Participatory Technologies and Multiplicity of Place: A New Learning Ecology
Literature Review
Douglas W. Conrad
Introduction
Mobile devices and participatory technologies in general have changed the way we communicate with and learn from each other (Farkas, 2012). The integration of these tools into our individual and educational interactions has been shown to personalize the acquisition of knowledge (Squire, 2009). This has presented the education community with an opportunity to leverage these tools to create a new ecology of learning. The studies referenced in this review explore how the adoption of participatory or mobile media technologies by educators might affect student-learning outcomes. Meredith Farkas, wrote in her article about this "new normal" as Pedagogy 2.0, which is "a learning ecology that unlocks the benefits of participatory technologies (Farkas, 2012). In his article, Kurt Squire cautions that these participatory technologies enable a "multiplicity and hybridity of place" that brings with it opportunities and challenges to both learning and education (Squire, 2009). In his article, Bryan Alexander points to the convergence of wireless Internet and mobile technologies as a gradual untethering of learning (Alexander, 2004). Far beyond delivering all the answers, this review focuses on the questions raised by these disruptive influences on society, education, and the classroom.
Mobile devices and participatory technologies in general have changed the way we communicate with and learn from each other (Farkas, 2012). The integration of these tools into our individual and educational interactions has been shown to personalize the acquisition of knowledge (Squire, 2009). This has presented the education community with an opportunity to leverage these tools to create a new ecology of learning. The studies referenced in this review explore how the adoption of participatory or mobile media technologies by educators might affect student-learning outcomes. Meredith Farkas, wrote in her article about this "new normal" as Pedagogy 2.0, which is "a learning ecology that unlocks the benefits of participatory technologies (Farkas, 2012). In his article, Kurt Squire cautions that these participatory technologies enable a "multiplicity and hybridity of place" that brings with it opportunities and challenges to both learning and education (Squire, 2009). In his article, Bryan Alexander points to the convergence of wireless Internet and mobile technologies as a gradual untethering of learning (Alexander, 2004). Far beyond delivering all the answers, this review focuses on the questions raised by these disruptive influences on society, education, and the classroom.
Impact of Participatory Technologies On Society
The widening demand for and use of participatory technologies and Web 2.0 tools has changed the environment in which individuals access information and create knowledge. Participatory technologies describe the class of Web 2.0 tools that include smartphones, tablets and social media (Twitter, tumblr, Facebook etc.; Squire, 2009). When the search for information is as simple as typing words into a text field or clicking a button, it becomes something that anyone with Internet access can do. No longer do we need to find an Internet cafe or a library with a computer lab, because the mobile media devices that the majority of the world's citizens now carry in their pockets are powerful tools for learning and communication (Squire, 2009). Clay Shirky has expressed the growing impact that participatory technologies have on society in his book:
Communications tools don't get socially interesting until they get technologically boring. The invention of a tool doesn't create change. It has to have been around long enough that most of society is using it. It's when a technology becomes normal, then ubiquitous, and finally so pervasive as to be invisible, that the really profound changes happen, and for young people today, our new social tools have passed normal and are heading to ubiquitous, and invisible is coming (Shirky, 2008, p. 105).
The opportunities for students and teachers to reinvent some of the ways they interact have been enhanced by our adoption of these tools in our daily lives (List & Bryant, 2009).
The widening demand for and use of participatory technologies and Web 2.0 tools has changed the environment in which individuals access information and create knowledge. Participatory technologies describe the class of Web 2.0 tools that include smartphones, tablets and social media (Twitter, tumblr, Facebook etc.; Squire, 2009). When the search for information is as simple as typing words into a text field or clicking a button, it becomes something that anyone with Internet access can do. No longer do we need to find an Internet cafe or a library with a computer lab, because the mobile media devices that the majority of the world's citizens now carry in their pockets are powerful tools for learning and communication (Squire, 2009). Clay Shirky has expressed the growing impact that participatory technologies have on society in his book:
Communications tools don't get socially interesting until they get technologically boring. The invention of a tool doesn't create change. It has to have been around long enough that most of society is using it. It's when a technology becomes normal, then ubiquitous, and finally so pervasive as to be invisible, that the really profound changes happen, and for young people today, our new social tools have passed normal and are heading to ubiquitous, and invisible is coming (Shirky, 2008, p. 105).
