These two readings were definitely interesting and challenging. The theme that I kept circling back to is identity. Bransford (2006) references Lave & Wenger, as well as a few other researchers in the “New Theoretical Constructs for What Changes When People Learn” section, “that learning involves changes in people’s identities— who they understand themselves to be and who others position them to be” (p. 220). Branford also mentions Lave & Wenger’s “idea of legitimate peripheral participation, which highlights the practices by which newcomers are gradually enculturated into participation in existing ‘communities of practice’” (p. 220). I am actually familiar with Lave & Wenger’s work on communities of practice and find it fascinating. Wenger (1999) says that “a community of practice is a field of possible trajectories and thus the proposal of an identity” (p. 156). Legitimate peripheral participation is just one of the possible trajectories that Wenger mentions in his book. I found it even more fascinating that Wenger mentions that “we not only produce our identities through the practices we engage in, but we also define ourselves through practice we do not engage in” (p. 164). I know I just loaded you with a bunch of deep, thinking references to identity and participation, but what does all that mean? Who defines our identity? Branford mentions two possibilities, “who [the learner] understand themselves to be and who others position them to be” (p. 220). Does that mean our identity is who we think we are, or who others say we are? Or does what other people say about us shape who we view ourselves to be? Wenger (1999) describe identity as “lived, negotiated, social, a learning process, a nexus, and a local-global interplay” (p. 163).
How does mobile devices play into identity? Mimi Ito proposes that “[friendship-driven participation in online learning] is a really important site of learning, the sort of important social behaviors and what it means to grow up in a digital world, and the sort of ways in which kids post, link, forward, comment, create top friend lists. These are all negotiations that are incredibly important to kids growing up today” (DMLResearchHub, 2011). Are kids shaping their identity by how they interact through their mobile devices (e.g. posting, linking forwarding, commenting), or is the interaction from others (in the friendship-driven online space) influencing their identity? And does a positive or negative experience lead kids into messing around and geeking out stages of participation? Collins (2006) states that “the motivation to become a more central participant in a community of practice can provide a powerful incentive for learning. Frank Smith argues that children will learn to read and write if they people they admire read and write. That is, they will want to join the “literacy club” and will work hard to become members. Learning to read is part of becoming the kind of person they want to become. Identity is central to deep learning.” Does this mean that kids’ desire to be “a more central participant in a community of practice” will lead them to contribute more and advance further in Ito’s HOMAGO (hanging out, messing around, geeking out) stages?
How does one’s identity play into the use of mobile devices for learning? Sharples (2009) raises some great questions on technology and the future:
Will the technology become a seamless extension of human cognition and memory? What experiences will people want to capture, and how will they erase them? What is the legitimate sphere of parents, formal education and the state in managing and assessing children’s mobile learning?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but then again I don’t think Sharples does either if he is asking them. I think it’s important to consider identity when thinking about these questions. I think with the advancement of technology, it will one day become an extension of the human mind, and youth will “instinctively” understand how to use it. This idea goes all the way back to the 1960s in Fiore’s The Medium is the Massage, which if you haven’t heard of it or read it, another great suggestion! It is deep, thought-provoking, and oftentimes, a sensory overload. He mentions in it that “youth instinctively understands the present environment—the electric drama. It lives mythically and in depth” (p. 9).
And to close, I want to leave you with one last great thought from Fiore (1967) on identity (p. 152-155):
“…and who are you?”
“I-I hardly know, sir, just at present-at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think i must have been changed several times since then.”
References
Bransford, J. D., Stevens, R., Schwartz, D. L., Meltzoff, P. K., Pea, R. D., Roschelle, J., … & Sabelli, N. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In. PA Alexander & PH Winne (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology, (pp. 209-244). Mahwah, nd.
Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship: The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, R. Keith Sawyer.
DMLResearchHub. (2011, August 24). Cultural Anthropologist Mimi Ito on Connected Learning, Children, and Digital Media[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuV7zcXigAI
Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage. New York: Random House.
Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 233-249).
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.