InternatIonal Journal of MobIle and blended learnIng

This article proposes appropriation as the key for the recognition of mobile devices — as well as the artefacts accessed through, and produced with them — as cultural resources across different cultural practices of use, in everyday life and formal education. The article analyses the interrelationship of users of mobile devices with the structures, agency and practices of, and in relation to what the authors call the “mobile complex”. Two examples are presented and some curricular options for the assimilation of mobile devices into settings of formal learning are discussed. Also, a typology of appropriation is presented that serves as an explanatory, analytical frame and starting point for a discussion about attendant issues. DOI: 10.4018/jmbl.2010010101 2 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(1), 1-21, January-March 2010 Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. for formal education as everyday life is socially structured by entertainment, mass communication, fashion, milieus, marketing, information transfer etc. Unsurprisingly, for the student the N91 is primarily a cool lifestyle resource and not a resource for learning. We posit that if educators recognize the learning with and around mobile devices within the context of everyday life, mobile devices could become a meaningful link between learning in formal contexts such as school and universities and learning in the informal context of everyday life. Traditionally school, college and higher education (we use these terms interchangeably to indicate formal sites of learning and teaching) have been viewed as being quite separate culturally to the ‘mobile complex’. By mobile complex we mean the transformation of the world around us, which is increasingly marked by fluidity, provisionality and instability, where responsibilities for meaning-making as well as other risk-taking have been transferred from the state and its institutions to the individual, who has become a consumer of services provided by a global market. We are also witnessing considerable changes in the consumption and production as well as current characteristics of the media landscape, such as participation, distribution, local and global content, ubiquity and multimodality. Against this background, are attempts to confine societally valorized learning into dedicated sites still appropriate and valid? From our cultural perspective, this division is increasingly artificial, even counterproductive. The gap between formal education and the mobile complex, we believe, can be overarched meaningfully by the process of appropriation. Mobile content and ‘mobile activities’ represent one possible pillar on which to rest a metaphorical bridge between the two. We know a lot about the appropriation of mobile phones by young learners (see Bachmair, 2007), but is it desirable to open formal education to these forms of appropriation, or is there a danger of them undermining traditional approaches to learning in formal contexts which are, after all, culturally important forms of appropriation and a considerable resource for social success? appropriation as Key Concept for mobile learning We see appropriation as a generic term for all processes of the internalization of the pre-given world of cultural products. It also covers learning across the breadth of learning in educational institutions, i.e. in formal contexts, and learning in everyday life, i.e. in informal settings. Learning in informal settings goes hand in hand with media use in everyday life. We see learning and media use as modes of appropriation. The main focus in our discussion of appropriation is on learning with mobile devices. The field of mobile devices is characterized by media convergence and comprises specific structures, agency and practices, which we summarize by the notion of the ‘mobile complex’. The growth in projects on learning with mobile devices internationally, and their seeming success, suggests that the stance of schools worldwide of preferably not allowing pupilowned mobile phones on the premises, and not considering them as valuable resources for learning, is likely to change sooner rather than later. It might be argued that we are not far away from achieving a critical mass of inexpensive, learner-owned devices that can provide access to learning. This raises the question what curricular functions could be delegated to them. The mobile phone does not fit neatly into the didactic tradition of audiovisual media for teaching and learning. In their ‘theory of learning for the mobile age’, Sharples, Taylor and Vavoula (2007) give good reasons why mobile media cannot just take over well-known curricular functions. They are just the tip of an iceberg that we call the mobile complex and they exist in a specific interrelationship with a social, cultural and economic world in transformation. Sharples et al. (2007) refer to the “dialectic relationship between learning and technology” (p. 231). With reference to Engeström’s Activity Theory (1996), they describe learning as a culturally framed practice of communication within the structures of a sociocultural system: “Learning occurs as a sociocultural system, within which many learners interact to create a collective International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(1), 1-21, January-March 2010 3 Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. activity framed by cultural constraints and historical practices” (p. 234). In our theoretical model, that of a sociocultural ecology (Pachler, Bachmair and Cook, 2010), we propose a view of school as cultural practices of teaching and learning into which the cultural practices of the use of mobile devices