Just another Sites At Penn State site
Sometimes, I feel frastrated when I stacked on a problem related with technology. Then, I can tell myself that it is over. Your knowledge doesn’t allow you to go further for now. I need help. But later, I learn that I could solve the issue with a little effort.
This week, I first read article of Pea and etc. (2012), then Gee’s (2000/2001) and then Turkle (2008). While reading Gee’s article, I was asking myself “why I am reading this paper? Why is this article related with mobile education?” Then, while reading Turkle’s article, I began to understand.
I think, Gee’s fourth type of identity, the affinity identity, is related with Turkle’s article. Turkle discusses about how teenagers use online platforms interact people there. Article examines how people find friend through games, online platform and how they fulfill their emotional needs. I will come back this issue later.
Turkle’s article has a lot of intellectually challenging points for me. On the other hand, I am not buying some points of Turkle. Turkle states that people fulfill their emotional needs through games. I think, this is a bold judgement. I don’t know whether Turkle’s sampling was good, it was robust sampling or not. There are a lot of adult gamers who just play games without attributing any meaning. Personally, while playing Spiderman game, I don’t attribute it much meaning to the game. Or, while slaying zombies in a game, I don’t satisfy my deep, hidden killing desire. There may be some people who are feeling like that. But still, I don’t think it is generalizable. Besides, Turkle’s examples are from Second life and Sim City games. These games are simulation games. Simulations of real life. Generalizing real life simulation to online platforms doesn’t sound robust for me. I wish Turkle would study on people who play Goat Simulator or Dead Duck simulator and would compare the results. Would participants say “I feel like I am really a dead duck!”? I don’t think so. Therefore, I think, Turkle’s choices were biased and inference was too broad.
On the other hand, Turkle’s discussion about new form of validation is interesting foe me. Teens way of commutation and meaning attributed to it is very important. Text message communication may not be enough to create deep and authentic relation. Pea et. all (2012) also discuss about this issue and states that online communication consistently associated with negative socioemotional outcomes while face to face communication was associated with positive socioemotional outcomes. I think, these two articles state parallel message on this issue. Another surprising point for me is to see the shift in habits of using mobile technologies. Both Pea (2012) and Turkle (2008) state that people are more open to use mobile technologies while they are with others compared to past. It seems, our world is changing quite fast and meaning attributed to technology usage also changing.
Another point that I want to discuss about is Gee’s perspectives of identity. Among Gee’s four perspective of identity, affinity perspective took my attention most. Other two articles of this week examine teen relations within a social group. Affinity perspective offers a different perspective to those groups. This perspective examines structure of the group. Voluntarily attendance, set off shared common experience and interest areas are what constitutes an affinity group. I think, Facebook groups, sub-reddit groups, discord channels are most famous examples of the affinity groups. For me, it is an interesting classification and offers me a better insight about group dynamics.
Why MMRPG instead of MMORPG?
Firstly, I know that this is not a huge deal. But still why? I saw this wrong articulation before in one of our readings. However, massively multiplayer online role-playing game term is expressed as MMORPG in gaming media. MMORPG is commonly used in game magazines, game websites. I don’t get why Turkle uses MMRPG abbreviation instead of MMPRPG.
I wanted to do a double check and searched at google “MMRPG” term. Who know? I might be wrong. MMRPG could be one of the other common word in usage. But, I was right. Google results directly shows MMORPG results.
It is not a big issue but hard to understand for me. Why? There is already a dominant abbreviation for massively multiplayer online role-playing game term. It took my attention. This is the second time I see this usage. I wanted to express.
References
Gee, J. P. (2000/2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education (pages 99 through 111 and 119-121.
Pea, R., et al. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking.
Turkle, S. (2008). Always-on/always-on-you: The tethered self.
Is Impilict Learning Cure for Hedonism?
In Turkey, there are some critical high-stake exams. Those exams are done only once a year. As a math teacher, I had students who will take those exams. Some students were motivated easily. However, some students were really hard to convince them to stop play less game and study more lesson. When I talk with them, they mostly say “I don’t like studying”. These students might believe that all learning process should be fun! They may think, some students are studying hard because they love to study. In the other words, hardworking students can be regarded as learning implicitly in their point of view. I think, they were missing that in order to be successful, we sometimes need to sacrifice instant joy. I think, not being capable of sacrificing instant joy for long term success is a hedonistic point of view. I think, this was the real problem of some of my students.
