Learning and e-learning @ K.U.

Leuven
Challenges for the web 2.0 generation
Frederik Truyen, Umicore March 2010

What will we discuss?

The environment for learning has changed dramatically through the advent of new technologies.
Using a few example cases, we will show that expectations towards professional knowledge have
changed in the information age. Information is not knowledge, yet the information society is strongly
transforming our assessment of what we count as knowledge and its constraints. We will discuss how
knowledge in several domains of human activity is tied to social constructs based on an underlying
network. We will focus on this “Network of knowledge” and then assess the impact this should have on
e-learning strategies. In particular, the future role of e-learning systems is discussed, looking beyond the
current LCMS towards true Learning Networks.

A changed environment
Learning and E-Learning take place against a rapidly changing and evolving environment. Modern
multi-mode communication technology has caused a continuous information overload workers have to
cope with. Whether we are following the news through various channels, sifting through emails or
handling real-time communications the task and burden of selecting information has grown
substantially.
For the "digital natives" this is their natural habitat and even to a certain extent has become an
ubiquitous reality that is no longer thematically questioned. Wim Veen from TU Delft speaks about the
"Homo Zappiens" referring to millennials as being able to zap through immense quantities of information
efficiently, a striking example being the difference between reading a web page and the way we used to
read a book or newspaper.
More and more, labor organization focuses on the mobile knowledge worker who can access the
knowledge he needs on demand through the network. This new professional should have the skills to
self-organize his knowledge network, to assess the quality of the available information channels and be
able to select trusted sources.
This new environment poses significant challenges to education in general, and to university
teaching and learning organization in particular. Preparing students to become mobile knowledge
workers involves a radical rethink of the way information is used to foster knowledge in university
curricula. Of course, there is still a need for well-structured introductory overview courses that offer a
consistent grasp on the subject, but students need to acquire skills to retrieve additional and up-to-date
information from the vast electronic resources available through internet technology. They also need to
learn how they themselves can be contributive to information on the web: not only by learning how to
communicate on the web but also on how they can manage their own web presence and profile.

