Identity is not static. That is probably one of the most significant take-aways from this week’s readings. Coll and Falsafi point to the spatial and temporal nature of identity which allow us to see our identity (or others) in terms of both long and short “timescale dimensions.” Similarly Moussa might depict the longscale time dimension as a river where individuals can use tributaries to reflect on positive experiences and rough waters to think about the challenges that were confronted. But what has identity to do with discussions about teaching and learning, especially as it relates to disruptive technologies? — the focus of this course. As our readings reveal, it has quite a good deal to do with teaching and learning since our intellectual development as a student (learner) is shaped by our prior and current experiences. For the student, these experiences manifest themselves in the classroom conversations, debates, and artifacts that constitute those interactions within the educational system.
Within the context of disruptive technologies, students can use technologies as mediators to construct not only artifacts that meet the objectives of an assignment but that also present (to the public) a part or an extension of their identity. In this latter sense, it becomes an act of recognition (e.g., Coll & Falsafi). In the 21st century, mashups surface as a prime example of this as creators collect, modify, and synthesize seemingly disparate elements into a cohesive whole that not only conveys a message but does so in a way that reflects the unique attributes that comprise their identity.
Issues of identity perhaps become more evident when there is an absence of a shared vision. For example, this can happen among students working in groups in which there are competing visions about the optimal route to take towards completing whatever project is at hand. They can express different approaches to workflow where some might prefer all details of a project to be fully worked out in charts, graphs, and detailed explanations whereas others might view a broad conceptual document as more than adequate. And then there might be those many-in-the-middle who prefer a hybrid and want to capitalize on the strengths of both. As each presents their position, they present an identity, and more significantly, as they engage with other members in the group, they further construct their identity. And so this explicitly educational context becomes not only a place of acquiring knowledge, but building identity.