When I was undergrad, I was studying math teaching. People were telling me “it seems you love math!”. I was saying them “No! I just wanted to be a teacher. Math is the most respected one among my choices. That’s why I am studying math. In my free time, I don’t study math for entertainment. Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate math but I don’t love, too. I just need to learn and I learn”. People around me were thinking I was learning math implicitly. Hell no! I just wanted to go to a good university, I wanted to get the diploma. That was the main motivation for me to study math. I can still do math teaching if I have a reason. I don’t have any problem with math. But, hardcore mathematics is not fun me. I just forced myself to study, used my willpower. That’s all. However, I see people that thinks people learning new things because they love it. These people don’t bother to spend effort to learn because it not fun for them. Not loving to learn is a legitimate excuse for them. They have such a misconception.
I think, “you should have fun while learning” misconception also stems from media, or interviews. Sometimes, during interviews, interviewee says “my area is fun for me! I love it. It is not like studying/working for me. While working, I feel like I am in a holiday!”. So, some students can think that those successful people studied because they love the subject and I don’t have to study this topic because I don’t like it. In my perspective, this is a hedonistic approach. If there is an instant joy, I do. If there is no instant reward (joy), I don’t do. These students can say “I don’t like this subject so I won’t study”. Sometimes, we have to study a topic that we don’t like when we are in k-12 education or in college. Hedonistic students need to learn that as a human being, we don’t always do fun things. Sometimes, we do something even though it is not our the most favorite activity. That’s why, even if the task is not the most fun thing, we still keep on doing the task. Each human has a willpower, given by God (or the creator according to your belief) and it is given for using in appropriate time. There is a purpose for having willpower. Willpower helps us to keep on track when we don’t have instant reward. Therefore, learning process may not be fun always but this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t study on it because it is not fun.
When it comes to media and technology, substantial portion of learning is implicit (Bransford, J., et al., 2006). But implicit learning is still not the savior of the hedonists. I want to emphasize that there is still a small portion of learning that will require learners’ special attention to topic without rewarding or motivation. In the other words, implicit learning will not do all the job only by itself. In the learning process, there will still be a part for willpower. So, implicit learning is not a silver bullet of hedonist people for learning subject.
To sum up, technology is not always used for the purposes originally intended (Sharples, M., et al., 2009). No matter how educators design an activity for implicit learning, it may not be used as expected. I think, students’ curiosity and passion for learning will still have a huge role for implicit learning. As a result, implicit learning is a great way for education. It should be the mainstream approach for planning lesson. But, it is not a magical stick for teaching to hedonist students.
References
Bransford, J., et al. (2006). Learning theories and education.
Sharples, M., et al. (2009). Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues.
Learners’ Personal Interest
One of the principles of adult education is self-motivation to learn (Knowles, 1984). According to Knowles (1984) adult learners are interested in the topic and motivated to learn it while learning. Origin of this motivation mostly come from usefulness of the information.
After I read this week’s reading, learners’ personal interest issue took my attention. This is one of the common issues mentioned in all of the articles of this week. Kukulska-Hulme, A., et al. (2009) states that mobile devices support learner’s personal interest. Pachler, N., et al. (2010) states that young generation uses mobile devices as a part of their life. As we see In Traxler’s (2013) article, mobile phones enable reader participation and viable platform for distributing longer form content. Mobile learning offers entertainment (Pachler, N., et al., 2010). Common point of these articles is that mobile learning supports learners’ internal motivation.
All adult education principles may not fit for children’s case. On the other hand, I believe, self-motivation to learn principle fits for both children and adult learners. For children, internal motivation may not be an obligation for learning different than adult. But, there are a lot of studies that explain positive effect of motivation on learning (Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E., 2002). That’s why, learners personal interest makes mobile learning a more powerful learning method for every age groups.
I believe that supporting personal interest is one of most powerful attributes of the mobile learning. This dimension of the mobile learning can be used for solving some problems related in the society. For example, NEET (not in education, employment or training) problem is huge burden on countries and mobile learning can help to solve this issue (Traxler, 2013). If using mobile learning opportunities for solving NEET issue succeeds, it can be inspiring for future projects. As a result, addressing learner’s self-interest is powerful trait of mobile learning that is also one of the components of adult learning.