Knowledge in the information society

Visits to a family doctor have so dramatically changed through internet impact, that there is
something uncanny about it. Take the case of a little girl that visits the family doctor with her
grandfather. Statistical data show us that an average family doctor in the Leuven area has about 30
minutes for each patient, and a couple of hours a week spare time to do some further research. When
we compare this with the time availability at the patient’s side, a totally different picture emerges, at
least in modern western societies. The grandfather might be a retired aeronautics engineer, highly
educated and deeply interested in science. Of course, he has a broadband internet access at home, and
should have found out already long ago about PubMed, the giant public medical database.
As a typical stakeholder, who is likely to have a keen and intrinsic interest in the health and
well-being of his grandchild, it would come as a surprise if he wouldn’t have used PubMed or similar
internet resources to study his grandchild’s illness. This often leads to disputes, where the family doctor
has difficulties in convincing the much better prepared patient environment that a certain treatment is
to be preferred. Today, many study programmes focusing on family doctors take this social dimension
into account and train the physician to cope with these kinds of situations.
The bottom line is that the patient side has more brainpower/time resources available than the
doctor and has ample access to information. The social context is to the disadvantage of the family
doctor, whose authority is challenged.
A modern approach will try to use and exploit the patient side in the knowledge strategy towards
addressing the disease, while stressing the family doctor’s information validation skills and responsibility
therein. The doctor should have more persuasive skills, more insights in sound methodological reasoning
and skilled diagnostic techniques, and maybe less readily available knowledge about cures,
pharmacology etc, since this can be retrieved from professional networks when needed. Again, the mass
availability of information on the internet, combined with the scarcity of time at the doctor’s side, forces
us to alter our expectations towards the kind of knowledge a family doctor has to have to be able to
perform duly.
Unsurprisingly, we can also find examples of current expectations on professional knowledge in the
IT-sector. Let’s look at an IT professional who performs an installation of a Linux operating system.
People will agree he/she “knows” how to do it, he/she is “in the know”. Yet, he/she has no knowledge of
all details: there simply are too many details to be known. Often, such a system engineer will look up
specific information about installation procedures and drivers on several websites, and will try to clear
any ambivalence by chatting online or participating in an expert forum.
Although these are typical professionals who are highly regarded for their skills and seem to “know”
a lot about computers that escapes other workers, they do not need real insight in key explanatory
mechanisms. Many of them do not know, e.g., about the basic mathematical foundations of computing.
In fact, even though their knowledge is socially accepted and entrusted, when measured by classical
epistemic norms one would have to concede their knowledge is based on very week justification.
There are several aspects of the processes they perform that they will fail to fully understand, this
being caused by the true modular en layered nature of IT organization. Anyway, even while this type of
professional is very confident in their knowledge and skills, they have to fall back on online
documentation and need to chat with other professionals on a regular basis for day-to-day tasks. The
sheer complexity and variety of IT systems make it highly unlikely that at any moment you have all
required knowledge on board. The IT professional needs a “Just-in-Time delivery” of key knowledge
items to be able to perform his job.
When we look at the certainty level of this typical IT worker, we will notice that whereas certainty
about theoretical knowledge might be lacking, most show strong metabeliefs in the sense of confidence
in their network. On top of this, these skilled professionals often have a good awareness about the limits
and reach of their own knowledge, so that they know precisely when to ask help or to revert to
documentation.
What happened?
In these two out of many similar cases, today’s availability of information and its inherent complexity
defy our traditional conceptions about what one should and can know. The individual often can’t cope
any longer on his own to make a justifiable knowledge judgment. The justification of a “justified true
belief” is no longer a personal venture but is accounted for in a complex and opaque social network.
Knowledge workers are acting in a trusted environment, with a lot of safeguards for the details that
escape their own scrutiny. This leads to new requirements being set out for what is socially accepted as
knowledge. A professional knowledge worker has to comply with a partly implicit, but growingly explicit
set of “rules of engagement” that will define whether he operates at the safe side of socially accepted
knowledge.
This poses some challenges for education. To educate people to become knowledge workers, they
need to develop these social-cognitive skills. One of them is knowing how to build a solid social
framework in which to operate. In the case of an IT-professional, he/she will find forums, websites,
services etc. on the internet which prove to be reliable sources of information. Building certainty about
the degree of reliability of these sources will be necessary to be able to perform as a professional, as one
cannot hold all relevant knowledge by oneself.
(e-)Learning should support these requirements and address these challenges. It should train people
to hand off certain knowledge domains to other professionals, while at the same time keeping check that
they are “up to spec”. I trust my system engineer because I know he regularly takes refresher courses
and engages positively with colleagues who do the same job elsewhere. I can assess the validity of his
decisions and actions without being forced to know the details of his business myself. Learning how to
build these trustworthy relationships should be a central part of E-Learning. Precisely because normally
these skills are not taught through the regular curricular course content, but explained by teachers and
learned from fellow students and co-workers through informal learning. This means that in a distance
teaching environment, where these beneficial contextual settings are not available, one should make an
effort to translate these hints into documented materials.

Knowledge in a social network

In a knowledge economy, there is a sharing of responsibility for knowledge: we will devise our
professional labor in such a way that the necessary knowledge comes about, is maintained and is kept in
a sustainable way. To be able to focus on our own work, we will defer knowledge to experts (Kripke
1980), accepting their judgment, while we often do not even have the possibility to challenge the
veracity ourselves. There is little real-life knowledge without trust. Of course one has to have reasonable
grounds to accept something from a known expert (Burge 1979).
This all leads to a participative knowledge model, where stakeholders share responsibilities in
knowledge advancement. Whereas testimony is a crucial part of knowledge acquisition (Burge 1993), we
often go further and develop procedures to solidify these trust-relationships, to make them traceable
and allowing for them to be challenged when necessary.
Internet technologies facilitate a further externalization of knowledge (Clarck & Chalmers 1998).
On a macro level, knowledge is stored in external memory, in a way it can be easily linked to other
knowledge items and can be retrieved with minimal effort. (Bush 1945). But knowledge also translates
into organizations, into structures. It gets consolidated into artifacts, is integrated into software. On a
micro level, we weave our personal knowledge trail on our portable, iPod, smartphone, …
Goldman calls this the socialization of knowledge (Goldman 1999). What we know is what others
accept that we know, we are entrusted with knowledge. The more we know, the more our environment
becomes knower-friendly. This acculturation of our environment means that we are gradually operating
in a more and more knowledgeable, intelligible domain.