The opportunities for students and teachers to reinvent some of the ways they interact have been enhanced by our adoption of these tools in our daily lives (List & Bryant, 2009).
The almost omnipresent wireless Internet connection and universal use of mobile media devices have had an effect on how we view the school and the office in our society (Alexander, 2004). In the span of the last few years, our society has seen the closing of bookstores, record stores, movie rental stores and the beginning of the end of the landline telephone in our homes. Our schools have become Internet connected and computer directed. Businesses have found new ways to attract customers and the reliable newspaper has found new competition, not from other organizations, but from the general public (Farkas, 2012). We have been empowered to be not just consumers, but also creators and publishers of our own worldview (Squire, 2009). These disruptive changes have brought with them a new connectivity that blurs the lines between what is online and what is offline in our public and private lives. Farkas points out that entertainment companies who seek to remain competitive will need to recognize the consumers' need to consume as well as produce information (Farkas, 2012). The same has been said for education. Futurist, John Seely Brown adds, "With every new piece of technology, to make this technology work, you have to change your teaching practices" (LaMonica, 2006, para. 18). Due to the ubiquity of mobile media devices, we often experience a "multiplicity of place" where more than one information stream at a time is being processed by our minds (Squire, 2009). The shift brings about both opportunities and challenges. It is also this "always on, always open" information stream that has been argued to personalize learning (Squire, 2009).
In his book, Frank Smith highlights the differences between two theories of learning (Smith, 1998). One, based on a model that focuses on knowledge acquisition being assessable and one that focuses on the shared learning experience. The Official theory of learning has memorization, hard work and testing, as it's main framework. The Classic theory of learning has discovery, collaboration and knowledge sharing as its basis. In Smith's view, we learn from the company we keep and that all learning is social activity. For learning to happen effortlessly, the student must feel that he or she belongs to a club or group where the learning is taking place. This societal factor in learning is supported and enhanced by the use of Web 2.0 tools (Farkas, 2012). Frank Smith proposes that all learning is social activity. The Official theory of learning that is employed by most school systems, he writes, places too much emphasis on the solitary learning of the individual (Smith, 1998).
Learning, it has been theorized (Dewey, 1966; Smith, 1998), is most successful when done in community. The way we learn is organic and not limited to only a set time and day. The continuing collaborations between students outside the classroom boundaries have the potential for each learner to make the process individual and personal (Squire, 2009). Acquisition of knowledge is considered more and more an ongoing process rather than what can be captured once and held onto. Learning is also a process that transpires not only in a classroom, but also in all corners of society (Farkas, 2012). Dewey (1966) wrote about the role that society plays in the process of learning. The author proposed that it is a function of society to train youth in the communication skills and shared community learning that will help them find their place in society. He warned, "There is a standing danger that the material of formal instruction will be merely the subject matter of schools, isolated from the subject matter of life experiences." (Dewey, 1966, p. 10) The lines between the schoolwork, our jobs and where we play are becoming increasingly blurred (Farkas, 2012). It is this remediation of our understanding of what it means to be cognitively in more than one place at a time, that appears to have an impact on learning in our society (Squire, 2009).
Collaboration and communication in society have benefitted from the “unwiring of connectivity” (Alexander, 2004). The mobile nature of our media devices has altered our understanding of location in our learning ecology (Alexander, 2004). Squire (2009) argues that the omnipresent nature of mobile devices has led to a personalization of learning. This "always connected" access has begun to erase the boundaries between online and offline for the youth of this generation. Another side of the blurring of online and offline activity is a redefining of how we experience place. This can create what Squire refers to as a "multiplicity of place"(Squire, 2009). Combined with our inability to detach ourselves or get away, also comes the constant ability to "be" in multiple places at once. The result of this changing learning ecology is that our experience of place is in a constant state of remediation. This sets up a new environment where we are not entirely cognitively in one place or the other, but in multiple places of our own choosing. Squire has theorized that learning is based on our experiences in specific places and driven by emotionally compelling challenges. Examples of this, are the capability that mobile devices create for users to call and text at the same time, watch a stream of a live sporting event while sitting in an office far way or video chatting with multiple peers situated around the globe. Squire chronicles some of his research into how these devices make video game learning and augmented reality games, a growing form of social interaction among youth of this generation, further widening the understanding of place. Participatory technologies seem to expand our understanding of where and how we learn, as these tools become regular fixtures in our society (Farkas, 2012).
