One of my favorite ideas from this week’s readings came from Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) when they were discussing outcomes. They referenced Chris Dede’s (1995) “fire” metaphor on information technology, “Just as a fire radiates heat, many people expect a computer to radiate learning. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Rather, as Dede noted, ‘information technologies are more like clothes; to get a benefit, you must make them a part of your personal space, tailored to your needs’ (p. 10)” (p. 201). This is a powerful example of how educators, policymakers, and the general public should view any technology for any purpose. The big question is how do we instill a sense of passion or initiative in learners to take technology and really make it their own. How in a sense, can we add “interest-driven” learning to information technology.

Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) reference Ito’s two primary categories of online practices, “ ‘interest-driven’ and ‘friendship-driven’ ” (p. 192). These online practices are broken down into three genres of participation by Ito and her colleagues (2010), “hanging out, messing around, and geeking out”. Warschauer and Matuchniak briefly discuss these genres of participation, but do not label them as such. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) note that “the majority of youth do not move beyond friendship-driven activities, but the more creative and adventurous venture into interest-driven genres” (p. 192). This is also backed up by Sharples (2013) when he discusses self-directed language learning under personal and informal mobile learning, “these were motivated, advanced learners, who were willing actively to define their own language needs and to select resources, tools and communication methods that would help them.”

I’m currently taking INSYS 549 with Dr. Ty Hollet, Digital Media and Learning. We are currently looking at learning ecologies, interest-driven and friendship-driven learning, participatory cultures (Jenkins), and much more. So as you can see, there is a huge overlap which is really interesting. I think a great way to challenge mobile learning is to look at it through connected learning.

Credit: Connected Learning Research Network and Digital Media & Learning Research Hub

In a nutshell, connected learning looks to combine three spheres of learning: academic, peer culture, and interests. It is supported by and centers around three core properties: production centered, shared purposed, and openly networked. This is an extremely brief overview of connected learning, but I included a great image of connected learning as well as linked to a great DML report that covers this concept in-depth.

I was also really drawn to the idea of “seamless learning” by Sharples (2013). “Seamless learning implies that students can learn whenever they are curious, using personal devices and embedded learning technology to store, share and recall contextualized knowledge, creating an experience of continuity and the ability to switch rapidly from one learning project to another.” This whole definition is great and I feel like I could pick it apart for hours, but I want to focus on the latter ― “the ability to switch rapidly from one learning project to another”. This aligns with one of Jenkins’ (2009) “new media literacies” ― “multitasking, or the ability to scan the environment and shift focus onto salient details” (p. 61). He uses a fascinating metaphor of hunters and farmers to describe the shift in the need for multitasking (as a new media literacy) as our society “transition[s] from an industrial to an informational economy” (Warschauer and Matuchniak, 2010, p. 179).

“Historically, we might have distinguished between the skills required of farmers and those expected of hunters. The farmer must complete a sequence of tasks that require localized attention; the hunter must scan a complex landscape in search of signs and cues of where prey may be hiding. For centuries, schools have been designed to create “farmers.” In such an organization, the ideal is for all students to focus on one thing; indeed, attention is conceived of as the ability to concentrate on one thing for an extended period of time, while the inability or refusal to maintain such a narrow focus is characterized as a “disorder.” Yet, fixed attention would be maladjusted to the needs of hunters, who must search high and low for their game. Schools adapted to the needs of “hunters” would have very different practices and might well value the ability to identify the relationship between seemingly unrelated developments within a complex visual field. As we look to the future, one possibility is that schools will be designed to support both styles, ensuring that each child develops multiple modes of learning and multiple strategies for processing information. In such a world, neither attentional style is viewed as superior, but both are assessed in terms of their relative value within a given context” (Jenkins, 2009, p. 63).

I had a hard time with the Pea and Moldonado piece. I felt as if I open up a time capsule that was buried in the ground for over ten years. This article was published a year before the iPhone was released to the public, which in my opinion, is a HUGE game changer. The authors talked about “data synchronization across computers” (2006, p. 432), which today is basically common ground with cloud computing. Jump drives are soon going to be obsolete because of cloud services. One of the eight features that Pea and Maldonado (2006) contributed to “the rise in hand-held use within schools and beyond” (p. 428) is a “stylus driven interface” (p. 428). Up until a few days ago (thanks Apple…), I thought these little guys were toast. I feel as if this feature could now be replaced with “touch screen interfaces”.

References

Dede, C. (1995). Testimony to the US Congress, House of Representatives, Joint hearing on educational technology in the 21st century. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/SS_research/cdpapers/congrpdf.htm

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., & Herr, B. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, geeking out: Living and learning with new media. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. MIT Press.

Pea, R. D., & Moldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere. (Chapter 25).

Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: research, practice and challenges. Distance Education in China, 3(5), 5-11.

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds. (pages 179 through 225).