Different structure of knowledge

Contemporary professional knowledge integrates the time dimension: to know means also to know
the validity and applicability of what one knows. Rather than being a list of static descriptions, today’s
knowledge rather is a continuous task of fine-tuning knowledge-paths. A good deal of knowledge in
organizations is project-centered and disappears into oblivion once it is no longer needed. An increasing
part of knowledge is industrially produced in research, in such a systematic way that we can predict
when we will have access to specific knowledge. On the other end of the spectrum, the internet is
helping out stakeholder communities to consolidate their more artisanal knowledge into the public
domain. More and more, “guarantees” for knowledge claims are required, and certification and
self-certification help to build trust in new knowledge domains.
Knowledge is multifaceted en fine-meshed, which is sometimes misunderstood in a relativistic way.
Each “community of practice” develops a proper language registry to grasp its activity domain. These
intricate overlapping realms of meaning give a rich variety to what is to be known. Each will decide the
depth and width of the particular understanding he needs to develop in a layered knowing society.
Knowledge actors are no longer only people, but also groups, organizations, artifacts, machines or
software, e.g. bots.

(E-)Learning at the University

The Leuven University was founded in 1425. From the beginning, its mission was to promote, divulge
and foster knowledge in the - at the time - international but unmistakably Eurocentric world. Besides the
preservation of knowledge contained in Latin and Greek texts, educating scholars was of course one of
the main goals of the early university. More than 500 years later, this mission has not changed much.
This does not mean however that the mission can be called out-dated. Quite on the contrary, in today’s
knowledge economy, where knowledge is sold as a precious good and is protected by ever refining
intellectual rights, the University’s century-old mission seems to be more relevant than ever.
Although the mission of the university remains essentially unchanged (to offer course curricula to
students and to engage in research) , the way universities organize themselves to cope with this mission
is radically changing, certainly with the advent of Online and Distance Learning technology. We will focus
on how the university’s information management needs to be adapted to the new environment created
by widespread information and communication technologies.
What needs to be done for the university to have the most suitable IT infrastructure for its mission in
today’s environment? How can legacy systems evolve and get integrated into a new, more flexible
framework? Of course, the main effort of this enterprise resides in the deployment of ERP solutions.
Somewhat surprisingly perhaps, we will argue that a mayor contribution to this process comes from
unsuspected contenders: Learning Content Management Systems. We will see that E-Learning provides
some key concepts that give guidance to the way we should look at University ERP.
It can be an eye-opener to look at Virtual Learning Environments (VLE’s) as a guide for developing
the architecture of the information systems needed to support the university. E-Learning Management
Systems should not be seen as mere information systems in the classic sense of the word, but really as
production support tools that help to create the added value the university is pursuing.
The rapid evolving internet technologies have reduced the concept of knowledge to information
sharing, rapid exchange of messages and just-in-time delivery of missing pieces of information. Not only
traditionalists however might find that, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, science is in the mind of
the researcher. We could be wrong, but we still have the impression that sharing the passion, the
know-how, the observational skills and sense for accuracy, in other words the education of young
researchers is what motivates a lot of colleagues, much more than the mere sharing of information
about their subject. Those who ever deployed a VLE know that this is the main appeal for its rapid
adoption.
The strange thing is that before we started with the implementation of a VLE, the university didn’t
have information systems that supported its core activities. Of course, departments and research groups
ran the systems they needed for their research and the university mainframe was used for calculations,
but the university itself, as an organization, had no systems specifically designed for its business. We did
have an accountancy system, just as we did have a payroll application and a database for our Real Estate,
but these are systems you would find in any company, not something specific for a university. There
were however some legacy systems based on procedural IMS databases that handled student enrolment
and exams administration. Anything that remotely could be considered as helping to attain business
intelligence (e.g.: monitoring of student curricula, determination of the market position in the
educational space, performance in academic output, etc.) was still to be developed.
 We are actually forced to change gear by 2 factors, one more generic, and one very specific to the
Leuven University. At First, there is an urgent need to provide more flexibility in the students’ curriculum.
Students need to be able to choose an individual course trajectory. This puts a strong burden on our
E-Courses, since they mostly are used in a blended learning context and often lack sufficient meta-data
to be correctly assessed out of context. Here, inspiration from the distance learning community will be
very welcome.
Second, Leuven University is now associated with 12 other institutes for higher education, in the
K.U.Leuven Association. Since this is a cross-regional, non-geographic association (in contrast to the
competition in the Flemish higher education space), the “virtual campus” will be the preferred place to
yield structural scale advantages.
We can consider the current implementations of e-learning platforms in universities to support
daytime classes in blended learning as a second generation in the use of web-applications for education.
This started ten years ago with large investments and partnerships for broadband connectivity on the
Campus and the region. Today, Leuven University has more than 30.000 students and staff connected to
its KOTNET, offering broadband off-campus. The E-Learning platform TOLEDO was the next step,
involving now more than 95.000 active users, and about 32.000 different users online each day. Toledo,
or in Dutch “Toetsen en Leren Doeltreffend Ondersteunen”, is an acronym for a service that supports
academic staff in their teaching activities.
Toledo consist of the Blackboard LCMS and QuestionMark Perception for surveys and assessments. A
layer of LMS-compliant intermediary databases connects this to the SAP Campus Management and the
master data from the SAP ERP system. Also included are a TurnItIn antiplagiarism service and portfolio
facilities.
Toledo has become so ubiquitous and omnipresent in the daily teaching reality at K.U.Leuven
University, that we no longer see it as a software service but rather as a structural part of what is called
the "integral learning environment". Education is a the core of the universities activities and "the
university as a reflective organization is in its totality involved in education". In this of course, a university
typically sets itself apart from other research institutes. The electronic learning environment has become
a central part of this, by facilitating links between research and education.
Wiki and Blog technology (MediaWiki and WordPress) have been integrated so as to facilitate the
creation of student-generated content on the learning system, and to include young researchers in the
educational process. A link between Toledo and the University Library System LIBIS and the digital
database subscriptions is provided through SFX technology, and a streaming video server enables
provision of moving video through the Toledo learning platform.
The most striking evolution has been however the exponential use of Blackboard communities
complementing the online courses. In these communities, we saw that an ever more diversified sample
of the universities staff are participating. Besides the original target groups - the students and professors
- many others have joined the learning space: from assistants to course builders over library staff to IT
experts and laboratory workers to people from the university administration and social services. All have
become active members of Toledo communities, delivering content that is linked to student courses and
in which are documented a heist of processes, procedures, FAQ lists, how-to's and other tutorials.
Part on courses on heuristics are now provided directly by library personnel to the different
introductory courses, and many courses have staff members as their target students.

