Today I uploaded the following text that I have written a couple of weeks ago already to our LMLG website (www.londonmobilelearning.net). The short piece is a result of my recent work on mobile learning. The pdf-file can be accessed here or as text-version below.
The following article is a follow up of my presentation given at a Mobile Media Seminar at the University of Aarhus (DK) in March 2008.
Seipold, Judith (2008): Mobile learning at the interface between formal and informal learning. Harnessing mobile phones and their modes of representation for curricular learning. Seminar Mobile Media, 10. März 2008, Aarhus Universitet, Centre for IT & Learning, Aarhus.
The article was written in English (not the best English) and translated into Danish. The Danish language version was published in 2010.
Seipold, Judith (2010): Kan brugen af mobiletelefoner i undervisningen styrke elev-centrerede læreprocesser? (Englischer Titel: Providing continuity for learner centred learning with mobile phones in schools). In: Bang, Joergen; Dalsgaard, Christian (Red.): Læring & Medier (LOM), Nr. 5: Læring i videnssamfundet. Om vidensformidling, videnskonstruktion og vidensdeling. ISSN 1903-248X. Online.
Als Mitglied der London Mobile Learning Group (LMLG) wurde ich gebeten, einen kurzen Beitrag zu den Aktivitäten und Zielen der LMLG zu erfassen. Da von der Redaktion letztlich jedoch ein anderer Schwerpunkt gewünscht wurde, habe ich beschlossen, den Artikel hier zu veröffentlichen:
In preparation for an online panel discussion – which finally didn’t take place – I collected a few headwords concerning “digital identities”. They are covered under the sections theoretical framework, phenomena from media use in everyday-life, and a few conclusions about identity and identity construction.
This will not be further elaborated at this place. More detailled exaplanations – especially regarding the two examples – can be found in Rummler, Seipold (forthcoming) und in Pachler et al. (2010).
Zur Vorbereitung auf eine online Panel-Diskussion, die allerdings nicht stattfand, habe ich ein paar Stichpunkte zu “Digital Identities” vorbereitet. Sie umfassen Literatur für den theoretischen Rahmen, zwei Phänomene aus dem Alltag und ein paar zusammenfassende Fazits zu Identität und Identitätskonstruktion.
An dieser Stelle bleibt das so und zunächst ohne weitere Ausarbeitung stehen. Detailliertere Ausführungen sind in den jeweiligen Referenzen zu finden, bezogen auf die beiden aufgeführten Phänomene insbesondere in Rummler, Seipold (forthcoming) und in Pachler et al. (2010).
Anthony Giddens (Giddens 1991)
Identity is constructed by the individual
Identity “is a person’s own reflexive understanding of their biography” (Gauntlett 2011b)
Continuity of identity is self-constructed (Gauntlett 2011b). In fact, identity is discontinuous and hypertexually linked.
Identity is wrapped in narrations.
Example of Cyrill can give evidence to: These narrations appear in the digital on-line world on different platforms and are pointing to different aspects of one’s identity.
Klaus Hurrelmann (2001)
Identity is constructed in the process of socialisation, i.e. “the productive procession of the inner and outer reality” (see Hurrelmann 2001)
John Potter (2011)
“concept of “curating the self” as an essential skill and disposition in lived culture” (Potter 2011, p. 53)
“multiple versions of the self are distributed across YouTube, Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and more” (Potter 2011, p. 54)
Ulrich Beck (Beck 1986)
Identity construction is taking decisions and choices and dealing with risks
Gerhard Schulze (Schulze 2000)
Erlebnisgesellschaft (event/fun oriented society)
The individual is eagerly keen to have fun, the construction of live is centred around this aim, and the subject/the individual in the centre of his or her experiences
Stuart Hall (Hall 1980)
“patterns of ‘preferred readings’” (Hall 1980, p. 134)
Phenomenon (an example) 1:
Cyrill (see Pachler, Bachmair, Cook 2010)
Example: A 17 years old with partly migration background has account on different online platforms. He produces videos and shows them on youtube, he has my space account and presents some artwork there, he is active on fora and gives advise concerning video processing software and digital video cameras and so on.
Results: By presenting his outputs and showing/talking about his skills, he represents himself as angry against the society, as vulnerable, as victim, as creative, as expert, as pupil, as teacher, as reflecting, as rich, as poor.
Results: He gives his appearance different directions. He and his identity appears to be made of contradictions and inconsistent.
Danger: He addresses different target groups on different platforms. The danger is that his audience judges him according to only one of the snippets of his digital identity. (On the other hand: This might be intended by the young man).
Meta: Instead of talking about online identity one should rather consider to talk about different facettes of the identity that find space and framing at different places – in the net and outside the net.
Meta: There is no “either – or” but only an “as well as”
Phenomenon (an example) 2:
Ringtones on mobile phones (Rummler, Seipold forthcoming)
Example: Music according to ones taste of music, soudns such as farts or belches, national anthems etc.
