I thought about changing my title to context, context and context. The idea of bringing aspects of life outside of school as informal learning into more formal school settings using new media and then using it to enrich the curriculum then pushing it back out into the wider world as Pachler (2010) indicates on page 75, in explaining outside-in, inside out in this context the has merit. The concern would be how mobile devices play a role in that undertaking. Many of the programs outlined in the various articles highlight the successes of past projects when looking at mobile applications. However, mobile devices should not be seen a panacea in learning but a part of the greater whole in utilizing new media as articulated by all the articles in one way or another.
One of the concerns would be the variations with respect to the digital divide. Yardi and Bruckman (2012) focus on the high and low SES provided a different context in looking at the digital divide. The challenges outlined on page 3045, of low SES families while sharing devices also allowed them to monitor their children’s on line behaviors. What made it more impactful to me was that the focus on responsibility. Once their children had a method of paying for their devices, by getting jobs, the oversight was much less but the focus for low SES parents was on the financial costs associated with devices. In contrast the high SES parents bought the devices and were more concerned about excessive use of their devices, Yardi and Bruckman (2012) pages 3046-3047.
English is associated as a power language in the Indian subcontinent and those who have access to the resources are more likely to get jobs in preferred careers Traxler (2013) page 133. McKay (2005) page 188, also talks about “media rich and media poor” with respect to the divide ‘ITC haves’ and ‘ITC have nots” in the global perspective. This is also expressed in the article by Traxler (2013) page 134, where in Bangladesh the families feel that learning English is “essential to securing a good job”. For those making or living off of just a few dollars a day the service, even with a 75% reduction, can be assumed that the costs is beyond the means of most further widening the economic aspects of the divide.
Additional variants of the divide can be seen in McKay (2005) page 188, the authors also highlighted the differences between the sexes while using new media, page 189. Another variation by Traxler (2013) page 137, in addition to exploring the more traditional forms of the divide, as stated above, the author also examines the digital divide in another light altogether. Given the rural nature of some of the more isolated peoples on the African continent and given the preponderance of English speaking countries being in the m-learning forefront there are concerns about the possible loss of language as well as culture.
These article reinforces what we read about the digital divide in last week’s article by Warschauer (2010) page193. There is not just one aspect of the divide based on socioeconomic reasons but a variety of thoughts based on a variety of factors. This make me wonder about the impact of English based systems. In the development of computer systems the vast majority were based on the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) and American English was the focus of keyboards, code, manuals etc. can this also be a reason for the statistics shown in last week reading on non-native speakers (page 183 Warschauer 2010)?
Kukulska-Hulme (2009) pages 2-7, had some interesting information on the various mobile learning projects conducted over some time in Europe. The variety of the projects and their focuses shows that there is still much to learn in the implementation of successful mobile learning. What did they learn from these projects? The authors state it on page 9 and summarize it again on page 16. “Context has been identified as a central construct in mobile learning developments, guiding projects to use mobile technologies to help connect learning across contexts and life transitions, and to form bridges between formal and informal learning”.
In Pachler’s (2010) article, page 92, the author talked about the use of texting as a modern version of love poems, I really can’t see the parallel between Ella Wheeler Wilcox’s “I Love You” and the text “IWSN”. Having said that, I do agree that in the context of an “intimate personal relationship” texting short hand can be a useful common practice.
When considering the use of texting, page 90, I disagree with Crystal and the author. I think most people’s true concern is not “a fear of a new generation gaining control of what they see as their language.” but more from a concern on the young being able to distinguish between appropriate use of texting in the right context.
When Barack Obama gave his first State of the Union address, the news media talked about how some Representatives like Earl Blumenauer used their twitter accounts to commentate on the event. These representatives were using texting in the proper context to the situation and the context of the medium they were using it on. (A small segment of “journalists” were more surprised by someone as old as Blumenauer knowing how to text, but that’s a different discussion on youth bias).