and their applications in everyday life need to be assimilated. We also view practices of learning in informal contexts as cultural practices. Because they take place outside the school, they are entangled with the structures of the mobile complex. Important for us is the fact that relevant structures come from mass communication. One such structure relates to the ongoing process of individualisation, which enhances the agency of users, e.g. through differences in their habitus of media use or their habitus of learning (see Kress & Pachler, 2007). Another agency aspect explores users’ competencies in media use. Sharples et al. (2007, p. 235) emphasize activities in which mobile devices are used for learning. In Sharples et al.’s terminology people appropriate the structures through their conversational activities. Referring to Waycott’s research from 2004, Sharples et al. explain appropriation in the following way: When faced with a new tool, people examine both the possibilities and the constraints it offers. This leads to a process in which the users adjust the ‘fit’ of their tools to their activities. Sometimes tools will cause their users to change their own behaviour to accommodate a feature or shortcoming in the tool; sometimes users will shape the tool to suit their specific requirements. Doing either of these things may initiate further changes as the users begin to exploit the technology, hence the dialectical nature of the process. The student comment at the beginning of this section is a verbal indicator of her appropriation of the mobile complex. Everyday life and the consumption of attractive commodities is the foreground of her appropriation. The mobile complex is reduced to consumption, which is, of course, not new in the context of media use. Other possible aspects of the mobile complex, e.g. the new relationship of public and private spheres in the context of mobile and individualized mass communication, are irrelevant for her. In Figure 1, we propose a model for mobile device users’ appropriative relationship with the mobile complex, which consists of three key components to be appropriated; structures, agency and cultural practices. If the appropriation of these components happens within the context of the school, we argue, it can lead to successful learning. We argue that this model works as an ecology because it brings mobile resources to the fore. We see the conversational activities of appropriation as being orientated towards the mobile complex as resources for learning as well as, of course, for other purposes such as entertainment. One of the readily visible resources of the mobile complex is the mobile devices themselves, the hardware and their software, applications and tools. It is easy to demonstrate the learning options of a mobile mini-computer, which smartphones ostensibly are. Not as visible are other mobile resources such as user-generated contexts. appropriation of Cultural Products, Child development and learning As noted above, our line of argument builds on a well-established school of theoretical thought even if traditionally the concept of appropriation is not directly linked to the discussion of resources. Appropriation is a key concept of modern pedagogy. In the emerging modern industrial society in German pedagogic theory ‘appropriation’ had a crucial function in linking curriculum with child development. In particular, Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1767-1835) leading idea was based on child development through the appropriation of cultural products. Apart from the term ‘appropriation’ (German: ‘Aneignung’), which is still in use, the termi4 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(1), 1-21, January-March 2010 Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. nology of the time was rather different: terms such as ‘Bildung’ (formation) or ‘manifestations of the human spirit’ were used instead of the more modern term ‘cultural products’. Children develop their inner capacities by internalizing cultural products. For education and learning the notion of children internalising what the parental generation has produced, e.g. objectified knowledge, was essential. Today’s terminology of the field of Cultural Studies operates with the term ‘cultural products’, which covers objectified knowledge as well as media. Smartphone such as the N91 are cultural products within the mobile complex and a prerequisite for internalisation. Appropriation of such a smartphone includes the interrelationship of hardware, structures of the mobile complex and its internalisation within cultural practices. User-generated contexts are also cultural products, which result from the appropriation of media convergence. These contexts exist in objectified form, for example, as a homework community on YouTube. The mobile videos function as cultural products, which can be appropriated by others through internet usage. The notion of appropriation was also used by Vygotsky, albeit at a rather different stage of technological and social transformation of society, namely in a period of industrialization in the early part of the 20th century. Then models of conditioning were dominant. In the cultural and social frame of the 1920s and 30s Vygotsky defined the characteristics of human development in contrast to a development based on the instrumental conditioning of reflexes or on the extension of the body by tools for mastering nature (Vygotsky, 1978/1930, p. 19 ff.). According to Vygotsky, ‘higher psychological processes’ result from a relationship “between human beings and their environment, both physical and social” (p. 19). In today’s terminology, these “higher psychological processes” are probably best thought of as ‘culturally