Results: By playing these sounds in the public give a glance at the mobile phone owner’s taste, or social or peer association and so on.
Danger: Fast labelling (according to ones preferred reading patterns) of people who show their music and/or social preferences and to impute the aim to provoce to them.
Meta: The use of specific ringtones is participation: participation in discourses
about what is right or wrong in public contexts (ethics)
about me belonging to a distinctive group of people instead of to belonging to the masses
about showing a part of my identity, and being proud of it
Identity is constructed in the process of socialisation
Identity is constructed self-responsible
Identity is constructed through appropriation
Identity is also a result of choices and decisions
Identity is constructed non-linear
Indentity and identity construction is always meaningful
Identity construction is never finished
Identity is distinctive
Identity can provoke
Identity is occasion to establish and to join discourses
Identity is the freedom to see things differently
Identity is made available to others as either linear or non-linear story/multimedia and multi modal constructs (media production)
Facettes of identities can be linked to discourses/ provoke discourses
People tend to be judged according to facettes of their identity
Beck, Ulrich (1986): Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Erstausgabe). Edition Suhrkamp: 1365 (Neue Folge Band 365). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch-Verl.
Gauntlett, David (2011a): Anthony Giddens. A brief introduction to Giddens’ general approach, plus more detail on his ideas about self, gender and identity in modern societies. Online: http://www.theory.org.uk/giddens.htm.
Last Monday, I gave a poster presentation entitled “MoLeaP – the mobile learning project database” at the “Mobile learning: Crossing boundaries in convergent environments” conference in Bremen (conference website).
This poster aims to introduce ‘MoLeaP – the mobile learning project database’, a service provided by the London Mobile Learning Group (LMLG; www.londonmobilelearning.net) via www.moleap.net. MoLeaP is a public and free-of-charge online database for education professionals interested in mobile learning practice underpinned by theory. Projects, applications, and resources can be submitted by users in order to make materials and experiences available to a broad audience and to encourage the implementation of mobile learning projects in different learning contexts, such as school/college/university, family, workplace, and/or everyday life to enhance the replicability of mobile learning projects, and to contribute to sustainability in teaching, learning and research on mobile learning. The database categories are based on a conceptual framework of a socio-cultural ecology of mobile learning and are derived from a methodological framework for the description and analysis of mobile learning practice.
mobile learning project database, replicability, transferability, socio-cultural ecology, methodology
Research on mobile learning is essentially related to the implementation of mobile learning projects in different contexts such as education or everyday life. Projects are characterized by different approaches to teaching and learning, locations and a broad variety of technologies; also, they are dealing with mobile technologies as topic or they support their use as learning and teaching tools. As the rapidly emerging field of mobile learning originates a tremendous amount of mobile learning projects, ‘MoLeaP – the mobile learning projects database’ is conceptualized as a resource and tool for people who are interested in mobile learning, especially in sharing their experiences and projects with others, or in learning from already existing projects. The database – which is based on the idea of collaborative knowledge building – aims to provide opportunities for the systematic gathering of practice,
to distribute knowledge which was gained within such projects in order to make practice less ephemeral,
to enable synergies,
to contribute to sustainability in teaching, learning and research, as well as
to enhance replicability of mobile learning projects.
Also, MoLeaP aims to provide a rich resource for mobile learning experiences in order to allow researchers and practitioners from all over the world easy access to projects and relevant resources. The categories for project description might assist practitioners in planning mobile learning projects and enhance dissemination, replicability, and transferability of projects by providing a common basis. It is hoped that the database will be able to support educators in the implementation of mobile media and mobile learning projects in any educational context and that it contributes to sustainability in teaching, learning, and research.
2. Theoretical and Methodological Background
The project database combines theory, research and application and aims to provide straightforward functionality on the basis of design principles derived from principled conceptual work (Seipold, Pachler, & Cook, 2009; Seipold & Pachler, 2010; Pachler, Bachmair, & Cook, 2010) in an attempt to facilitate the sharing of pedagogical practice. The categories, which are used to describe and analyze mobile learning projects, are based on the theoretical background of a socio-cultural ecology of learning with mobile devices (Pachler et al., 2010; Pachler, 2010). The socio-cultural ecology consist of the three key components: structures, agency and cultural practices and aims to describe mobile learning as a process within changing mass communication and thus changing appropriation mechanisms attendant to engagement in masse communication. As a consequence, the database is open to any projects with mobile media, irrespective of the notion of learning underpinning it and irrespective of the setting.