Social software and web 2.0

 Two important movements have transformed the first generation web into what it has become now:
on the one hand, ongoing automation en search engine optimization means that the computer network
can increasingly acts on the content, and plays a role in content selection through metadata, as
exemplified by the efforts on the Resource Description Framework. So we have rich content. On the
other hand, the ongoing socialization of the web means that the web is connecting people. It allows
peer-to-peer knowledge development and provides Information selection through the social network,
e.g. social bookmarking. This is rich use.
Web 2.0:
• Integrates aspects of group interaction (different forms of online interactivity and different
modes of communication)
• Is easy to use through accessible, simple technology
• Is emergent: enables group self-organisation, rather then imposing an organisation to a group.
In other words the web 2.0 is Bottom-up, adaptive and subversive (in the sense that it allows for
non-conventional, innovative solutions to be explored and shared.

Growing role of informal learning

Harm Weistra, and E-Learning consult points to the fact that a lot of learning within organizations is
not achieved through formal education but rather picked up through informal learning “on the job”.
Inversely, this also means that this knowledge does not reside in the organization as such but in the
individual workers. Bridging formal and informal learning this way has benefits for both the collaborators
and the organization. While the K.U.Leuven E-Learning environment was at first setup exclusively for
students and professors, we soon came to notice, in particular when we introduced so-called blackboard
communities alongside the standard courses, that other professionals within the organization took up
accounts and an ever more important role in the learning environment. A lot of information that used to
be passed-on informally or in not catalogued documents is now being consolidated into these
communities, where doctoral students, teaching assistants, tutors, course builders, librarians, IT
specialists and administrative staff contributes to the learning environment by providing how-to’s,
agenda’s, FAQ lists, questionnaires and tutorials that enrich the course environment.
Capitalizing on the possibilities of e-learning to capture informal processes can prevent knowledge
loss or suboptimal information flow within large organizations, in fact contributing to lower training
demands or conversely making formal training much more effective.
Social software supports this evolution; it can be no surprise that Jane Hart rates tools like Twitter,
Delicious, Wordpress and Slideshare very high in her top 100 list of useful e-learning tools.
Open Content is also helping to feed the social web with qualitative information sources that grow
with the contribution of many on the web, such as Wikipedia of course but also initiatives like PubMed,
Globe, Merlot etc.

