Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality,Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108

1473-83

http://d

n Corr

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste

Practice Papers

Using web 2.0 in higher tourism education

Janne J. Liburd a,n, Inger-Marie F. Christensen b

a Niels Bohrsvej 10 6700 Esbjerg, Denmarkb E-learning Unit, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Tourism education

Web 2.0

Learning

Alignment

INNOTOUR

76/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.09.002

esponding author. Tel.: þ45 6550 1576; fa

ail addresses: liburd@sdu.dk (J.J. Liburd), im

a b s t r a c t

This practice paper provides knowledge and inspiration on the integration of web 2.0

technologies in tourism higher education. The integration of web 2.0 in higher education

rests on socio-cultural learning theories and important elements in a web 2.0 educational

design are interaction, joint creation of content, critical thinking and collaboration

between students and teachers both face-to-face and online via social media such as

discussion forums, blogs and wikis. The paper explains how social media can help

provide a frame for student preparation, support project working methods and activate

and challenge students in engaging and motivating teaching and learning activities

that result in in-dept learning. Such activities should be carefully planned. Particular

attention is paid to providing students with instructions on how to interact with content

and with each other in online learning environments. For learning to happen in a virtual

learning environment, the learning process of students should be carefully scaffolded.

The paper provides examples of web 2.0 learning activities from the INNOTOUR platform,

which is a joint platform for students, teachers, businesses and researchers of tourism.

The article exposes how the integration of web 2.0 in teaching involves much more than

the integration of new educational tools. We argue that it is a radically different way of

understanding and co-creating knowledge and learning, which has a range of implica-

tions. Among these are curriculum revisions to create alignment between learning

objectives, web 2.0 learning and teaching processes, and student assessment.

& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Aim

The aim of this practice paper is to provide knowledge and inspiration on the integration of web 2.0 technologies intourism higher education. The introduction outlines the distinctive features of social media and web 2.0 and gives anaccount of the theoretical basis for learning processes underpinned by these tools. Following this, the design of teachingand learning activities with web 2.0 tools is outlined and discussed and examples are provided from courses inInternational Tourism and Leisure management at the University of Southern Denmark with particular focus on theINNOTOUR platform, which was awarded the 2010 national e-learning prize in Denmark. Finally, we discuss how theuse of web 2.0 tools and teaching methods place new demands on participants and adaptation of curricula, includingexamination, so these reflect the new teaching forms and the web 2.0 philosophy.

All rights reserved.

x: þ45 6550 1090.

c@sdu.dk (I.-M. Christensen).

J.J. Liburd, I.-M.F. Christensen / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108100

2. Web 2.0 characteristics

The web 2.0 concept cannot be traced back to one single technological development. Rather, it can be attributed to anumber of different elements that together constitute what may be called the ‘‘web 2.0 movement’’ (Alexander, 2006). Thefollowing is a brief description of the most significant elements that resulted in a shift away from the more static web 1.0mode of thinking about web content. Many companies, for example, used their websites as a kind of business card withcontact details and electronic copies of product brochures. As a result, web content was sender-controlled with pooropportunities for interaction. In contrast, web 2.0 provides an opportunity for ordinary users to generate content that canbe shared, revised and discussed with other users.

‘‘Web 2.0 refers to the principles and practice of facilitating information sharing and social interaction by usersgenerating, altering and uploading web-based content whereas its predecessor, Web 1.0 limits users to the passiveviewing and download of largely copyrighted information.’’ (Liburd, 2012).

2.1. The three elements of the web 2.0 movement (based on Alexander, 2006)

Web 2.0 is primarily about ‘‘micro-content’’, i.e. about user contributions; comments, tags, videos, pictures and more.It is the users themselves, who produce, share and comment on one another’s content. The result is a highly social andoften collaborative process. Web pages are not considered in their entirety but as small items, such as comments onsomeone’s wall or blog.

Another important aspect is openness, both in relation to ideology and technology. The possibility for multi-directionalcommunication and easy access for users is essential. Users should be able to readily create a profile, create and sharecontent etc. The web 2.0 movement is therefore a movement away from production and storage of items in personalfolders and on personal hard drives toward the use of open, networked services, where, with a single click, users canchoose to share their content with the world. Access is not limited to one’s own content, but it is also possible to accessother users’ resources. Use and reuse, including modification and/or additions to others’ texts in, for example, a wiki is animportant element of this openness.