2.1 Categories for Project Descriptions
The theoretical work of the LMLG has led to a set of categories, which are intended to be applicable to projects taking place inside and outside of educational institutions; they provide the basis for the categories of MoLeaP. The structure of the database has been designed to be helpful to colleagues planning mobile learning projects by flagging key considerations to be attended to during the planning and evaluation phases, in addition to fostering shareability by providing a common ‘language’ (soft ontology) to talk about practice:
1. General project data:
language of the project description; project name; URL; country; year; project owner and copyright holder; contact; partners; project workers; language in which the project was conducted; types of mobile devices; further media; age of participants; number of learners involved; number of teachers involved; number of supporting staff; role of supporting staff; duration; location; location latitude & longitude (of the location where the project was conducted; for further implication in location-aware contexts); type of educational establishment; phase of education; subject domain; teaching/ learning focus; tags/ keywords; optional text field.
background information, i.e. how many persons; type of educational establishment; duration; devices used; technical support etc.; learning and teaching aims; and envisioned role of mobile devices.
3. Approaches to teaching and learning:
how are the devices used; key activities, key tasks, and key pedagogical/‘didactic’ issues.
4. Technologies and requirements:
interoperability, storage, usability etc.
5. Project outcomes.
6. Lessons learned/ issues emerging.
7. Recommendations and future possibilities.
8. Replicability and transferability.
9. Recommended literature and references (optional).
10. Project analysis (optional).
2.2 Categories for Project Analyses
The analysis framework might best be described as heuristic and hermeneutic with relevance for mobile learning in the context of a socio-cultural ecology, covered under meta-categories rather than a rigid analysis scheme. The analysis framework is open to examples from school contexts as well as to examples from everyday life. We opened the analysis to aspects of identity construction, and social inclusion/exclusion in order to be able to access the most evident issues of cases of mobile use from everyday life. Also here, the criteria for the analysis relate to key concepts of the theoretical framework of the LMLG of a socio-cultural ecology. As this framework deals with a number of theoretical concepts, which are not self-explanatory, contributors to MoLeaP are free to provide a project analysis that refers to the following categories:
1. Agency, structure, cultural practice:
e.g. new habitus and social segmentation; ‘at-risk learners’; literacy, traditional vs. new; understanding media as cultural resources; participation in cultural practices.
2. Approaches to teaching and learning:
e.g. informal/situated/collaborative/problem-based learning; bricolage; knowledge building; meaning-making.
3. Notions of mobility:
e.g. mobile device used as tool; mobile devices used in relation to meanings; mobility in contexts (place, time, concepts, social constellations, activities, curriculum, cultural resources, and meanings).
4. User-generated contents and contexts:
e.g. transformation of mass communication; mobility; learning as meaning-making in context; ubiquity, choice, appropriation; context crossing.
5. Replicability and transferability:
e.g. replicability and transferability of the ‘didaktik’ script, using it in a new context; scalability.
2.3 Categories for applications and resources
In order to address not only practitioners through project concepts but also people who are only interested in the use of single applications, or in references to literature and project websites, MoLeaP covers these aspects as well. The option to systematically submit references, e.g. to project websites, to the database makes project websites quotable and allows researchers to refer to such projects in texts by means of references. The categories for the submission of applications and resources differ from the project categories in order to meet the requirements for providing information about applications and resources.
The poster will show a short abstract, followed by an overview on aims, theory, project categories and analysis categories. Also, it will provide a short introduction to the features of the website.
Pachler, N. (2010). The Socio-Cultural Ecological Approach to Mobile Learning: An Overview. In B. Bachmair (Ed.), Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen. Die deutschsprachige und britische Diskussion (pp. 153–167). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile learning: structures, agency, practices. New York: Springer. Seipold, J., & Pachler, N. (2010). MoLeaP – The Mobile Learning Project Database: A Pool for Projects and Tool for Systematic Description and Analysis of Mobile Learning Practice. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 157–171. Retrieved from http://www.rcetj.org/index.php/rcetj/article/view/87/192.
Seipold, J., Pachler, N., & Cook, J. (2009). Towards a methodology of researching mobile learning. In N. Pachler & J. Seipold (Eds.), Mobile learning cultures across education, work and leisure. Book of abstracts. Proceedings of the 3rd WLE Mobile Learning Symposium, 27 March 2009 (pp. 121–128). London. Retrieved from http://www.londonmobilelearning.net/symposium/downloads/3rd_wle_mlearning_symposium_-_book_of_abstracts_single_page_display.pdf.
Seipold, J. & The London Mobile Learning Group (LMLG) (2008-2011). MoLeaP – The mobile learning project database/ MoLeaP – Die m-learning Projektdatenbank. Retrieved from http://www.moleap.net.
The London Mobile Learning Group (LMLG) (2007-2011). The London Mobile Learning Group (LMLG). Retrieved from http://www.londonmobilelearning.net.
Alle hier veröffentlichen Texte, die von Judith Seipold verfasst oder mitverfasst wurden, unterliegen Copyrightbedingungen, die unter http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/de/ nachzulesen sind (Namensnennung-NichtKommerziell-KeineBearbeitung 2.0 Deutschland (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)).
All texts authored or co-authored by Judith Seipold that are published here are licensed under the CC license CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. Details in English language are available via http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/.