defined activities’ and ‘meaning-making’. Vygotsky considered social interactions, such as speaking, as transformation of practical activities, such as tool use. Through such processes of transformation, children can be seen to appropriate complex action modes in context (Vygotsky, 1986/1934, p. 146 ff.). Examples of these action modes in context are scientific concepts. The leading process here is the internalization, e.g. of the instrumental use of a tool: “An operation that initially represents an external activity is reconstructed and begins to occur internally” (Vygotsky, 1978/1930, p. 56 f.). Furthermore, the social situation of the external activity, such as the conditions for the use of tools, is internalized: “An interpersonal process is transformed into an intrapersonal one” Figure 1. Key components of a socio-cultural ecology of mobile learning International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(1), 1-21, January-March 2010 5 Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. (Vygotsky, 1978/1930, p. 57). These processes of internalization depend on the stage of children’s development: “The transformation of an interpersonal process into an intrapersonal one is the result of a long series of developmental events” (Vygotsky, 1978/1930, p. 57). Vygotsky (1978/1930, p. 57) summarizes this interrelationship of internalization and development as culturally depended: “The internalization of cultural forms of behaviour involves the reconstruction of psychological activities on the basis of sign operations”. We see the pedagogical challenge of today to lie in running with these ideas and transforming them in line with the cultural conditions of the early 21st century. This goes beyond simply updating the terminology used. Importantly, we see the challenge to lie in exploring child development in the context of the social, economic, cultural and technological transformations in the world. We summarize the results of these transformations using the notion of the mobile complex. The mobile complex results from the interdependence of structures, agency and practices (see Figure 1). The main task from the perspective of appropriation is to analyse the mobile complex in terms of its implications and options for learning. As we have noted above, all over the world schools have to date tended to ban mobile devices from their premises rather than viewing them as learning resources. The underlying intention has mostly been to try to guarantee traditional approaches to the appropriation of knowledge, which is legitimized by curricula. In our work on mobile learning and in this article we propose an alternative approach: we emphasise the importance of the cultural resources of the mobile complex, which are inextricably linked to mobile devices and the artefacts produced with, and accessed through them within a socio-cultural ecology. The following section attempts a very short outline of the issue of mobile resources and their appropriation followed by a section in which we explore the complexity of appropriation in the context of the mobile complex and in which we attempt a typology of appropriation. Finally, we try to exemplify our model of ‘mobile appropriation’ by way of two examples. moBile learninG and the aPProPriation of moBile Cultural resourCes A narrow pedagogical analysis of mobile media, in our view, is an insufficient analytical frame, as is a narrow focus on the technological dimension of the recent trend towards ‘mobilisation’ through small and portable media. We believe that a broader, socio-cultural view is necessary (see also Conole, 2008). Instead of an emphasis on the transfer of content and information, we regard it as important to foreground processes of knowledge creation through conversation (see Sharples et al., 2007; Laurillard, 2007). Conversation is a situated social interaction in school as well as in everyday life that is inherent in the use of mobile devices. In this sense we extend the Vygotskian views presented above. But this educational engagement is also driven by the ongoing cultural changes, which lead us away from the traditional cultural practices of learning as defined in relation to classroom settings. Educationally, this development is discussed among others through the concepts of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1990) and collaborative knowledge building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2005). These learning activities have curricular relevance and we consider them as actual modes of appropriation. We draw on these perspectives in conceptualising learning as we agree both with the notion that learning, as it normally occurs, is a function of the activity, context and culture in which it occurs (situated learning) as well as with the importance of creating new cognitive artefacts as a result of common goals, group discussions, and synthesis of ideas (collaborative knowledge building). In addition, we also focus on how digital devices and media are mobilised to enhance the concept of meaning-making. Shifts in socialisation, viewed mainly as a process of ongoing individualisation and as a dynamic of the risk society (Beck, 1992), 6 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(1), 1-21, January-March 2010 Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. are supporting new characteristics of agency, especially individualised constructions of what ‘counts’ within socio-cultural milieus. Of particular relevance here in the context of the use of mobile devices is Beck’s notion of manufactured risk, on which he sees a significant level of human agency operating in terms of their production and mitigation and which he deems to have an impact on social relations, in particular as