Central Arguments:
“Connected learning is realized when a young person pursues a personal interest or passion with the support of friends and caring adults, and is in turn able to link this learning and interest to academic achievement, career possibilities, or civic engagement.” (p. 5) When I read this, all that I could think about was what an articulate way to say what I have been thinking about throughout this course. This course has pushed me to think even more outside the box than usual and to consider the importance of a learners’ interests and passions and about how learners have agency. The concept of connected learning appears to fuse the two main ideas of what I think are important for education – students’ interests/knowledge and student engagement in classrooms – together. Connected learning in a basic format is how youth pursue a personal interest or passion outside of the school setting with other peers or learners and that this outside learning connects to their academic achievement, civic engagement, and career possibilities. What I understood is that connected learning attempts to provide a space for students to bring their learning from the “outside” world into the classroom. The report outlines the connected framework as having three main components: peer-supported, interest-powered, and academically-oriented. The combination of these three components should encourage a sense of purpose and participation for students. An important note though is that connected learning is not meant to simply improve individual education outcomes, but instead focuses on building communities and collective capacities for learning and opportunity (p. 8). In a way, this idea of a collective space is very similar to makerspaces that we discussed last week and that they are meant to be a social learning space. Additionally, the report emphasizes that “[c]onnected learning centers on an equity agenda of deploying new media to reach and enable youth who otherwise lack access to opportunity” (p. 8). However, with every great idea there are challenges. The report states that despite the incredible opportunities available through connected learning, many parents, educators, and policymakers see new media as a distraction (p. 6). I would even go so far as to say that some see new media as a waste of time and as something that does not add value to the classroom at all. This certainly poses a challenge when some students crave these connected learning experiences in order to be engaged and successful in school (whether or not students know that it is connected learning is perhaps another story). Another challenge that is discussed is how this new media and connected learning tends to occur with educationally privileged youth. Critical Response and Take Away Points: One idea that I thought was extremely relevant to the course and especially to last week’s readings with Ratto about the process of critical making was the following statement: Instead, we need an approach to educational reform that recognizes learning as an ongoing process, connected to a diverse and evolving ecosystem of learning resources, institutions, communities, and outcomes (Freire, 1970). (14) I appreciate that the report acknowledges how learning is an ongoing process and I think that this idea is particularly important when thinking about new media as there is always something more to learn, ways that you can make your content/process better, and endless possibilities with tools and resources. Additionally, as I discussed last week, I think that this emphasis on the process rather than the result at the end is interesting and important to discuss. As Ratto says, the process of sharing the results and the ongoing analysis is important and I believe that connected learning has these elements as well. Specifically, connected learning definitely has sharing embedded within it as discussed with the framework, but I also think that ongoing analysis is present as well because learners are constantly trying to improve. As the first case study points out, Clarissa a 17 year old interested in fantasy writing, says that the online forum provided a place for herself and her peers to review each other’s work (p. 10). The other main take away point that I wanted to emphasize here was that connected learning is not only for youth or for students. An article that I read this week titled Makerspaces: A Tool that Can Transform Learning (click here if you want to read it) brought up the idea that it is important for teachers to be a part of the learning process, either in the “outside” world or with students in the classroom. Something that I have taken away from this course and especially from the readings, is that teachers should continue to be actively involved in the learning process for a variety of reasons including:
I think that the emphasis on students’ interests and passions has endless possibilities for the classroom and that this emphasis also has the ability to encourage students to be more interested in the process rather than the result. Because, as Kurt suggests, there is something there with “the creative surprise of unexpected accomplishment, and a related sense/sensation of mastery” that can make it more powerful than the grade. Thus, maybe as teachers we should focus on how can to encourage the experience of accomplishment and trying to create spaces for this through deep learning, connected learning, and critical making rather than trying to “fix” the grade problem. Key Quotes: Connected learning addresses the gap between in-school and out-of-school learning, intergenerational disconnects, and new equity gaps arising from the privatization of learning. In doing so, connected learning taps the opportunities provided by digital media to more easily link home, school, community and peer contexts of learning; support peer and intergenerational connections based on shared interests; and create more connections with non-dominant youth, drawing from capacities of diverse communities (p. 4) …learning that is socially embedded, interest-driven, and oriented toward educational, economic, or political opportunity (p. 5) Connected learning recognizes a tension between current approaches to education and the world that youth will inherit. (14) Instead, we need an approach to educational reform that recognizes learning as an ongoing process, connected to a diverse and evolving ecosystem of learning resources, institutions, communities, and outcomes (Freire, 1970). (14) The disconnect between classroom learning and the everyday lives and interests of many young people is not new. (30) Unlike many approaches to educational technology, however, connected learning is defined not by particular technologies, techniques, or institutional context but by a set of values, an orientation to social change, and a philosophy of learning. (33)