In his book, Frank Smith highlights the differences between two theories of learning (Smith, 1998). One, based on a model that focuses on knowledge acquisition being assessable and one that focuses on the shared learning experience. The Official theory of learning has memorization, hard work and testing, as it's main framework. The Classic theory of learning has discovery, collaboration and knowledge sharing as its basis. In Smith's view, we learn from the company we keep and that all learning is social activity. For learning to happen effortlessly, the student must feel that he or she belongs to a club or group where the learning is taking place. This societal factor in learning is supported and enhanced by the use of Web 2.0 tools (Farkas, 2012). Frank Smith proposes that all learning is social activity. The Official theory of learning that is employed by most school systems, he writes, places too much emphasis on the solitary learning of the individual (Smith, 1998).
Learning, it has been theorized (Dewey, 1966; Smith, 1998), is most successful when done in community. The way we learn is organic and not limited to only a set time and day. The continuing collaborations between students outside the classroom boundaries have the potential for each learner to make the process individual and personal (Squire, 2009). Acquisition of knowledge is considered more and more an ongoing process rather than what can be captured once and held onto. Learning is also a process that transpires not only in a classroom, but also in all corners of society (Farkas, 2012). Dewey (1966) wrote about the role that society plays in the process of learning. The author proposed that it is a function of society to train youth in the communication skills and shared community learning that will help them find their place in society. He warned, "There is a standing danger that the material of formal instruction will be merely the subject matter of schools, isolated from the subject matter of life experiences." (Dewey, 1966, p. 10) The lines between the schoolwork, our jobs and where we play are becoming increasingly blurred (Farkas, 2012). It is this remediation of our understanding of what it means to be cognitively in more than one place at a time, that appears to have an impact on learning in our society (Squire, 2009).
Collaboration and communication in society have benefitted from the “unwiring of connectivity” (Alexander, 2004). The mobile nature of our media devices has altered our understanding of location in our learning ecology (Alexander, 2004). Squire (2009) argues that the omnipresent nature of mobile devices has led to a personalization of learning. This "always connected" access has begun to erase the boundaries between online and offline for the youth of this generation. Another side of the blurring of online and offline activity is a redefining of how we experience place. This can create what Squire refers to as a "multiplicity of place"(Squire, 2009). Combined with our inability to detach ourselves or get away, also comes the constant ability to "be" in multiple places at once. The result of this changing learning ecology is that our experience of place is in a constant state of remediation. This sets up a new environment where we are not entirely cognitively in one place or the other, but in multiple places of our own choosing. Squire has theorized that learning is based on our experiences in specific places and driven by emotionally compelling challenges. Examples of this, are the capability that mobile devices create for users to call and text at the same time, watch a stream of a live sporting event while sitting in an office far way or video chatting with multiple peers situated around the globe. Squire chronicles some of his research into how these devices make video game learning and augmented reality games, a growing form of social interaction among youth of this generation, further widening the understanding of place. Participatory technologies seem to expand our understanding of where and how we learn, as these tools become regular fixtures in our society (Farkas, 2012).
