Regulatory, legal, security and ethical factors are driving concerns. Positive institutional drivers appear to be more prominent in: distance learning and life‐long learning contexts.
Professional motivations
There is now a significant body of evidence around technology interventions. These projects are providing rich data on the barriers and enablers to successful integration of technologies; as well as data on the attitudes of staff and wider patterns of (academic/adminis technological adoption. A spectrum of users is emerging (e.g. early adopters; ‘digital trator) residents’, etc.). Exploration of the opportunities for communication, sharing and collaboration across borders often fits with specific pedagogical or communication strategies. Popular patterns of motivation include: a) sustainable resources beyond course/degree duration (e.g. alumni relations; student recruitment; lifelong learning commitments); b) professional drives to enhance teaching practices; and c) extension to new forms of knowledge and e‐scholarship. Curricular needs Technology uptake and use is different in different subject. For example media, and elearning computer science and information science courses appear to be more open to adopting Web 2.0 practices. The functionalities of tools employed, their suitability for
27