The final item to be mentioned here is ‘‘folksonomy’’. This is the users’ own way of categorizing or ‘‘tagging’’ thecontent they produce and/or link to on the web. In other words, web 2.0 is the users’ voice, what might be called ‘‘wisdomof the crowds’’. Some have sharply criticized this openness and accompanying democratization of knowledge on the basisthat academic standards are undermined (Carr, 2007). However, this critical perspective does not present a solution to thetrend towards closed production of knowledge in higher tourism education.

Web 2.0 is therefore not just a series of new services, such as blogs, wikis and social networks etc. on the internet. It isalso a new practice amongst users, characterized by social and egocentric behavior with participative and narrative focus.It is the users’ desire to share anything and everything in their lives with others via text, pictures and video that is thedriving force behind web 2.0. In addition, it meets a need for visibility and public statement of opinion in the form of smallcomments, ‘‘likes’’ and smileys etc. As a result, a web 2.0 practice based on the following elements has arisen:

�

Create, write and store (user-generated content). � Describe, tag. � Share—‘‘push out’’. � Rewrite. � Use and reuse of material. � Subscribe to news via RSS feeds. Fetch relevant news content. � Use relationships to find new knowledge. � Distributed authorship. Copyright claims are waivered or shared with other users. � Creative Commons—a more lenient form of copyright in the digital age that allows the tailoring of copyrights to

published material. See http://creativecommons.org/.

2.2. Social media

Social media are often referred to in the web 2.0 context as the designation for web-based tools that connect people andmake it possible to share information, pictures and videos etc. These tools and features comprise blogs, wikis, socialbookmarking sites, trackback, podcasts, video blogs, YouTube, Slideshare, Flickr and social networks such as My Space andFacebook.

Social software is what facilitates ‘‘the creation of communities and resources in which individuals come together tolearn, collaborate and build knowledge’’ (Owen, Grant, Sayers, & Facer, 2006). This practice paper focuses especially on thesocial media: discussion forums, blogs and wikis, since they facilitate a series of learning processes that both engage andchallenge students.

J.J. Liburd, I.-M.F. Christensen / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108 101

‘‘Web 2.0 activities are largely centred around students’ production of material, editing their own and others’ content,use, reuse and adaptation of content across a variety of contexts. There is therefore great potential for what John Biggscalls ‘‘in-depth learning’’-in contrast to ‘‘superficial learning’’ (Biggs, 2003). Such activities encourage and supportstudents’ individual and joint knowledge construction rather than simply paving the way for relatively uncritical andunconsidered acceptance of information from study material.’’ (Dohn & Johnsen, 2009: 28. Authors’ translation).

2.3. Teaching philosophy perspectives

Involvement of web 2.0 in higher education rests on the socio-cultural learning theories formulated by Kolb (1984),Lave and Wenger (1991), Perkins (1996), Piaget (1972), Salmon (2002), and Vygotsky (1992). These theories focuson students’ differing learning styles, the importance of the learning environment and the advantages of collaborativelearning. The most important elements are interaction, creating something jointly, critical thinking and collaborationbetween students and teachers, both in the classroom and in the virtual learning environment. This constructivist,practical perspective is supported further by phenomenology (Merleu-Ponty, 1962), where learning practices, attitudesand technology mutually inform each other in a dialectical relationship (Liburd & Tribe, 2011).

3. Design of teaching with web 2.0

First and foremost, the involvement of web 2.0 in teaching places students in an active role with increasedopportunities for expressing themselves on a subject and for discussing interpretations and points with their fellowstudents. Online activities with social media can help create a framework for individual student preparation. This increasesthe visibility of students’ efforts between teaching sessions and places focus on continual immersion and learning ratherthan final examinations. As a result, these online activities can aid students in finding the time and necessary room toimmerse themselves in the material in a way which is not always possible during traditional classroom sessions.Furthermore, this online interaction challenges students’ attitudes and understanding of topics and promotes learning.