Impact on (E)Learning: weaving the web of knowledge

Knowledge becomes a personal journey in a social environment (think about E-Portfolio). For a
growing part, learning involves reaching out to the network of stakeholders, it means getting accepted in
the circle of “those in the know”. It also requires taking responsibility for knowing. The knowledge
worker will focus on a specific knowledge domain, and take on the task of follow-up. He will prove to his
co-workers that they can trust him to do so, that they can rely on the fact that he/she masters this
subdomain, so that they can focus on other parts of the relevant knowledge domain. The knowledge
worker will try to prove his worth by showing his track record, by following refresher courses, by being
an active member on relevant websites, blogs or forums. Typically, a knowledge worker will engage in a
“Track while Scan” activity. In a wide sweep, we keep track on a whole range of adjacent knowledge
fields – e.g. by following twitter feeds - without going into details: we trust others to do so.
Depending on the need, we will engage specific details in depth, and we learn others to trust we are
doing so.

Knowledge workers
Knowledge workers and researchers introduce themselves in a « community of practice » (Wenger
1999), and increasingly tend to mix private and professional knowledge development. Knowledge
workers will try to gain authority, earn the respect of their co-workers for their knowledge. They want to
be referred to when it concerns statements in their knowledge domain. They will also scrutinize which
fellow-workers they deem fit to join their knowledge effort, to be part of an inner circle.
A knowledge worker needs to have good situational awareness of the knowledge network. He will
feel responsible for a particular knowledge domain. He weaves his personal web of knowledge, often on
his laptop and other mobile devices.

Professional knowledge
Informal learning is a continuous, unalienable state. We learn as we work, interact with others,
engage in professional activities. Formal learning only accounts for a part of our learning activities. In the
networked world, internet-technologies are helping us to keep trace of the informal learning that takes
place. It helps in storing information in an accessible way during our activities. It helps us to bookmark
information, to tag it, to share it with others. The fact that all this is digital provides the opportunity to
develop tools to exploi this information and to make applications that really enhance someone’s “active
memory”.
The learner needs to build on specific meta-cognitive skills that will help him to clearly understand
where the boundaries lay of his own responsibilities and what can be given safely in a “hand-off” to
others. This can be lateral, higher or lower in the knowledge chain.
So where traditionally we tend to view knowledge as a requirement, a commodity, an effect and an
output, we should learn to see it more as a responsibility, a resource and a task, so that it becomes an
asset, both for the individual as for the organization.

Conclusion
Meeting the millennium challenge in E-Learning means:
– coping with the new learner
– supporting the mobile knowledge worker
– growing knowledge participation through open policies
– integration of web 2.0 and social software
– mainstreaming the stakeholder community
– knowledge becomes a shared responsibility
References