Another common trait of mobile learning that fits adult learning is that mobile learning can cross formal learning boundaries. Mobile learning platforms offer for rich, authentic curriculum with supporting a playful learning experience in both formal and informal learning opportunities (Kukulska-Hulme, A., et al., 2009). In addition, most of the adult learning activities happen outsides of the formal learning settings. As seen, informal learning attribute is common for mobile learning and adult learning.
Taking all above-mentioned points into consideration, it can be concluded that mobile learning platforms offer adult learning opportunities to children. With mobile learning, pedagogy and andragogy are getting closer. Children are more treated like adults in mobile learning platforms. I think, this is a good thing. On the other hand, adult learning style brings more responsibility. For children, it can be dangerous in some way. Security and privacy are some of the prevailing concerns with the usage of mobile learning devices (Pachler, N., et al., 2010). On the other hand, it teaches taking responsibility to children, too, like adults. I don’t say that children should take responsibilities like adult in everywhere. Just letting them taking responsibility can be beneficial for their improvement and building self-confidence until a certain degree with the guidance of their teachers and parents.
References
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & gaming, 33(4), 441-467.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult education.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., et al. (2009). Innovation in mobile learning. (pages 13 through 35).
Pachler, N., et al. (2010). Mobile devices as resources for learning. (pages 73 through 93).
Traxler, J. M. (2013). Mobile learning . . . . distance, digital divides, disadvantage, disenfranchisement (pages 129 – 141).
Technology and Equality in Education
In recent decades, technology has been developed considerably and facilitates out lives in many ways. Technology and digital learning tools also have been used in education in variety of ways. On the other hand, effect of technology has become a hotly debated issue. Access, use and outcomes of the new technology affect equity principle of education.
Equity is a serious issue for education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) defines six principles for decision making in schools (2000). One of the NCTM principles is equity. Equity principle is described as high expectations and strong support for all students (NCTM, 2000). At this point, students’ unequal opportunities shadow equity principle. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) states that home environments, social factors, habits of computer usage increase the gap between high and low socioeconomic status (SES) communities. I think, this is an important issue and should be discussed more deeply.
There are many environmental factors that affecting readiness level of students. For example, low income students less tend to have friends or relative that can use complex digital media tools (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Warschauer and Matuchniak’s (2010) tell the cases of Zeke, a white fourth grade private school student, and Kadesha, a thirteen years old African American girl. In the article, it is clearly stated that Kadesha’s opportunities are limited to consume multimedia, not creating it. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) states that this discrepancy has academic outcomes, too. As a result, role of technology should be examined seriously for providing more equal education opportunities.
On the other hand, I have two questions: “is absolute equality possible?” In the Outliers book, Malcolm Gladwell asserts that there are many environmental factors for success (2008). Gladwell claims that in order to create a big technological company, you need to have certain accesses in certain times. Moreover, you need to be born between 1950 and 1955. According to Gladwell’s statement, people didn’t have equal opportunity for building an innovative, big technology company. There were some certain criteria. I think, this is same for education, too, until a certain level. Educators should try to offer equal opportunities for all students. However, I don’t think this is always possible. There will always be students who have bonuses than others in some way. This is inevitable. Is it unfair? I don’t think. Having educated family is not an unfairness or injustice to anyone. Having a family that has hardworking culture is not an unfair for other students who don’t have such a culture in the family. For example, according to Tieso (2007), mothers’ highest education level has strong relation with giftedness. Does this cause inequality for the students who have low educated mother? If yes, is having highly educated mother unfair? If having an educated mother is fine, then do we approve inequality because we also approve unequal readiness level of students? I think, this is a huge discussion. But, I don’t believe that we can reach absolute equality in education. Then, what should we do? As an educator, I liked NCTM’s expression of equity: strong support for all students. Yes, we can try to do our best for supporting all students. Therefore, there will always be external factors that will affect students’ academic performance greatly and we may have limited control on it.
As a result, there will always be unequal opportunities for students in many different levels. What we can do is to establish at least minimum standards that is defined by educational scientist for all students and provide students high support. In addition, we should consider that what we value shapes our perception of equality. That’s why, what is valued should also be determined carefully.
References
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Hachette UK.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Tieso, C. (2007). Patterns of overexcitabilities in identified gifted students and their parents: A hierarchical model (vol 51, pg 11, 2007). Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 298-298.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in education, 34(1), 179-225.