Social media based teaching spans from individual contemplation and reflection in, for example, personal blogs tocollaborative learning in connection with the creation of a knowledge base in a wiki, where students must discuss and agreeon the correct interpretation, content and structure etc. In particular, the constructivist teaching processes are supported byinvolvement of social media in teaching. Examples of how these may contribute to a practical and application-orientedapproach in tourism higher education will be illustrated below.

3.1. Underpinning project working methods

Social media provide a unique opportunity to support collaborative learning in connection with project work. Using awiki, a project group may create a common knowledge base. Nothing is lost or inaccessible on a personal computer. A blogcan be used to document and maintain group working processes. Interestingly, these social media simultaneously provideteaching staff with a means of observing and making relevant input at the right time.

3.2. Activating and challenging students with blogs and wikis

The use of blogs in academic discussions can contribute nuances and perspectives that can assist student learning on anindividual basis. Blogs provide an opportunity for students to express themselves with regards to actual academic topicsand to respond to other students’ opinions and interpretations. In this way, the students’ immediate personal perceptionsare challenged, and they will often need to work more intensively with topics in order to understand them. A blogdiscussion can be used as a prelude to classroom discussions, so that students are ready for critical reflections when theymeet in class.

In the same way, a group of students can be challenged by the teacher requiring that they create a common knowledgebase in a wiki. To do so, the group must go through a process where they agree on structure and content. In order toformulate content, the students must negotiate opinions, and compare their different understandings of the subject matteramongst themselves. In the course of this process, students test their own interpretations and work through subjectmatter. This allows for greater depth of learning and a more intensive process than, for example, traditional lectures.

3.3. The design of teaching activities with web 2.0

Web 2.0 learning can be regarded as ‘‘flexible, adaptable participation in practice’’, based upon activities which are‘‘user-centric, and [y] involve flexible production, use and modification of material across a range of contexts’’ (Dohn &Johnsen, 2009: 20. Authors’ translation).

When integrating social media into teaching, it is important to organize online activities with caution. If these activitiesare introduced into staff-supervised teaching, many verbal instructions are often given and teaching staff are available toanswer students’ questions about how to tackle tasks. It is important to ensure that all online instructions are available tostudents, either in writing or in the form of video or audio files. In addition, it should be ensured that students are prepared

5 Development

Deg

ree

of in

tera

ctio

n

4 Knowledge construction

3 Knowledge sharing

2 Online socialisation

1 Access and motivation

Fig. 1. Tools for creating a virtual learning environment. Based on Gilly Salmon’s five-phase model (Salmon, 2002).

J.J. Liburd, I.-M.F. Christensen / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108102

to contribute and become involved online. Most of the current generation of students are born online (Benkendorff,Moscado, & Pendergast, 2010), but many are uncertain about what it means to use social media in a learning context. As aresult, students are often hesitant about online learning activities. ‘‘Learners are not accustomed to using such web 2.0sites and activities for educational purposes, but only for voluntary social interaction with each other’’ (Dohn & Johnsen,2009: 27. Authors’ translation). We therefore recommend using Salmon’s (2002) five-stage model when designing andrunning online learning activities.

Salmon’s (2002) model, seen in an edited version in Fig. 1, is a practical tool that shows how to effectively create afertile, virtual learning environment. The model is intended for use in virtual discussion forums, but can, with a littleadjustment, be employed to blogs, wikis and other social media.

The model comprises five stages. Students must complete one or more tasks, called ‘e-tivities’, in each stage in order tomaster it and successfully move on to the next stage. The model shows how to stage, or provide a scaffold for, students’collaborative learning.

Stage 1 of the model focuses on bringing students online. Students log onto the designated e-learning platform, orthe online service and they publish their first online contribution to mark their presence. The teacher, who is known as an‘e-moderator’, welcomes students and ensures that everyone is able to find his/her way around the platform. At this stage,it is important to provide phone and/or email support, so that students can get help to log on, if necessary.

Following this, students should feel confident about contributing online and be able to comment on each other’scontributions. This can be done by presenting students for a series of smaller, less formal and socially oriented tasks wherethey present themselves online. If it is possible to run supervised classroom teaching in parallel with these onlineactivities, and the class is relatively small (20–30 students), instead of making personal presentations, students can beasked about their expectations to subject activities, or asked about their prior knowledge of the subject as input to teacherswhen planning future sessions. In this case, it is important to use online activities to go into depth with material workedwith in the classroom.

