publishing space (blogs, and sharing spaces like youtube). Each of these require different modes of interaction and roles in terms of communicating, organising information, contributing content, developing relationships and the degree to which the individual is collaborating in public spaces. Cardon and Aquiton (2007) argue that the success of Web 2.0 services demonstrates users' hybrid motivations, where the individualisation of the user's goals meets the opportunity of sharing personal expression and the performance of creativity in a public space. Ryberg and Larsen (2008) argue that the trend towards 'networked individualism' is a contradictory trend; i.e. although personalisation and individualisation are intensified, users are increasingly mutually dependent on, and connected to, each other for forms of credit and recognition (see also, Wellman, 2001). Collective ownership versus commodification Finally the apparently utopian drive towards an Internet where tools and content are free, and where open source principles, Application Profile Initiatives (APIs) and mash ups appear to offer an evolving, collectively improved set of content and tools, which can be used in a multitude of ways, may not be all that clear cut. Such practices challenge existing ideas around quality and ownership and do not fit in with current business models for repurposing knowledge. This suggests there is far more to do in terms of understanding such models and redefining our ideas around ownership, quality and sustainability. The above gives rise to a series of specific educational dilemmas. A recurrent rhetoric around the application of Web 2.0 technologies in an educational context is the notion of how these can be transformative in terms of transcending formal educational contexts; that they facilitate more informal and non‐formal learning contexts and blur the boundaries between categories of learners (student, adult‐learner, or those undertaking training or professional development). The arguments for this centre around the notion that these learners are empowered to be more active producers, authors, evaluators and commentators within the learning arena they are engaged with. At the same time, the boundaries of professional and personal identities are blurring and mediated performance occurs either in individualistic spaces via loosely bound and often transitory collectives through to more established and clearly defined communities (see Siemens, 2008; Dron and Anderson, 2007 for a discussion of collectives, networks and groups in social networking for e‐learning; see Rudd et al., 2006a on the blurring of boundaries between teacher/expert and student/novice roles). To take this a step further, some debates on the educational nature of Web 2.0 point to the dispensation of the central or traditional role of the teacher. The expansion of the knowledge domain and the consequential discourse on the 'death of the expert' naturally challenges the traditional role of a teacher. It can no longer be assumed that the teacher is expert or that the focus should be on transmission of knowledge. Some argue that society will be 'de‐schooled' through the emergence of community learning sites (such as 43things, School of Everything, Wikiversity18; see Leadbetter, 2008). Others argue that the role of formal educational institutions will shift to providing personalised learning environments, 18 43things: www.43things.com; School of everything: www.schoolofeverything.com; Wikiversity: www.en.wikiversity.org
59