Art-E-Factory
I am an artist and art educator. Throughout the readings I continually encountered the word “artefact”. I saw the word in three parts. Art. E (for electronic). And fact. The first instance was in Looi et al.(2010) discussion of seamless learning, when Stahl (2000) is quoted, “In these learning spaces, learners may create digital artefacts with mobile devices which they share, modify, build upon existing artefacts, and integrate them together that may result in building new knowledge. Artefacts facilitate knowledge construction and social discourse, and mediate interaction among a community of learners”. This is the basic premise of the collaborative art making/education application that I am designing to further social justice initiatives as my final research project for the MPS Art Education program. For the purposes of this exercise I will refer to my proposed application as Art-E-Factory. Although, still in it’s infancy, I have a rough idea about how I want Art-E-Factory to act. It should mimic a real art studio practice according to the three characteristics laid out in the framework for m-education as defined by Kearny et al.(2012): personalization, authenticity and collaboration. An art studio is a personal place in which an artist can, “enjoy a sense of intimacy and convenience” (Kearny et al, 2012. p. 9) and as the authors point out this sense of the personal can be achieved through mobile devices. Art-E-Factory should have the authentic “look and feel” of a real art studio practice. As Kearny et al. (2012) describe, “Factual authenticity refers to how details of a task (such as characters, instruments etc.) are similar to the real world, while a process level of authenticity refers to how learner practices are similar to those practices carried out in the community or ‘real world’ of practice”. Finally, a well-established and forward thinking art studio practice does not exist in a bubble. Artists should continually strive to perpetuate ideas through collaboration, sharing and community building. “More broadly, social interaction, conversation and dialogue are fundamental to learning from a socio-cultural perspective as people engage in negotiating meaning. Learners consume, produce and exchange an array of ‘content’, sharing information and artefacts across time and place” (Kearny et al, 2012. p. 10). The collaborative aspect of Art-E-Factory is where the social justice initiatives are empowered and Institutional Identities can be overcome in the name of equality.
I believe that Art-E-Factory could be a useful resource because it “leads students to learn with, rather than just learn from” (Churchill et al. 2016, p.7). But, “Resources are not sufficient for full achievement of learning outcomes” (Churchill et al. 2016, p. 4). They suggest a Resource, Activity, Support and Evaluation (RASE) framework for designing mobile learning environments. Two key characteristics of an effective activity are outlined by Churchill et al (2016) in the RASE framework. First, “an activity must be learning centred” I find that Art-E-Factory aligns with the subtext, “Learners produce artefacts that demonstrate their learning process, not just outcomes” (Churchill et al. 2016, p.8). There is much emphasis in studio art practice on process. Of course, the outcome is a finished piece of art, but without process it is nothing more than a simple one-off rendering of an idea. Good art evolves over time. Next, “an activity must be ‘authentic’” (Churchill et al. 2016, p.8). Art-E-Factory aligns with three of the subtexts presented. “It should resemble professional practice and thinking…use tools specific to professional practice…and result in artefacts that demonstrate professional performance” (Churchill et al. 2016, p.8). As suggested previously, the design would have the ‘look and feel” of an artist’s studio. Further, the process of creation built into the software should act like the mental and physical processes employed in the real artist’s studio. Including, virtual mediums that mimic such things as brushes, paints, pencils, etc. Ultimately, all of these taken together would result in a final piece of art. Where the RASE framework may have trouble supporting Art-E-Factory is in Evaluation. Rubrics in Art Education have always been tricky because art is highly subjective. What constitutes a successful piece of art varies from viewer to viewer. However, there is possibility in combining evaluation with support. Churchill et al. (2016) suggest, “support can take place in…social networking spaces” (p. 9). Perhaps, a social networking site could be created and used as a “virtual gallery” where final works can be shared. Included in this “virtually gallery” would be comment sections and functionalities similar to those of pre-existing forms such as Instagram. As I have noted in previous posts, using pre-existing forms that are familiar and already heavily used can perpetuate use of a new m-education application.
I envision Art-E-Factory being used on all types of mobile technologies. There are numerous affordances offered by current mobile technologies that are applicable to Art-E-Factory. Affordances are defined by Norman (1988) in Churchill et al.(2016, p. 10) as “the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how thing could possibly be used”. What affordances do current mobile technologies offer that are applicable to and align with Art-E-Factorywithin the RASE learning design? Under resources, I would highlight connectivity. Without which, the sharing and collaboration crucial to the social justice education initiatives for which Art-E Factory is being designed would be impossible. Under activity, there are several crucial elements. Representation includes the tools that allow the user to create the art. Some of these already exist in applications such as IMovie and IPocketDraw. Collaborative is the key to the social justice initiatives. And, capture is a hybrid in this situation. Capture includes photo, video and audio recording functions. All of which are art making tools and so can be also included under representation. Previously, I noted that the best use of evaluation and support would be in combination in a social media powered “virtual gallery”. So, under this combination, connectivity is of absolute import.
Art-E-Factory is under construction but I find it to be an m-education initiative that aligns with the constructs presented. It can be seamless. It can be authentic, personal and collaborative. Finally, it is a resource that is supported by activity and a combination of evaluation and support.
References
Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2016). Framework for designing mobile learning environments. In D. Churchill, J. Lu, T. Chiu, & B. Fox (Eds.), Mobile learning design: Theories and applications (pp. 3–25). Singapore: Springer.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 1–17.
Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H.-J., Chen, W., & Wong, L.-H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169.