At stage 3, you can embark on the academic activities in earnest. The students are now online, confident in the onlineenvironment and therefore ready to contribute professionally. E-tivities at this level should be about exchanginginformation, including the presentation, analysis and discussion of professional knowledge.

When stage 3 is successfully completed, it is time to begin with more demanding, collaborative tasks at stage 4 wherestudents work together to build up knowledge, discuss interpretations and negotiate viewpoints.

Stage 5 is a more independent stage, where the students are so accustomed to their online learning environment, thatthey feel the need to expand their virtual horizons and go their own virtual ways. This can be done by the studentschoosing their own e-learning tools and independently beginning to network with external persons who have knowledgeand an interest in the field studied. This stage can feasibly be tied together with individual tasks, such as thesis writing.

3.4. Netiquette

It may be necessary to discuss and agree on a code of good, ethical behavior online (forms of cooperation, tone,communication, knowledge sharing, respect, deadlines) that is referred to as ‘netiquette’. Students often need to adjusttheir language from that used leisurely in social media to that used in the same type of media in a learning context (Dohn& Johnsen, 2009). This implies a shift from quick and superficial communication to a more reflective and academiclanguage as well as critical thinking.

3.5. E-tivities as a starting point for learning activities

Above, the term ‘‘e-tivities’’ was applied to the online tasks that students are set and denotes ‘‘a framework for active

and interactive online learning’’ (Salmon, 2002: 1). An e-tivity provides students with guidelines for solving a specific online

Task title and subject / Motivating input: Resources / tools:Aim: Your task: Response:Deadlines:

Fig. 2. Etivities template. Adapted from Salmon (2002).

J.J. Liburd, I.-M.F. Christensen / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108 103

task, but it also comprises elements to motivate and engage students to actively participate online. The template belowcan be used for the preparation of e-tivities (Fig. 2).

In addition to the subject title in the top row, a motivating statement is used to inform students why the e-tivity is ofrelevance and what the expected learning outcomes are.

Under the resources/tools heading, attention is drawn to the resources to be studied (texts and other materials) andwhere the task should be carried out—e-learning platform, open source system, discussion forum, blog etc.

The aim describes the teaching or competence goals that will be met, when the students complete the e-tivity. Thisensures a direct connection to the course curriculum.

Following this, tangible instructions are given about the task the students are to complete. Note, that there should always betwo elements; ‘‘your task’’ and ‘‘response’’. Your task denotes what students should do, make written contributions to a blog orstart a wiki on a specific topic, for example. Remember to include qualitative and any quantitative requirements in order to makethe task as transparent as possible. The response is that which creates online interaction and thereby supports the collaborativelearning processes. Tell students to read and respond to the contributions of two or more fellow students.

Deadlines are essential in order to initiate and drive online learning forward. Completion dates on first contributions,‘‘your task’’, should preferably be early. This ensures that there is something to ‘‘respond’’ to in the second part of theassignment. Set a second deadline that is a little later for this response. If desired, a third deadline may be set for studentsto return to their initial input and study the comments received from other students. Students can then formulate a finalcontribution taking the comments received into account.

It is the responsibility of the teacher/e-moderator to follow up on whether students meet deadlines and requirements.It is especially important to follow up on the first e-tivities and motivate students who do not contribute. This is to signalthe importance of participation and engagement in dialog, as well as to emphasize that the e-tivity is an integrated part ofthe curriculum.

4. Examples from tourism education and INNOTOUR

An example of the integration of web 2.0 in tourism education at the University of Southern Denmark is describedbelow. It shows specific examples of e-tivities and illustrates the use of Gilly Salmon’s five-stage model in practice.

At the University of Southern Denmark, bachelor and cand.negot (equivalent to a MSc) courses specialising ininternational tourism have been offered since 2003. There has been an adequate, but not overwhelming demand for thesetourism courses. Interest has, however, increased significantly since 2010 as a result of an Erasmus Mundus accreditationof the Master’s courses offered in collaboration with the universities of Ljubljana in Slovenia, Girona in Spain andthe University of Southern Denmark. The fully integrated Master’s program, entitled the European Master in TourismManagement (EMTM), has resulted in additional exposure and manifestation of the international dimension of tourismstudies. With a maximum of 35 students enrolled in the EMTM program, where only two students may have the samenationality, teachers are challenged both academically and in their pedagogical approach by an interdisciplinary andmulticultural learning environment.

