Introduction to Section D Social Learning, Rich Media, and Games Erik Duval, Fridolin Wild In technology oriented research in general, and in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in particular, the use of buzzwords can be quite confusing and create the impression that the field suffers from waves of fashionable topics without making any real progress. “Social Learning”, “Learning 2.0” and similar such terms are certainly fashionable, but we do believe that there is also real substance behind these terms. The following chapters illustrate some of this substance. Generally speaking, “Learning 2.0” refers to the application of “Web 2.0” technologies in TEL. Applying a Web 2.0 approach to the clarification of this concept, we can cite Wikipedia, which states that: The term Web 2.0 is associated with web applications that facilitate participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumers) are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies. (Wikipedia, 2011) Thus, very broadly speaking, “Web 1.0” refers to a web of documents, “Web 2.0” to a Web with more social affordances (O’Reilly, 2011) and “Web 3.0” to a Web with support for more semantic processing (Lassila and Hendler, 2011). Magazines have also started to refer to Web 4.0 and even Web 5.0… In any case, we agree with the authors of the following chapters that the support for collaboration, communication and interaction in Web 2.0 technologies is more than an ephemeral aspect when one considers technology support for learning. In this context then we can consider that when Web 2.0 technologies are deployed for learning, we often use the term “Learning 2.0”. The emphasis here is on social interaction (i.e. among people, rather than ‘just’ between people and machines), such that the term “Social Learning” can also be interchanged too. This topic, by way of example, is also identified by the EU funded STELLAR research network of excellence as one of the three major challenges in TEL, besides contextualization and orchestration (Gillet et al, 2011). The following quote illustrates this point: In a Web 2.0 world new communities bring together self-directed, selfmanaged and self-maintained users and, thereby, create successful new forms of collaboration. Replacing the current centralized, static technology-push models with new interactive models that reflect the continuous, social nature of learning requires a radical shift from a focus on knowing what to a focus on knowing how and knowing who. Within this theme key research questions are: What are key enabling and success factors for learner networks? How can individuals be supported to move between networks and simultaneously participate in several networks? (Gillet et al, 2011) An early overview of the rationale for and issues surrounding the use of social media in TEL is described in Brown and Adler (2008). The authors refer to a 'perfect storm of opportunity' created by technical affordances and societal needs. Globalization leads to a worldwide exploding demand for learning in general, and Higher Education in particular. Technological developments like Open Educational Resources (OER), Web 2.0 and others, make it possible to address this dramatically increased demand. At the same time, they argue, this can lead to a much more authentic and deep form of learning that leverages the opportunities for personalization through what they describe as the “Long Tail of learning”. In other words where small niches of very targetted topics and pedagogical approaches can be sustainably addressed in the instances where technologies have removed the friction that was, until now, making global collaboration tedious and cumbersome. Although evolution sometimes needs more time than expected, particularly when in a more optimistic early adopter mood, many in the field will share the various promises identified in Brown and Adler’s work. It can be remarked, however, that at an even earlier date some publications were addressing similar issues, focusing more on tools and technology platforms, with a particular emphasis on learning in the workplace (described by Klamma et al, 2006) and on lifelong learning (described by Klamma et al, 2007). With this in mind we can see that the contributions in this group of chapters present but a small selection of ongoing research relating to such “2.0” social learning, rich media, and games. In addition they add value to the sometimes generalised concept of OER materials as simply shared web pages with predominantly text content. Furthermore, they shed light on the social processes and spaces required to leverage the potential for OER in an instutional context (and beyond). As such, they provide a snapshot of ongoing work in this area. The interested reader requiring further references to related work and opportunities to publish new research in this “Collaborative Learning 2.0: OER” area may also wish to consider the wide variety of annual conferences that support the broader TEL community such as the European Conference for Technology Enhanced Learning (ECTEL), the International Conference on Web-based Learning (ICWL), the World Conference on Educational Multimedia (EDMEDIA), and the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). In summary then the final section of this book “Collaborative Learning 2.0: Open Educational Resources”, consists of five chapters, each of which examines a different aspect of OER in terms of sharing, as well as exploring, collaborative learning opportunities that arise when materials are made available in a number of innovative ways. Collectively this group of chapters considers a variety of approaches that raise awareness of OER in a number of diverse communities. The first chapter provides an overview of the rationale for, and issues surrounding, the use of social media in the broad area of TEL. Ferguson and Buckingham-Shum investigate the idea of social learning spaces. They use the example of the SocialLearn project based in the Open University, UK. The authors argue that whilst OER can greatly improve the quality of material available, learning with OER is much more than that: namely that its value is in the interactions with others i.e. taking advantage of socially constructing knowledge. The authors go on to argue that OER can be the social currency with which we can develop a variety of sought after 21st century skills. Within the chapter there is also a reflection on the design decisions taken in the development of the open social media space, SocialLearn, and there is also an elaboration of their emerging design concept. In the second chapter Wolpers et al describe their