I can appreciate spelling reforms, I thank god for spellcheck every day, as well as the evolution of language to economize, because when was the last time someone spoke like the characters in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales? Having said that, the concern is how texting and over economizing can possibly bleed into other aspects of student communication as well as the ability to articulate in detail, not about the loss of control of language. This concern is further compounded by the “traditional” media labeling the younger generation as the “N-Gen” McKay (2005) page 185, and defining for their traditional users the strength and weaknesses (as they see them) of this generation.
Just as the book by Rudolf Flesch Johnny Can’t Read had an influence on perception and changes in how reading would be taught, so too does the way in which the media presents these somewhat anecdotal findings. As sited in the rest of the article it all comes down to context whether it’s how the context of new media is being used or the context in which it is used to shape opinion. Or maybe I’m taking it all out of context.
Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2012). Income, race, and class . . . in technology use. (pages 3041 through 3050).
Pachler, N., et al. (2010). Mobile devices as resources for learning. (pages 73 through 93).
Kukulska-Hulme, A., et al. (2009). Innovation in mobile learning. (pages 13 through 35).
Traxler, J. M. (2013). Mobile learning . . . . distance, digital divides, disadvantage, disenfranchisement (pages 129 – 141).
Mckay, S., et al.. (2005). Wired whizzes or techno-slaves? (pages 185 through 203).
Steve, I am interested in the the digital divide as well with regard to ownership of devices between high and low SES. As I posted, I think libraries are alleviating some of these gaps in regards to laptop or Internet use. However if students do not own a device, they are unable to explore the technology at home. This is a disadvantage and does often work against low SES students use of outside-in, inside out knowledge. Data from the Pew Research Center showed that most of the citizenry in emerging countries do own a cellphone. The young, educated, and English language speakers are more likely to own smartphones. This trend shows that there is progress globally, albeit somewhat slower than we may wish.
As you state, context is a central construct and created by people in their environment. However, if context is removed, then educators need to establish their own temporary islands of context (Kukulska-Hulme, et al, 2009). As discussed in Kukulska-Hulme (2009), the researchers found that in order to support learning across various-contexts, a combination of mobile and fixed technology are able to best enhance the learning experience. This combination of technology and educational instruction will support learning experiences that cross spatial, temporal and conceptual boundaries.
References:
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Innovation in mobile learning: A European perspective. International Journal of Mobile and Blending Learning, 1(1), 13-35.
Pew Research Center, (March 19, 2015a). Internet seen as positive influence on education but negative on morality in emerging and developing nations. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/03/19/1-communications-technology-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/
Hi Steve,
It’s funny that you mention the Canterbury tales. That’s exactly the kind of societal introspection we seem to engage in when looking at outle own evolution in real time, especially as it applies to tech. Perhaps that’s because the evolution is so rapid as to be almost untrackable.
I liked the thoughts in the tech divide across different segments of society, and I thought about two things when reading your thoughts on this. First, I noted that in I think it was Pachler, the author states that girls, especially teen girls, tend to use their mobiles for social media and boys tend to play more games. How archetypal! Aren’t we always taught that girls are more collaborative and social and boys are more competitive? What’s interesting, and something I’d connected from Renee’s post, was that learning can occur in so many different contexts. We have yet to really harness social media for learning on a large scale (present circumstances excepted; this is not really a large scale) or to vet or refine efforts to educate through social media. Anyone can write a post, anyone can spin data to make their case, but “education” in the context of social media today more than likely means propaganda and advertisement than actual education.
Additionally, we really have yet to harness the power of games. It seems to me that if we could harness the draw of FarmVille or Candy Crush to teach actually useful skills, we’d have a very powerful tool to engage and mobilize students. But we haven’t really done it on any appreciable scale, and what has been done is very simplistic and not really well developed.
All in all, though, it seems to me that the great leveler will be mobile tech, because of its ubiquity and low cost. Focusing on that seems like the next natural step in this tech evolution. As much as people try to direct this evolution, it honestly seems to direct itself, and does so at breakneck speeds!