At the same time, the University of Southern Denmarks’s bachelor-level tourism students were given the opportunity toparticipate in a joint venture on value-based teaching sessions for tourism students in Brazil, USA, Switzerland, Austria andNew Zealand through cooperation in the Tourism Education Futures Institute (hereinafter TEFI). Both of these ventureswere instigated by compelling research-based and administrative initiatives of which the INNOTOUR platform is ofparticular interest.

INNOTOUR is a web 2.0 platform that is based upon users creating and developing their own content. The platform actsas a virtual rendezvous for students, teachers, researchers and companies interested in tourism and innovation, who areseeking to enhance their knowledge, products and expertise. INNOTOUR is an English-language platform, since tourism asa subject and phenomenon has a broad international interface (Fig. 3).

4.1. The global TEFI courses

INNOTOUR is built up as a joint platform for students, teachers, businesses and researchers, with subdivisions for eachof these groups. In accordance with INNOTOUR’s highly integral philosophy, these different user groups share resources to

Fig. 3. Picture of the INNOTOUR front page, www.INNOTOUR.com.

TEFI Etivity 3

Resources:

INNOTOUR, Students blog, books, journal articles

Purpose:

To compile a list of useful information on tourism, authenticity and/or stereotypes.

The overall aim is to build knowledge about tourism that can also assist you in

preparation for the exam and further studies.

Your task:

Please identify, list and evaluate useful academic information on tourism and

authenticity and/or stereotypes. Find two sources that define conceptually relevant

topics (e.g. MacCannell, 1999; Cohen, 2002 on authenticity).

• Evaluate the listed sources and explain their usefulness and validity

• Read the blog post of your fellow students and write comments on those

you find particularly interesting and useful. Write at least one comment

that relates to the TEFI values.

Deadlines:

Post your own contribution no later than Nov. 3, 2011

Post your comment(s) no later than Oct 6, 2011.

Fig. 4. TEFI Etivity 3.

Source: ‘‘Introduction to Tourism’’ (Liburd, 2011a).

J.J. Liburd, I.-M.F. Christensen / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108104

a large degree. Most resources are freely available to everyone, but users must register in order to contribute or use theinteractive options available. From its inception, INNOTOUR was designed for an international learning context as a tooland dynamic collaboration interface for participants.

Lecturers contribute on thematic areas of expertise and each lecture is streamed and uploaded to INNOTOUR. Whererelevant, each lesson addresses the five core values: ethics, professionalism, mutual respect, knowledge and sustainabilitythat are developed by the Tourism Education Futures Initiative (Liburd, 2010; Sheldon, Fesenmaier, Woeber, Cooper, &Antonioli, 2008). In practice this means that students watch online lectures with accompanying literature and slides,which are uploaded to INNOTOUR’s Student pages under ‘TEFI Courses’. This is followed by a new e-tivity that describeswhich resources to use, the aim of the task and its content as well as the deadline for contributions. When working withblogs and wikis, several dates are often given for first contributions and for response, so that students from other campusesare able to participate in the e-tivity.

An example of an e-tivity from a course delivered together with other TEFI-partners is illustrated below (Fig. 4).This e-tivity also presented an opportunity for the university library to tailor its introduction for tourism students

so that they learnt to search for relevant articles and databases and became acquainted with academic conceptsabout validity and reliability. Moreover, the quantity of articles generated in just one week, and supplemented with

J.J. Liburd, I.-M.F. Christensen / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108 105

contributions from other TEFI-students, gleaned insight into the extent of relevant academic knowledge that isinternationally available.

The integrating of the TEFI-values in the web 2.0-based learning activities teaches students to act as ‘professionals’ byhaving to meet specific deadlines across international time zones; they must show ‘mutual respect’ for differing points ofview and ways in which to tackle tasks; they must learn to be critical of how we know and thereby increase their‘knowledge’; they must reflect on ethical perspectives and the meaning of ‘stewardship’. Through exchanges with otherstudents in blogs and wikis in a real, multicultural and global context, the students explore the meanings of these valuesthat create reflection, interaction and new understanding of more or less complex issues. The learning environment isnoticeably enhanced through the open, international collaboration.