regards their uneven distribution in the population together with their attendant impact on the quality of life of users. This perspective, we feel, provides us with integrative and analytical ‘purchase’ on interrelated social structures and cultural practices. The concept of appropriation focuses on the processes learners engage in when using mobile media within existing or new cultural practices of everyday life or educational institutions. Here we encourage readers to think in terms of learners, rather than users. Central to our line of argument is the interrelationship between media use and meaning-making. Furthermore, the focus on socio-cultural practices attendant to the use of mobile phones is in our view central to a full understanding of the potential of mobile devices and ubiquitous mobile media for learning as meaning-making. As noted above, we see appropriation of mobile devices closely linked to learning with mobile devices. Learning for us is a process of meaning-making within social structures, cultural practices and agency. Agency manifests itself as the learner’s social and semiotic capacity, i.e. their ability to form relationships with others (mediated by technology) as well as to make meaning and develop representations of the world using a range of sign systems such as language or images. We find the definition by Sharples, Taylor and Vavoula (2007, p. 225) attractive, who view mobile learning as “the processes of coming to know through conversations across multiple contexts among people and personal interactive technologies”. However, we prefer to think of the processes of ‘coming to know’ to be located more broadly within communication which, we feel, rather than focussing more narrowly on the interpersonal, better captures the fact that meaning-making is bound up in economic, socio-cultural, technological and/or infrastructural systems including the mass media and technological networks/infrastructure. Our wider conceptual frame, which helps us analyse the appropriation of mobile devices namely that of an ecology, relies partly on Giddens’ structuration theory (Giddens, 1984). The key questions here pertain to the change of mass communication from a transmissionbased schedule model to an individualised model based on the circulation of content on demand within a wider system of media convergence. To this wider system belong very large content archives and ever-changing context for meaning-making. Within everyday life, mobile devices, especially the mobile phone, have become embedded and taken for granted by being appropriated as part of a process of individualised agency and within the practices of everyday life. Mobile phones emerged in everyday life, its conversations and contexts, but were not specifically orientated towards ‘knowing’ but, instead, to other forms and pursuits of meaning. In general, we view meaning-making as the theoretical and practical link between the everyday life use of mobile phones and learning as ‘coming to know’. Mobile phones can function as learning resources also within the cultural practices of educational institutions with their definitions of learning, although educational institutions, in particular schools, cannot be said to have quite accepted, let alone embraced this yet (see Hartnell-Young, 2008). Learning as process of meaning-making occurs through acts of conversation on the basis of a pre-given, objectified cultural world characterised by rapidly changing socio-cultural, mass communication and technological structures. All together the conversational activities within these structures form the appropriation of the mobile complex and its varieties of modes. One visible structural feature is the increasing prevalence of mobile media such as mobile phones, mini mobile PCs, iPods etc. Furthermore, as described in the introduction, appropriation allows us to conceptualize the International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(1), 1-21, January-March 2010 7 Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. bridge between the informal meaning-making and the objectified knowledge associated with the formal curriculum. We view them merely as different modes of appropriation. summary of Key aspects of the socio-Cultural ecological approach to mobile learning Within the context of our broader ecological theoretical framework, the following are key aspects of mobile learning. Situatedness of Learning Situatedness of learning is a very important facet for us, particularly in terms of pedagogical approaches around mobile devices. Learning depends on meaning, which cannot simply be transported by signs, images, words etc. Meaning is constituted by situations. User-/Learner-Generated Content and Contexts; Collaborative Knowledge Building The concept of active construction of content is an issue concerning the relationship of learners to the object of learning. Active construction of content does not depend on specific media, tools or applications, yet the multi-functionality of mobile devices, in particular the various modes of representation, offers particular affordances in relation to the production of content and the construction of knowledge. Invariably, the content thus created tends to be in the form of micro units. We see user-generated contexts as an important dimension of mobile device use within the context of the mobile complex. We follow Dourish (2004) who views context from an interactional perspective. He foregrounds human activities as being constitutive also for contexts in the world of technology and describes context as an emergent property of interactions. We also argue the need to recognise the ongoing convergence of media and representation through mobile devices as affecting the nature