 Toledo E-Learning K.U.Leuven: http://toledo.kuleuven.be

 Informatiewijzer: http://www.informatiewijzer.be
 Social software examples:
 Delicious (social bookmarks): http://delicious.com
 Slideshare (slides online): http://www.slideshare.com
 Twitter (tweets): http://www.twitter.com
 WordPress (blogs): http://www.wordpress.com
 Top 100 tools for E-Learning (Jane Hart): http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/recommended/
 Scribd: http://www.scribd.com
 Zotero: http://www.zotero.org
 Harm Weistra E-Learning.nl: http://www.e-learning.nl
 Informal Learning blog (Jay Cross): http://www.informl.com/2006/12/08/a-dutch-8020/
 Weiterbildungsblog: http://www.weiterbildungsblog.de
 Further reading:
 Bowker, Geoffrey C. and Star, Susan Leigh (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its
Consequences, MIT Press.
 Burge, Tyler (1979) `Individualism and the Mental', Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4:
73—121.
 Burge, Tyler (1993) `Content Preservation', Philosophical Review 102: 457—88.
 Bush, Vannevar (1945) `As We May Think', The Atlantic Monthly 15(176): 101—8.
[http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/194507/bush]
 Castells, Manuel (1996) The Rise of the Network Society (The Information Age: Economy,
Society and Culture, Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.
 Clark, Andy and Chalmers, David J. (1998) `The Extended Mind', Analysis 58: 10—23.
(Reprinted in P. Grim (ed.) The Philosopher's Annual, Vol. XXI, 1998.) [
http://consc.net/papers/extended.html]
 Dretske, Fred (1999) Knowledge and the Flow of Information, CLSI Publications.
 Eisenstein, Elisabeth L. (1979) The Printing Press as an Agent of Social Change:
Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-modern Europe, 2 vols.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Floridi, Luciano (2005) Is Information Meaningful Data?, Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, 2005, 70.2, 351-370.
 Goldman, Alvin (1999) Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Goldman, Alvin (2002) Pathways to Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Kittler, Friedrich (1993) `Geschichte der Kommunikationsmedien', in A. Assman and J.
Huber (eds) Raum und Verfahren, pp. 169—88. Basel/Frankfurt am Main: Stroemfeld
/Roter Stern.
 Kripke, Saul (1980) Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Kripke, Saul (1982) Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
 Morville, Peter (2005) Ambient Findability. Cambridge, MA: O'Reilly Publishing. [cf.
http://www.findability.org]
 O'Reilly, Tim (2005) `What Is Web 2.0? — Design Patterns and Business Models for the
Next Generation of Software.'
[http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html]
 Schiltz, Michael, Verschraegen, Gert and Magnolo, Stefano (2006) `Open Access to
Knowledge in World Society?', Soziale Systeme 11(2): 346—69.
 Schiltz, Michael, Frederik Truyen, and Hans Coppens. 2007. Cutting the Trees of
Knowledge: Social Software, Information Architecture, and Their Epistemic
Consequences. Thesis Eleven. Journal of Critical Theory and Historical Sociology. issue 89.
 Truyen, F. (2009). Sustainable Knowledge Development Policies in University E-Learning.
23 ICDE World Conference. Maastricht, 7-10 July.
 Truyen, F., Buekens, F. (2009). Connectivity is not Enough. Socially Networked
Professional Environments and Epistemic Norms. 23 ICDE World Conference. Maastricht,
7-10 June 2009.
 Truyen, F., Deslé, R., Cannaerts, M. (2009). The Information Companion. 23 ICDE World
Conference. Maastricht, 7-10 June 2009.
 Cannaerts, M., Deslé, R., Truyen, F. (2009). Personal information management. In :
Research, reflections and innovations in integrating ICT in education, 1. 5 International
conference on multimedia and information & communication technologies in education.
Lisbon, 2009 (pp. 102-107). Badajoz: Formatex.
 Poelmans, S., Truyen, F., Deslé, R. (2009). Perceived computer literacy among different
types of (under)graduate students: findings of a survey. In : ICERI 2009 Proceedings of
ICERI 2009 conference. Madrid, 16-18 November 2009 (pp. 4910-4921).
 Baetens, J., Truyen, F., Roegiers, S. (2007). Wiki as catalyst for distance collaboration in
an international course on film and literature. In : Widening participation and
opportunities by e-learning in higher education: promoting accessibility and improving
the quality of lifelong open and flexible learning. 2006 EADTU conference. Talinn, 23-24
november 2006.
 Truyen, F., Roegiers, S. (2006). Five European universities, five strategies for innovation in
image-rich education through ICT: a study in the framework of the Euridice project. In :
E-inclusion or e-isolation?.
 Veen, Wim, Vrakking, Ben, Home Zappiens, Growing up in a Digital Age, 2006 Network
Continuum.
  Weinberger, David (2006) `Taxonomies and Tags from Trees to Piles of Leaves'
[http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/misc/taxonomies_and_tags.html ]
 Weinberger, David (2007) ‘Everything is Miscellaneous’
 Wenger, Etienne (1999) 'Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity',
Cambridge UP.

Prof. Dr. Frederik Truyen

Leuven University, Group Humanities and Social Science, Institute for Cultural Studies
fred.truyen@arts.kuleuven.be