4.2. The local global classroom

At the Master’s level, the INNOTOUR platform is primarily used as a learning environment for the students insynchronous and asynchronous activities. Due to the Erasmus Mundus status and its requirements for global uptake andforced mobility between the three consortium universities, the learning environment is always already multicultural andinternational. Here, web 2.0 activities are employed to a far greater extent, in order to make use of the joint level ofknowledge and experiences of the class, whilst the individual student becomes familiar with educational requirements foracademic writing and expected professionalism. Traditional classroom teaching is supplemented with online e-tivities, butalso with public–private sector cooperation, as is the case at Bachelor level.

An e-tivity developed for a field excursion to the small Waddensea island of Fanoe is illustrated below. Here masterstudents enrolled in a course on sustainable tourism development were to employ various methods to documentrepresentations of sustainable tourism on Fanoe (Fig. 5).

During the field trip, a presentation by a municipal project manager and a nature guide was arranged, along with a walkthrough one of the island’s two urban environments. Despite the trip ending with a visit to the Fanoe brewery (planned bythe teacher as part of a mixed-learning approach), the results were both creative and well-considered. While inherent inthe web 2.0 philosophy of reusing materials in different contexts, permission to publish extracts from students’ e-tivitiesfor research purposes were obtained in writing from each of the contributors (contributions are depicted in Figs. 6 and 7).The students had produced a film, carried out interviews, written poetry, painted, photographed and tasted local Fanoeproducts etc. All contributions were uploaded as indicated, discussed in blogs, and more critically in subsequent lessons.Below are a small selection of the representations from the Fanoe e-tivity depicted on INNOTOUR from ‘EMTM 2011,Student blogs’ (http://www.innotour.com/studentBlog/category/2011-emtmcand-negot-blog/). A video can be seen fromthe same site or the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubWYoGTVyAY.

In summary, the use of web 2.0 technologies and the INNOTOUR platform can be viewed as one suggestion as to how toprepare students for a future field of practice. This pro-active and extrovert way of working in tourism education reflectsmodern tourism as a phenomenon that is characterized by global, socio-economic movements, technical innovations andcross-border flows of resources etc. It occurs through an embedded understanding of professionalism, mutual respect andsustainability that reaches far beyond a traditional transmission of knowledge from teacher to student.

Sustainable Tourism Development - Etivity 2

Resources:

INNOTOUR, Student’s area.

Purpose:

Facilitate translations and context specific understandings of sustainable tourism development.

Your task:

You are to describe Fanoe by use of pictures/video, painting/ sketching, merchandise, sounds, words, etc that address the theme of sustainability/sustainable tourism development.

Methods: Auto-ethnography, interviews, recommendations by locals, tourists.

Read what other students write and comment on two or more messages.

Deadlines:

End your comments after one week (Sep 21, 2011).

Fig. 5. Etivity at MSc level.

Source: ‘‘Sustainable Tourism Development Syllabus’’ (Liburd, 2011b).

Fig. 6. Student contribution to the Fanoe etivity.

Fig. 7. Student contributions to the Fanoe etivity.

J.J. Liburd, I.-M.F. Christensen / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108106

The crucial point is that knowledge, and the learning environment, are significantly expanded with the use of web 2.0technologies. Here, the Connexion platform developed at RICE University, USA, should also be mentioned as a groundbreaking development in the movement towards the opening of higher education, which has also been of inspiration toINNOTOUR. This movement implicitly challenges the traditional view of valid knowledge and points to the changing roleof the teacher who is no longer the only one to challenge and asses the students (Liburd, Hjalager, & Christensen, 2010),which is discussed below.

5. New requirements and adaptation

When web 2.0 tools are integrated into teaching, it is not only a matter of integrating new educational tools. It is also aradically different way of looking at knowledge and learning. In many ways this is an epistemological shift from aCartesian view of learning as knowledge transfer from teacher to student, to a social view of learning and knowledge(Dohn & Johnsen, 2009). This is a revised view of knowledge from the individual thinking man: Cogito ergo sum to thesocial: we participate, therefore we are (Brown & Adler, 2008). The traditional view of knowledge is especially challenged bynew technologies, relationships, institutions, networks and practices with other forms of and norms for valid knowledgethat are not limited to the higher education environment (Liburd, 2012).