0 Comments
This week’s readings focused on a topic that I am unfamiliar with (at least in terms of the formal name), critical making. These articles explored the definition and value of critical making, provided some examples of critical making, and also offered some critical/alternative perspective about critical making. Central Arguments: Ratto’s article provides a comprehensive overview of critical making by exploring the connections to similar modes of material/conceptual engagement, critical making as a research and pedagogical strategy, and by exploring how critical making provides an addition to current and future possibilities with technologies. I thought that one of the most intriguing parts about this article was his subtle questions directed to the reader. For instance, in the beginning of the article he subtly asks a deep philosophical problem which is: are technologies inhibiting or liberalizing? (p. 252). Although I don’t have a set position or answer for this question, it was interesting to think about, particularly in the context of critical making. Another element that I enjoyed from this article was the author’s explicit emphasis on how making something is not the actual goal, but instead the process of sharing the results and the ongoing analysis (p. 253). In other words, the process is just as, or perhaps more important than the actual result. I thought this was a great point to make because it is something that I don’t think is necessarily said or appreciated in the education system. Obviously, there are many factors for why the product (i.e. a grade or a prize) is valued more than the process and I think that this is (and will continue to be) a difficult barrier to change. However, I am interested in how educators can encourage students to become more interested with how the process of troubleshooting, sharing, and analysing collaboratively is valuable instead of merely the end goal. One final idea that struck me from Ratto’s article was how individual investment is a necessary requirement for critical making (p. 254). If this component is absent, it makes it difficult for individuals to feel like what they are doing is important. Relatedly, he also suggests that critical making allows for people to infuse their personal experiences into these technologies and products. Ratto’s article puts forth ideas of how the individual is important for the process of critical making, but also the actual process of critical making is important. Pinto’s article offers an exploration of the progression of the makerspaces movement. Specifically, Pinto focuses on finding ways to ‘do’ technology, that is to create and critically make with technology, without corporate involvement. Pinto also emphasizes how this movement was meant to emphasize collaboration and be social learning, not individual learning (p. 36). Interestingly, Pinto says that makerspaces have been transformed so that instead of merely trying to engage individuals and groups with critical making, it is now also about how to engage students with particular subjects (STEM) and that there has been a commercial turn to this movement that is concerning. For instance, there are user fees and membership costs as well as some makerspaces that are clearly advertised for for-profit interests. I tend to agree with Pinto’s concern that the corporate or commercial interests are concerning because if there is a company trying to capitalize on these creative spaces, what happens to the creativity? Do these corporate interests end up influencing critical making or makerspaces more than they should? Additionally, Pinto mentions how makerspace should be devoid of this idea that someone else is an ‘expert’ and that others are learners and receivers of information. Pinto suggests that everyone should be fully participating in these makerspaces, particularly as a way to give students and individuals meaningful agency (p. 37). I think this is an important point to make because sometimes teachers feel that they need to share all their knowledge with students instead of letting students explore on their own. Wark offers a more critical stance on critical making, suggesting that “it’s not really about making things”, it’s more about postproduction art because the stuff has already been made and you are simply putting it together (p. 297). It seems that Wark is concerned about how this critical making is merely an amateur type culture, an imitation of actual critical making, and that this is not beneficial in the same sense as actual critical making. Specifically, he says that it’s not about the actual labour processes, instead it focuses on basic concepts and not actually knowing or understanding how things are made. Critical Response and Take Away Points: While I have interspersed some of my responses to the readings throughout the central arguments, I will highlight a few points that I want to keep in mind moving forward. I am interested in this idea that the individual or student in education wants to feel invested in critical making. I think that this is an important point as we hear from both educators and students that they want a curriculum that is more relatable. People want to feel that what they are doing is important, valuable, but more importantly I think, that they can clearly see how it is important or ways that they can be interested in the process and/or outcome. Something else that I had honestly not thought about before reading these articles, was the corporate component of these makerspaces. I am not sure why I hadn’t thought about it, but it is another component to keep in mind. Companies want to capitalize on this wave of how (sometimes expensive) products are being bought in larger quantities and being accessed by more individuals than they might normally be. Additionally, I thought that the criticism of how big box stores like Home Depot offering DIY workshops was interesting because it speaks to that idea of having the teacher as the expert and the others in the workshop as learners. So, while this appears to be a makerspace, it is moreso what Wark says is postproduction art with following directions. It is important to try to encourage spaces and situations where students are actually critical making and not simply putting things together that are premade and/or making things from a set of directions. Finally, it is important to keep in mind the purpose of makerspaces