This article reports on a case study of the web-based educational maths application, Mathletics. The findings are drawn from an ethnographic study of children’s technology use in Melbourne, Australia. We explore the experience, governance and commerce of children’s Mathletics use, and offer insights into the developing possibilities and challenges emerging through the adoption of Web 2.0 applications for learning and education. In analyzing the interaction between students and this software, this article deploys two key concepts in technology studies – affordance and technicity – to develop a relational understanding of Mathletics play. This conceptualization of play, which accounts for the playability or give of a technology, helps to illuminate some ways in which the aesthetics, functionality, and materiality of this online application accommodate a number of – and often competing – uses, interests and values: parental anxieties, pedagogical concerns and corporate stakes.
3P Learning (2010a) Mathletics. Available at: www.mathletics.com.au (accessed 30 June 2011).
2.
3P Learning (2010b) Mathletics Student Centre Guide. Sydney: 3P Learning.
3.
3P Learning (2010c) How does Mathletics Reward Great Performance?Sydney: 3P Learning.
4.
3P Learning (2010d) Launching Mathletics with Your Class. Sydney: 3P Learning.
5.
AndersonP (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, 1–64.
6.
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) (2007) Media and Communications in Australian Families 2007. Report for the Media and Society Research Project.
7.
BuckinghamD (2003) Media Education: Literacy, Learning, and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
8.
BurstonJDyer-WitherfordNHearnA (eds) (2010) Ephemera: Special Issue on Digital Labour10(3/4).
9.
ChungGGrimesSM (2005) Data mining the kids: Surveillance and market research strategies in children’s online games. Canadian Journal of Communication30(4): 527–548.
10.
ConsalvoM (2007) Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Video Games. New York: MIT Press.
11.
CostallA (1995) Socialising affordances. Theory and Psychology5: 467–481.
12.
CotéMPybusJ (2007) Learning to immaterial labor 2.0: Myspace and social networks. Ephemera7(1): 88–106.
13.
CroganPKennedyH (2009) Technologies between games and culture. Games and Culture4(2): 107–114.
14.
De PeuterGDyer-WithefordN (2005) A playful multitude? Mobilising and counter-mobilising immaterial game labour. The Fibreculture Journal5.
15.
DieterMApperleyT (2010) Counterplay – Introduction. The Fibreculture Journal 16.
16.
DourishP (2001) Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Intereaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Dyer-WithefordNde PeuterG (2009) Games of Empire: Global Capitalism and Video Games. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
FoxSJonesS (2009) Generations Online in 2009. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
19.
GallowayA (2006) Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
20.
GibsonJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In ShawRBransfordJ (eds) Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 67–82.
21.
GibsonJ (1979) The Ecological Approach to Human Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
22.
GrimesSM (2008) Researching the researchers: Market researchers, child subjects and the problem of “informed” consent. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics1(1): 66–91.
23.
GrimesSMShadeLR (2005) Neopian economics of play: Children’s cyberpets and online communities as immersive advertising in Neopets.com. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics1(2): 181–198.
24.
HassanR (2007) Network time. In HassanRPurserR (eds) 24/7: Time and Temporality in the Network Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 37–53.
25.
HaylesK (1999) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
HerzJC (2002) Harnessing the hive: How online games drive networked innovation. Release1.0 20.9: 1–22.
27.
HobbsR (2008) Debates and challenges facing new literacies in the 21st Century. In DrotnerKLivingstoneS (eds) International Handbook of Children, Media and Culture. London: Sage, 431–447.
28.
HuizingaJ (1955) Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture, HullRFC (trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon.
29.
JenkinsH (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, MacArthur Foundation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
JuulJ (2008) The magic circle and the puzzle piece. In GünzelSLiebeMMerschD (eds) Conference Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games 2008. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press, 56–68.
31.
KlineSDyer-WithefordNde PeuterG (2003) Digital Play: The Interaction of Technology, Culture, and Marketing. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
32.
LaninghamS (ed.) (2006) Tim Berners-Lee. Podcast, developer Works Interviews, 22nd August, IBM website. Available at: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/ (accessed 30 June 2011).
33.
LazzaratoM (1996) Immaterial labour. In VirnoPHardtM (eds), ColilliPEmoryE (trans.) Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 132–146.
34.
LivingstoneS (2009) Children and the Internet: Great Expectations, Challenging Realities. Cambridge: Polity.
35.
LivingstoneSHelsperE (2008) Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media52(4): 581–599.
36.
MalabyT (2007) Beyond play: A new approach to games. Games and Culture2.2: 95–113.
37.
MontgomeryK (2007) Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
MunsterA (2006) Materializing New Media: Embodiment in Information Aesthetics. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press.
39.
NansenB (2009) Exertion gaming as kinaesthetic technicity. Second Nature1.2: 64–91.
40.
NikkenPJanszJ (2006) Parental mediation of children’s video game playing: A comparison of the reports by parents and children. Learning, Media & Technology31: 181–202.
41.
NormanD (1988) The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.
42.
O’ReillyT (2005) What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly website: O’Reilly Media Inc. Available at: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html (accessed 30 June 2011).
43.
SeiterE (2005) The Internet Playground: Children’s Access, Entertainment, and Mis-education. New York: Peter Lang.
44.
ShepherdCArnoldMGibbsM (2006) Parenting in the connected home. Journal of Family Studies12(2): 203–222.
45.
ShirkyC (2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin.
46.
SimondonG (1958) On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Paris: Aubier, Editions Montaigne.
47.
SimondonG (1989) L’Individuation psychique et collective. Paris: Aubier.
48.
TerranovaT (2004) Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.
49.
TynerK (1998) Literacy in a Digital World: Teaching and Learning in the Age of Information. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
50.
ValentineGHollowaySBinghamN (2002) The digital generation? Children, ICT and the everyday nature of social exclusion. Antipode34: 296–315.