Since web 2.0 activities implicitly view learning as participation, and knowledge as process and activity, there is littlecorrelation with traditional final examination forms such as individual written assignments or oral exams. The involvementof web 2.0 requires rethinking of evaluation and assessment (Christensen, 2009). A central issue in working with web 2.0is how to ensure consistency between semester activities and their evaluation; also called alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2007).

J.J. Liburd, I.-M.F. Christensen / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108 107

It is not only important to focus on the process in the assessment and less on the end result. It is also essential to hand overpart of the assessment procedure to the participants, for example, in the form of peer reviews, comments from fellowstudents and constructive criticism during the process. This requires significant adaptation of the established teachingsystem and not least acceptance of the idea that students should play a greater role in evaluation, learning and assessment(Liburd et al., 2010). Apart from the assessment of academic tasks and educational processes, Blok (2005: 187) points to aneed to evaluate students’ behavioral patterns and practices. Here, the quality and quantity of online contributions,cooperation, satisfaction, confidence and motivation can be involved in the overall evaluation portfolio. It will often benecessary to undertake extensive revisions to the curriculum in order to ensure consistency between web 2.0-based learningprocesses and their evaluation. It is important to create clear links between activities and the new view of learning toenhance students’ perception of their relevance and meaning.

Finally, web 2.0 activities and INNOTOUR play a part in an on-going discussion concerning copyright. INNOTOUR isbuilt around Creative Commons that grant others the license to reuse, modify and further develop existing material withrecognition of the original version. An alternative approach is found in Copyleft that grants license to remove copyrightrestrictions completely or modify them in new versions based upon the requirement that this right be maintained infuture versions (Berry, 2008). This phenomenon is also known from open source software and offers significantly newchallenges to intellectual property rights (Liburd & Hjalager, 2010, 2011) and to students’ confidence when acting in anopen learning environment.

6. Summary

Web 2.0 refers to a number of freely available tools on the internet, the so-called social media, but also denotes a newpractice for educational design and a shifting epistemology. Web 2.0 is characterized by micro-content and openness. It isfirst and foremost the users’ voice which is manifest here. Web 2.0 practice is users generating content and sharing it withother users. Content is tagged, rewritten, used and reused. Thus there is distributed authorship, and users exploit theirrelationships in the co-creation of knowledge.

Web 2.0 can be meaningfully and effectively applied to higher tourism education through the design of learningprocesses that encourage students to participate and create in-depth learning through interaction, critical thinking andcollaboration. When involving social media in tourism education, it is important to organize learning activities carefully, sothat students are gradually familiarized with the new online learning environment and the various tools that are used. Thischanges the teacher’s role from that of a topical expert to also include elements of coaching and mentoring to guidestudents through the learning activities. Learning with social media presents an opportunity for both individual reflectionand immersion via personal blogs, and for collaborative learning through shared knowledge construction in a wiki. Socialmedia supports a more reflective approach to learning but can also offer the opportunity to make teaching more practicaland application-oriented. Experience from working with the INNOTOUR platform clearly shows how students’ knowledgeand learning environment can be expanded while supporting a more reflective approach to learning.

The integration of web 2.0 philosophy in higher tourism education leads to an epistemological shift in the basis forhow learning and knowledge are viewed. This shift is a transformation from valuing and testing knowledge solely as apossession of the individual to a view of knowledge as process and activity, and a view of learning as participation. As aresult, the integration of web 2.0 necessitates not only innovation in relation to learning activities, but also in relation toevaluation and assessment. Revision of curricula will most likely be necessary in order to create alignment and to setinstitutional aims and objectives for the integration of web 2.0 learning activities in higher tourism education.

References

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0—A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning. Educause Review, 41(2), 1–7 /http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSEþReview/Web20ANewWaveofInnovation/40615?time=1223370802S.

