| Socio-cultural ecology |
|
|
|
Print page  |

|
|
We see learning using mobile devices governed by a triangular relationship between
socio-cultural structures, cultural practices and the agency of media users / learners,
represented in the three domains. The interrelationship of these
three components: agency, the user's capacity to act on the world, cultural practices,
the routines users engage in their everyday lives, and the socio-cultural and
technological structures that govern their being in the world, we see as an ecology
which in turn manifests itself in the form of an emerging cultural transformation.
The diagram is deliberately non-hierarchical, i.e. it can be read
clockwise or anticlockwise and each one of the three branches of the concept map
can be read first. It seems important to us that none of the domains is dominant
over the other, and that their relative importance is determined by the specific
context in which the model is used.
Agency: young people can be seen increasingly to display a new habitus of learning
in which they constantly see their life-worlds framed both as a challenge and as an
environment and a potential resource for learning, in which their expertise is
individually appropriated in relation to personal definitions of relevance and in
which the world has become the curriculum populated by mobile device users in a
constant state of expectancy and contingency (Kress and Pachler, 2007);
Cultural practices: mobile devices are increasingly used for social interaction,
communication and sharing; learning is viewed as culturally situated meaningmaking
inside and outside of educational institutions and media use in everyday life
have achieved cultural significance;
Structures: young people increasingly live in a society of individualized risks, new
social stratifications, individualized mobile mass communication and highly complex
and proliferated technological infrastructure; their learning is significantly governed
by the curricular frames of educational institutions with specific approaches towards
the use of new cultural resources for learning. |
| |
| Responsive contexts |
|
|
|
Print page  |
|


|
|
We are currently witnessing a significant shift away from traditional forms of mass
communication and editorial push towards user-generated content and
individualised communication contexts. These structural changes to mass
communication also affect the agency of the user and their relationship with
traditional and new media. Indeed, we propose that users are now actively engaged
in shaping their own forms of individualised generation of contexts for learning.
New relationships between context and production are emerging in that mobile
devices not only enable the production of content but also of contexts. They position
the user in new relationships with space, the physical world, and place, social space.
Mobile devices enable and foster the broadening and breaking up of genres.
Citizens become content producers, who are part of an explosion of activity in the
area of user-generated content.
But, sceptics might ask, is there a direct relationship between user-generated
content and learning? Undoubtedly the link is currently still more obvious in certain
disciplines, such as music, media studies etc, than others. Yet, if not planned for,
failing to explore how educational institutions can cope with the more informal
communicative approaches to digital interactions that new generations of learners
possess, we argue, could lead to a schism between learning inside and outside of
formal educational settings. We see the notion of 'learner-generated' as a paradigm
shift where learning is viewed in categories of context and not content and as a
potential. Learning as a process of meaning-making occurs through acts of
communication, which take place within rapidly changing socio-cultural, mass
communication and technological structures that we have briefly outlined above. |
| |
|
Appropriation |
|
Print page  |
enlarge picture
|
|
The second key issue is how students appropriate mobile devices to set up specific
learning contexts for themselves. How do they generate contexts for learning?
Forming contexts with and through mobile devices outside of, as well as within
existing educational sites of learning, we consider to be a key feature of
appropriation. We see it related to the significant ongoing changes in terms of sociocultural
practices and approaches to learning. |
|
We define appropriation as the processes attendant to the development of personal
practices with mobile devices and we consider these processes in the main to be
interaction, assimilation and accommodation as well as change (Cook and Pachler,
2009; Pachler, Cook and Bachmair, 2010). Whilst clearly terminologically
linked, these are not the same as the development stages that are described in
Piaget's (1955) theory of development, which are sensorimotor, pre-operations,
concrete operations, and formal operations. However, our work is aligned with
Piaget's (1955) description of learning and perception as a constant effort to adapt
to the environment in terms of assimilation and accommodation. Thus, assimilation
in the context of learning means that a learner takes something unknown into her
existing cognitive structures, whereas accommodation refers to the changing of
cognitive structures to make sense of the environment. Furthermore, for us, the
context of appropriation is emergent and not predetermined by events; centrality is
placed on practice, which can be viewed as a learner's engagement with particular
settings, in which context becomes 'embodied interaction' (Dourish 2004).
