The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century
Open accessAbstract
Many teens today who use the Internet are actively involved in participatory cultures—joining online communities (Facebook, message boards, game clans), producing creative work in new forms (digital sampling, modding, fan videomaking, fan fiction), working in teams to complete tasks and develop new knowledge (as in Wikipedia), and shaping the flow of media (as in blogging or podcasting). A growing body of scholarship suggests potential benefits of these activities, including opportunities for peer-to-peer learning, development of skills useful in the modern workplace, and a more empowered conception of citizenship. Some argue that young people pick up these key skills and competencies on their own by interacting with popular culture; but the problems of unequal access, lack of media transparency, and the breakdown of traditional forms of socialization and professional training suggest a role for policy and pedagogical intervention. This report aims to shift the conversation about the "digital divide" from questions about access to technology to questions about access to opportunities for involvement in participatory culture and how to provide all young people with the chance to develop the cultural competencies and social skills needed. Fostering these skills, the authors argue, requires a systemic approach to media education; schools, afterschool programs, and parents all have distinctive roles to play. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2020) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244019900176 · Cited by 927
A research framework of smart education
Zhu, Z.-T., Yu, M.-H., & Riezebos, P. (2016) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-016-0026-2 · Cited by 782
Storey, M.-A., Zagalsky, A., Filho, F. F., Singer, L., & German, D. M. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2016.2584053 · Cited by 221
Yeykelis, L., Cummings, J. J., & Reeves, B. (2014) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12070 · Cited by 216
Augmenting web pages and search results to support credibility assessment
Schwarz, J., & Morris, M. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979127 · Cited by 181
Review of Literature on Media Literacy
Potter, W. J. (2013) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.12041 · Cited by 130
Blurring Boundaries in Education: Context and Impact of MOOCs
Loeckx, J. (2016) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2395 · Cited by 86
Burnett, C. (2011) · Language and Education · doi:10.1080/09500782.2011.584347 · Cited by 84
Memory, politics and emotions: internet memes and protests in Venezuela and Ukraine
Makhortykh, M., & González Aguilar, J. M. (2020) · Continuum · doi:10.1080/10304312.2020.1764782 · Cited by 74
Facebook for self-empowerment? A study of Facebook adoption in urban India
Kumar, N. (2014) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444814543999 · Cited by 69
Facebook Groups as a Powerful and Dynamic Tool in Medical Education: Mixed-Method Study
Nicolai, L., Schmidbauer, M., Gradel, M., Ferch, S., Antón, S., Hoppe, B., Pander, T., von der Borch, P., Pinilla, S., Fischer, M., et al. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7990 · Cited by 56
Vigilante disparaging humour at r/IncelTears: Humour as critique of incel ideology
Dynel, M. (2020) · Language & Communication · doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2020.05.001 · Cited by 52
Notley, T., & Dezuanni, M. (2019) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0163443718813470 · Cited by 48
Make-Her-Spaces as Hybrid Places: Designing and Resisting Self Constructions in Urban Classrooms
Norris, A. (2014) · Equity & Excellence in Education · doi:10.1080/10665684.2014.866879 · Cited by 45
Do social networking technologies have a place in formal learning environments?
Rosenfeld Halverson, E. (2011) · On the Horizon · doi:10.1108/10748121111107717 · Cited by 41
“What’s So Awesome with YouTube”: Learning Music with Social Media Celebrities
Marone, V., & Rodriguez, R. C. (2019) · Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies · doi:10.29333/ojcmt/5955 · Cited by 31
Zagalsky, A., Teshima, C. G., German, D. M., Storey, M.-A., & Poo-Caamaño, G. (2016) · Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories · doi:10.1145/2901739.2901772 · Cited by 29
Digital Engagement and Academic Functioning: A Developmental-Contextual Approach
Hietajärvi, L., Maksniemi, E., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2022) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000480 · Cited by 23
Designing information savvy societies: an introduction to assessability
Forte, A., Andalibi, N., Park, T., & Willever-Farr, H. (2014) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557072 · Cited by 23
Keeping it Social: Engaging Students Online and in Class
Peck, J. J. (2012) · Asian Social Science · doi:10.5539/ass.v8n14p81 · Cited by 22
Magomere, J., Ishida, S., Afonja, T., Salama, A., Kochin, D., Foutse, Y., Hamzaoui, I., Sefala, R., Alaagib, A., Dalal, S., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732019 · Cited by 13
Lazou, C., & Tsinakos, A. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16060482 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J.
- Venue
- The MIT Press eBooks
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 2009-06-05
- OpenAlex
- W3153389987
- Cited by
- 2,258
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 344.11
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.