Benkendorff, P., Moscado, G., & Pendergast, D. (Eds.). (2010). Wallingford: CABI.Berry, D. M. (2008). Copy, rip, burn. The political of copyleft and open source. London: Pluto Press.Biggs, J, & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university 3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University/Society for Research into Higher Education.Blok, R. (2005). Undervisning i Netværket. E-læring, E-struktion og E-tiviteter. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16–32 Online. HTTP /http://www.

educause.edu/EDUCAUSEþReview/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420S 16.may.10.Carr, N. G. (2007). The ignorance of the crowds. StrategyþBusiness, 47, 1–5.Christensen, I. F. (2009). How can examination practices reflect the use of collaborative web 2.0 tools in courses? In Conference proceedings from online

educa Berlin 2009.Dohn, N. B., & Johnsen, L. (2009). E-læring pa web 2.0. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Lave, J., & Wenger (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Liburd, J. J. (2011a). Introduction to tourism. Student Area, TEFI courses 2011. /www.INNOTOUR.comS.Liburd, J. J. (2011b). Sustainable tourism development syllabus 2011. Student Area, EMTM 2011. /www.INNOTOUR.comS.Liburd, J. J. (2012). Tourism research 2.0. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 883–907.Liburd, J. J. (2010). Sustainable tourism development. In J. J. Liburd, & D. Edwards (Eds.), Understanding the sustainable development of tourism (pp. 1–18).

Oxon: Goodfellow Publishers.

J.J. Liburd, I.-M.F. Christensen / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 12 (2013) 99–108108

Liburd, J.J, & Hjalager, A. M. (2011). From copyright to copyleft. Towards tourism education 2.0.. The critical turn in tourism studies. Creating an academy ofhope. Oxon: Routledge. pp. 96–109.

Liburd, J. J., & Hjalager, A. -M. (2010). Changing approaches to education, innovation and research—Student experiences. Tourism Journal of Hospitality andTourism Management, 17, 12–20.

Liburd, J. J., & Tribe, J. (2011). Educated tourism. In Advancing the social sciences of tourism 2011 conference proceedings. UK: University of Surrey.Liburd, J. J., Hjalager, A., & Christensen, I. -M. F. (2010). INNOTOUR.COM—en international WEB 2.0 platform for turismeundervisning. Læring & Medier, 6,

1–21.Merleu-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London and Kegan: Routledge.Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., & Facer, K. (2006). Opening education–Social software and learning. Futurelab. /http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/

documents/opening_education/Social_Software_report.pdfS.Piaget, J. (1972). Epistemologie des sciences de l’homme. Paris: Gallimard.Perkins, D. N. (1996). Minds in the hood. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publication.Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities—The key to active online learning. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.Sheldon, P., Fesenmaier, D., Woeber, C., Cooper, C., & Antonioli, M. (2008). Tourism education futures; 2010–2030: Building the capacity to lead. Journal of

Travel and Tourism Teaching(3), 61–68.Vygotsky, L. S. (1992). Educational psychology. Florida: St. Lucie Press.

Dr. Janne J. Liburd is an Associate Professor and Director of the Centre for Tourism, Innovation and Culture at the University of Southern Denmark. She isa cultural anthropologist and her research interests are in the field of sustainable tourism development and tourism education. She has publishedon epistemology, open innovation and web 2.0, tourism education, quality of life, national park development, heritage tourism, tourism crisiscommunication, NGOs and accountability. Dr. Liburd has conducted a number of research projects relating to competence development for tourismpractitioners and tourism educators. She is the co-founder of the INNOTOUR platform and serves on several editorial boards. Dr. Liburd is the past Chairof the B.E.S.T. Education Network (2005–2010).

Inger-Marie F. Christensen is an E-learning Consultant at the University of Southern Denmark. She holds a Master’s degree in ICT and learning. Her fieldof interest is educational design of blended learning and distance learning with a particular focus on collaborative learning processes and feedback.Ms. Christensen also designs and carries out teacher training in the field of e-learning and e-learning platforms. She has published on web 2.0, the use of3D virtual environments for teaching, teacher training and live, online teaching via web conference systems. Ms. Christensen is a co-editor of the Danishonline journal Læring og Medier (Learning and Media). She has contributed to the development of the INNOTOUR platform, the educational design andthe teacher training connected to the use of the platform.