We see appropriation as governed by the triangular relationship between agency,
practice and structures. This inter-relationship manifests itself as emerging cultural
transformations and appropriation provides a lens through which to view and
analyse these changes. Indeed, we suggest that media convergence, together with
the fluid socio-cultural structures of milieus and their respective habitus, lead to
modes of appropriation as the individualised generation of contexts for learning. The
spaces thus created differentiate everyday life into individually defined contexts as
well as overarch different and divergent cultural practices such as entertainment and
school-based learning. We envisage that at a foreseeable future point the sociocultural
developments described above will lead to a situation where there is no
longer a need for a differentiation between media for learning inside and outside
formal educational settings. Our notion of appropriation also provides a conceptual frame to understand the
growing gap between the literacy practices outside and inside formal educational
environments. By 'literacy practices' we refer here to the cultural techniques
involved in reading and producing artefacts to make sense of, and shape the sociocultural
world around us. The key point is that learners are evolving practices and
meanings in their embedded interactions, i.e. interactions embedded in cultural
artefacts that are found outside formal learning systems. A key challenge is to
support learning between and across contexts outside and inside of educational
institutions. To do this as educators, we need to make use of emerging cultural
transformations that mobile devices afford and bring about as well as of the
resultant cultural products that enable the individualised generation of content and
contexts for learning. |
| |
|
At-risk learners |
|
|
|
Print page  |
|
 |
|
Mobile and individualised mass communication has reached all social strata and
milieus. One educational challenge for the school is to deliberately identify the thematic
conversational threads of those milieus that are at a distance to the school.
There exists a real risk that some milieus are unable to benefit from the resources
society has to offer but which are essential for responsible and successful living in
modern, individualised life-worlds.
Mobile devices possess an inherent potential for cultural participation as they are
integrated into two main socio-cultural structures: media convergence and socialcultural
stratification. A complex expertise is necessary to be able to act within these
structures.
As a phenomenon of everyday life, the mobile complex is clearly segregated
from school but the school contributes important competences, among others the
ability to read and write. At the moment the school seems to deliberately seek a
segregation between itself and learners' life-worlds. Banning mobile devices from
school is an indicator for such deliberate segregation. Many young people, especially male adolescents with migrant backgrounds from the so-called hedonist milieu, do not have the intention
to match their life-world expertise to that required in school. Looking at internet
video platforms we can see that a lot of homework is produced by means of the
mobile phone (see e.g. http://de.youtube.com/group/MathTutor). This indicates the at-risk learners' personal, and the school's institutional practice of segregation is not the only
possibility.
To overcome the segregation of the mobile complex and the cultural practices of
schools, our proposal is to adjust school to the practices, agency and structures of
the mobile complex. We emphasise the proposed assimilative procedure
of docking the school onto responsive mobile und user-generated contexts. One
important reason for doing so is that these contexts work as 'zone of proximal development'
in a Vygotskian sense. Furthermore, the school can take up conversational
thematic threads, which are laid out by students in their personal media use. We try to identify conversational
threads of identity and expertise, which the school can take up in order to assimilate
the competences evidenced by the young man in the process of taking and uploading
the video into the school.
In our socio-cultural ecology, we define mobile devices as cultural resources in the hands of 'at-risk' learners. By 'at-risk' learners we mean young people who are underachieving in terms of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in the area of literacy, i.e.
reading and writing. We clearly do not infer any lack of intelligence or competence
but simply draw attention to the question of their resources not being validated by
school and society or them not wanting to utilise the resource valorised by society. |
| |
|