New information technologies make information available just-in-time and on demand and are reshaping how we interact with information, but schools remain in a print-based culture, and a growing number of students are disaffiliating from traditional school. New methods of instruction are needed that are suited to the digital age.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
The purpose of this study is to explore how curricula that are designed to capitalize on the affordances of mobile media might be employed in schools.
Population/Participants/Subjects
The study took place during a 2-week unit in a poor urban school district with roughly 50 at-risk middle school students. The partnering teacher adapted the model curriculum, which involved students investigating a rash of illnesses originating from a popular local beach. This qualitative case study, derived from field notes, videotapes, interviews, and document analyses, describes the practices that emerged and the strengths and limitations of the curriculum. From a classroom management perspective, the narrative elements of the unit enabled teachers to create a dramatically different classroom culture, one that was built around students performing as scientists. Students’ performance was heavily dependent on the kinds of inscriptions that they made to organize data, suggesting the importance of designers developing tools to scaffold learning, but also suggesting trade-offs in having students struggle to organize information versus doing it for them. Most noteworthy to teachers was how the technology-enhanced curriculum enacted students’ identities as problem solvers and knowledge builders rather than as compliant consumers of information, reinforcing for them the schism between what is expected of students in school and how they interact outside of school. Teachers and students lamented the lack of opportunities to actually participate in community issues beyond the classroom, suggesting that the future of such curricula may reside in building community-school-home partnerships.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BainesG. K., & StanleyL. (2002).Celebrating mediocrity.Roeper Review, 25, 11–13.
2.
BarabS. A., HayK. E., & DuffyT.M. (1999).Grounded constructions and how technology can help.Tech Trends, 43(2), 15–23.
3.
BarabS. A., & SquireK. (2004).Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1–14.
4.
BaudrillardJ. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (GlaserS. F., Trans.) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
BeckJ., & WadeM.2004. Got game: How the gamer generation is reshaping business forever. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
6.
BednarA. K.CunninghamD.DuffyT. M., & PerryJ.D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In AnglinG. J. (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (pp. 100–112). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
7.
BransfordJ. D., BrownA. L., & CockingR.R. (1999). How people learn.Washington, DC: National Research Council.
8.
BransfordJ. D., & SchwartzD.L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In Iran-NejadA. & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–101). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
9.
BridgelandJ. M., DilulioJ.J., & MorisonK.B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from: http://www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/thesilentepidemic3-06.pdf
10.
BrownA. L., CampioneJ. C., WebberL. S., & McGillyK. (1992). Interactive learning environment: A new look at assessment and instruction. In GiffordB. & O'ConnorM.C. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction: Evaluation in education and human services (pp. 121–211). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
CobbP.StephanM.McClainK., & GravemeijerK. (2001).Participating in classroom mathematical practices.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113–163.
13.
Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993).Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisted.Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.
14.
CubanL. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
DavidsonD. (2005, May). Plotting the story and interactivity in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.Paper presented at the Media in Transition 4: The Work of Stories conference, Cambridge, MA. Available at: http://www.waxebb.com/writings/plotting.html
16.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003).Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
17.
FriedmanT. H. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
18.
Games, Learning & Society Group. (2007). Gaming as productive literacies. In GeeJ. P. (Ed.), Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy: New literacies and digital epistemologies (pp. 129–173). New York: Peter Lang. (Original work published 2005)
19.
GatesW. (2005). Remarks to the National Education Summit on High Schools, February 26. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://www.gatesfoundation.org
20.
GaydosM., & SquireK. (in press). Citizen science: Designing a game for the 21st century. In Van EckR. (Ed.), Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious games: Emerging concepts and future directions. Hershey, PA: IGI Press.
21.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/St. Martin's.
22.
GeeJ. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge.
23.
GeeJ. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy.New York: Peter Lang.
24.
GeeJ. P., HullG., & LankshearC. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
25.
GubaE. G., & LincolnY.S. (1983). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
HagelJ. H., & BrownJ.S. (2005). The only sustainable edge: Why business strategy depends on productive friction and dynamic specialization.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
JenkinsH. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press.
KirschnerP. A., SwellerJ., & ClarkR. E. (2006).Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
30.
KuhnD. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
LaurelB. (2004). Design research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
LeanderK., & LovvornJ. (2006).Literacy networks: Following the circulation of texts, bodies, and objects in the schooling and online gaming of one youth.Cognition and Instruction, 24, 291–340.
33.
LevinD., & ArafehS. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
LemkeJ. L. (2004). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In HandaC. (Ed.), Visual rhetoric in a digital world: A critical sourcebook (pp. 71–93). Boston: Bedford.
PerkinsD. N. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: Free Press.
38.
ReichR. B. (1992). The work of nations: preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism. New York: Vintage Books.
39.
RothW.-M. (1996).Knowledge diffusion in a Grade 4–5 classroom during a unit of civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices.Cognition and Instruction, 14, 170–220.
40.
SaveryJ., & DuffyT. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In WilsonB. (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
41.
ShafferD. W., & GeeJ.P. (2005). Before every child is left behind: How epistemic games can solve the coming crisis in education (WCER Working Paper No. 2005-7). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/Working_Paper_No_2005_7.pdf
42.
SizerT. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
43.
SquireK. D. (2005).Educating the fighter.On the Horizon, 13(2), 75–88.
44.
SquireK. D. (2006).From content to context: Videogames as designed experiences.Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.
45.
SquireK. (in press). Critical education in an interactive age. In Silberman KellerD. (Ed.), Popular culture and education.New York: Rowman.
46.
SquireK. D., & GiovanettoL. (2008).The higher education of gaming.E-Learning and Digital Media, 5(1), 2–28.
47.
SquireK. D., & JanM. (2007).Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5–29.
48.
SquireK., & JohnsonC. (2000).Supporting distributed communities of practice with interactive television.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 23–43.
49.
SquireK. D., & SteinkuehlerC.A. (2005, April).Meet the gamers: They research, teach, learn, and collaborate. So far, without libraries.Library Journal. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA516033.html
50.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
StarrP. (1994).Seductions of Sim.American Prospect, 5(17), 19–29.
52.
SteinkuehlerC. A. (2005).The new third place: Massively multiplayer online gaming in American youth culture.Tidskrift Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 3, 17–32.
53.
SteinkuehlerC. A. (2006).Massively multiplayer online videogaming as participation in a discourse.Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(1), 38–52.
54.
SteinkuehlerC. (2007).Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices.eLearning, 4(3), 297–318.
55.
SteinkuehlerC. A. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In CoiroJ., KnobelM., LankshearC., & LeuD. (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 611–634). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56.
SteinkuehlerC., & DuncanS. (2009).Informal scientific reasoning in online virtual worlds.Journal of Science Education and Technology. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9120-8
57.
SteinkuehlerC. A., & WilliamsD. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as “third places.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 885–909.
58.
TurkleS. (2003).From powerful ideas to PowerPoint.Convergence: The Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies, 9(2), 19–28.