with collaboration and play and that sometimes the product is less important in comparison to the process. I am specifically interested with how we can maybe try to encourage students to see the value in the process. It is the classic sayings from students, “is this for marks?” or “what do I have to do to be done this assignment”?” or “what do I have to do to get an A?” in particular that I am thinking about. There is this value that is placed on the end so I am curious how educators have countered this. Or, in order to counter these ideas do we need a change in our overall thinking in the education system? Key Quotes: the maker movement emphasized collaboration for social learning (Pinto p. 36) To fulfil its collective and democratic ethos, the critical makerspace must engage the learner as a whole person who fully participates, not a passive received of official knowledge held by the ‘teacher’ (Pinto p. 38) It’s about an amateur culture and teaching culture that nibbles around the edges of a world that is made elsewhere. (Wark p. 297) However true this might be, our sense is that this issue is related to a deeper disconnect between conceptual understandings of technological objects and our material experiences with them. (Ratto p. 253) My second and related insight was that individual investment in the object of construction was a key component in critical making. (Ratto p. 254) Central Arguments: This week’s articles focus on the interaction between gender and technology. While Jenson and de Castell explore gender in relation to gaming culture and the gaming industry, Bray focuses on some of the historical and theoretical understandings associated with gender and technology. Jenson and de Castell explore feminist/s frameworks and approaches in order to offer possibilities for how they might be applied to games scholars and game makers. Related to feminist frameworks and approaches, they spend a large portion of their paper explaining and exploring the Feminist in Games (FiG) feminist alliance. They reveal that FiG is a way to “’speak up’ against a pervasively misogynist games industry and culture” since the industry is largely male dominated (Jenson and de Castell, 2016, p. 189). Moreover, their goal was to create conditions for women to participate in the industry more equitably – as both consumers and producers, especially because of the industry’s growing social, cultural, and economic importance (Jenson and de Castell, 2016, p. 190). Similarly, Bray focuses on exploring how gender and technology have been connected historically and explores conceptual frameworks in anthropology of technology for understanding gender-technology relations. Bray explores some of the ways that technology has been thought of in relation to gender, specifically with ideas around some of the power dynamics and underlying assumptions. Connections: We have already talked (and read) in this class a little bit about the differences between males and females and their interactions with technology, specifically when we read Jenson and Droumeva’s article about boys and girls interactions and learning with game making in the classroom. In this study, they found that “neither girls nor boys reported any social stigma for ‘being good with computers’” (2016, p. 118), but when reading the articles for this week, it is clear that something changes after Grade 6. As Jenson and de Castell point out, women are significantly underrepresented in the games industry, specifically with the design and development of mainstream games (2016, p. 187). Critical Response and Take Away Points: I am extremely curious if this trend of an underrepresentation of women in the gaming industry will change in the upcoming years. I am extremely interested in gender roles/ideologies and how they have impacted careers, the workplace, and society and I think that other careers such as nursing and teaching have something to offer to this conundrum. Specifically, careers in healthcare (such as nurses) and in educational services (such as teaching) have been female dominated and I wonder if the gaming industry is an example of this, but from the flip side of male dominated. I wonder if because of how these careers and industries have been historically represented, that the gaming industry (and technology in general as Bray points out) will be difficult to undo/change just as other careers have been. For instance, there are only approximately 17% are males working in health care and social assistance and only 32.8% are males working in educational services (Statistics Canada, 2016). Even after years of gender roles being challenged and after it being more widely accepted for genders to pursue any career, there is still this large gap what have been traditionally deemed as female careers. I do not want to be completely pessimistic because I do think that there is room for change and that we can encourage and support females in this male dominated industry (and vice versa with other career paths for males). But, there is something to be said about how ideologies have continued in other industries and it provides insight for how, somehow, the gaming industry has been thought of as a male career. I think that when we are approaching gender and technology or gender and careers/industries, we need to take a look at the bigger picture historically, as Bray and Jenson and de Castell point out in their articles. I encourage educators and the education system to try to encourage all genders to embark in any career, but I think that before true change can occur, we still have this huge underlying (and perhaps even, overt) problem of this dominant ideology that is interwoven into how people think about gender and careers. Key Quotes: Our aim was to help create the conditions for more equitable participation of women, both as consumers and as producers, in an industry that has gained increasing social, cultural and economic importance for 21st century work, education, communication and play, not only in Canada, but globally. (Jenson and de Castell, 2016, p. 190) There are, of course deep historical roots to this contemporary problem, which extend back to preliteracy (Jenson and de Castell, 2016, p. 188) One fundamental way in which gender is expressed in any society is through technology (Bray, 2007, 38) In the contemporary world, or at any rate in the Western nations which pioneered industrialization and have thus been able for so long to dominate worldwide production of material and intellectual goods, services, and desires, technology is firmly coded male. (Bray, 2007, 38) |
Kayla BGraduate student at York University. Archives |