experiences in the MACE project: an environment that focuses on architectural design and the potential of accessing OER materials in a new and potentially innovative manner. The authors illustrate how this type of rich content can actually enhance students’ learning: they argue that interacting with such content is a very different experience from the more familiar and existing traditional architectural design teaching experiences. Indeed, it appears that only a decade ago, students in architecture would entirely rely on the manipulation of black-and-white copies images of buildings that were projected onto screens in dark lecture halls. They compare this practice with the potential current improved experience, using MACE, where high-resolution digital images, videos, architectural drawings and building models can be searched in a media rich environment. This encompasses effective support for the possible student social interactions too which may also enable them to collaborate whilst continuing their learning journey. Clearly, the MACE environment provides a much richer context for the exploration of the very open ended design space that has previously characterized architectural design education. One of the refreshing aspects of this chapter is that it presents several detailed evaluation studies using hard evidence for the added value of technology whilst using this particular system. This description is something that the TEL field is often not able or willing to provide. In the third chapter Lane and Law take the more traditional understanding of OER along another avenue: they explore high quality professional audio-visual content - an area in which the BBC and the Open University clearly excel and is fully described here. They elaborate upon the idea that cost saving can sometimes influence the re- deployment of existing OER and this, they argue, is especially relevant in the case of professional audio-visual material as the costs, expertise and effort involved in their original production is often extremely high. They go on to explain that the Open University is currently opening up the delivery of its own materials. These originated from the early transmissions of "earnest, bearded professors" during the night time on the BBC. Technology has now enabled the Open University to take advantage of new social media platforms such as iTunesU and YouTube for additional delivery mechanisms. This embracement of social media, they contend, has not only involved a technical evolution, but has also led to more active engagement from potential students or indeed the producer and consumer (or so-called "prosumer") audience. Conversely the fourth chapter considers a very specific type of highly targeted OER in the form of remote laboratory objects. Saltzman et al describe how such objects have evolved from rather isolated remote access environments to be located in laboratory settings where flexible, adaptable and configurable objects that adopt a widget based approach for embedding in Open Learning Environments are fully integrated in the form of the “Internet of Things” and the “Web of People”. It is really inspiring to read how the original opening up of access to laboratory facilities has gradually led to a much more radical opening of the complete learning environment. This is, of course, in addition to the further technical deep integration into the Web at large. The focus of this chapter is a prime example of how initial innovation in rather specific areas with limited impact can then emerge, ripple out and be adopted elsewhere thus enabling the embracement of innovation in other areas that were not originally sought or even, perhaps, considered. The final chapter in this section presents a game called ‘OERopoly‘ that enables participants to familiarise themselves with an identified ecology surrounding OER. The ecology relates to issues from the realm of content, technology, and OER practice. Through their collaborative game play with the board game, awareness of OER projects, tools and technology rises and participants can discover these ecology elements. The input gained from information recorded on the accompanying OER project cards, in addition to abiding to the associated rules, enable participants to share both their existing and new OER experiences and knowledge. The authors also describe initial evaluation results collected from a series of workshops where they discuss how knowledge building amongst participants actually takes place when engaging in the OERopoly game. Thus the contributions in this group of chapters present a selection of the ongoing research related to “2.0” social learning, rich media, and games found in the OER and collaborative learning arena. The authors bring forward their numerous ideas, methods and examples that encompass and, additionally, stretch beyond what we may consider as the traditional concepts of OER and, possibly, the wider TEL field. Furthermore, they encourage us to consider some of the social processes and associated spaces required to leverage the potential for OER in a number of different instutional contexts and beyond. REFERENCES Brown, J. S. and Adler, R.P. (2008) Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0, Educause review, Vol. 43, no. 1, p. 16. Retrieved October 2011 from http://webpages.csus.edu/~sac43949/PDFs/minds_on_fire.pdf Gillet, D., Scott, P. and Sutherland, R. (2009) STELLAR European research network of excellence in technology enhanced learning. In: International Conference on Engineering Education & Research, 23 - 28 Aug 2009, Seoul, Korea. Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Hummel, H., Thora, E., Kravcik, M., Law, E., Naeve, A., and Scott, P. (2007). Social Software for Life-long Learning. Educational Technology & Society 10, 72-83. Retrieved October 2011 from: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/164277 Klamma, R., Chatti, M.A., Duval, E., Fiedler, S., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E.T., Kaibel, A., Kieslinger, B., Kravcik, M., Law, E., Naeve, A., Scott, P., Specht, M., Tattersall, C. and Vuorikari, R. (2006) Social software for professional learning: Examples and research issues, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies 2006, pp. 912-914 Lassila, O. and Hendler, J. (2007) Embracing Web 3.0, IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 11, pp. 90-93 O’Reilly, T. (2005) What Is Web 2.0 - Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, Retrieved October 2011from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html Web 2.0. (2011) Wikipedia Retreived October 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0