Impact of Participatory Technologies On Education
Mobile devices and social media tools have combined to bring a wave of potential change to education; a digital ecology (Alexander, 2004). The constantly connected student body of today has the same needs that students have always had to be guided in their learning. The primary difference has come not from the classroom, but from the culture that the educational environment exists in. Meredith Farkas points to participatory technologies and web 2.0 tools as having a disruptive influence on education (Farkas, 2012). The challenges of processing the growing volume of information that these devices give us greater access to, and assessing its use are forcing a shift in focus for schools and organizations. On the one hand, the omnipresent mobile devices can be seen as a distraction to the traditional lecture format of teaching. On the other hand, these participatory technologies enable students to interact with a more diverse amount of information. It has been shown to be increasingly important for education to find ways to leverage these new communication tools and shift from a model of knowledge transfer to a model that encourages knowledge discovery (Farkas, 2012). Farkas writes about the potential that mobile media tools offer for heightening the independence of the students' learning experience by giving them more choice regarding the learning activities in which they engage. Participatory technologies have become virtual prosthetics for knowledge acquisition enabling the learner to further define their educational experience (Alexander, 2004).
Pedagogical approaches have always been a reflection of the benefits and challenges of the environment in which they are situated. Traditional approaches to teaching were developed in an environment where knowledge was scarce and only held by experts (Farkas, 2012). In education today, access to knowledge has become widely available and less dependent on the information held by only a few people. Participatory technologies support these current trends in education of collaboration and discovery. Farkas (2012) cautions that as participatory technologies find more of a place in education, the rush to embrace these tools has to be tempered with the knowledge that they are not transformative in and of themselves. As students have first adopted these tools in their personal lives, they may be not easily embracing them in their classwork. Squire proposed that our general school materials have not been designed for the most part; to address the specific needs of the "information-rich, constantly connected" student body (Squire, 2009, p. 10). For most schools, the abundance of mobile devices and the proliferation of use can be overwhelming unless planned for. Outside the walls of the school, mobile media are enabling users to connect to a world of information at their fingertips, and redefine the process of knowledge building and collaboration (List & Bryant, 2009). Inside the classroom, we are still unsure whether to lock these devices out for the distractions they cause, or research ways to leverage their potential for learning. It has become difficult for schools to manage an educational environment with classrooms where dozens of students using dozens of devices independently access global information. A new hierarchy and architecture of the classroom may be the best way to mitigate these disruptions rather than trying to fit new technologies into old frameworks for education. (Roschelle & Pea 2002).
Mobile media devices (smart phones, MP3 players, tablets etc.) have gone from novelty items to standard personal tools for communication and collaboration. The proliferation of these tools has been a combination of their convenient size, computing power and price point. The first billion owners of these devices were users with the financial means to purchase a mobile device in countries that provide broad support and infrastructures (Evans, 2012). The second billion users, it has been suggested, will be the less affluent of our global community. For these countries and communities, the adoption of wireless Internet and omnipresent mobile devices has the potential to be revolutionary (Evans, 2012). These devices operate according to the logic of multiplicity of place (Squire, 2009). The benefit and challenge is not so much in the stability of the hardware, but in the way we adapt to the potential of our daily lives being connected to more than one place at a time. Squire has proposed that augmented reality or “AR” games are one way to leverage the benefits of our mobile devices in the educational environment. AR games use mobile devices to connect a virtual context over the users actual places (Squire, 2009). Geolocation of web documents is another example of AR utilization (Alexander, 2004). The choices that mobile media devices afford encourage personalization of students' knowledge acquisition. When learners literally carry these devices everywhere they go, it makes it possible to bring their personal interests into the school environment and their school work back out into their daily lives. Most students are already doing this. Squire (2009) wonders whether educators will grasp the potential for leveraging the multiplicity of place and be able to design learning experiences that span the work, home, school, and informal settings of our lives.
Mobile devices and social media tools have combined to bring a wave of potential change to education; a digital ecology (Alexander, 2004). The constantly connected student body of today has the same needs that students have always had to be guided in their learning. The primary difference has come not from the classroom, but from the culture that the educational environment exists in. Meredith Farkas points to participatory technologies and web 2.0 tools as having a disruptive influence on education (Farkas, 2012). The challenges of processing the growing volume of information that these devices give us greater access to, and assessing its use are forcing a shift in focus for schools and organizations. On the one hand, the omnipresent mobile devices can be seen as a distraction to the traditional lecture format of teaching. On the other hand, these participatory technologies enable students to interact with a more diverse amount of information. It has been shown to be increasingly important for education to find ways to leverage these new communication tools and shift from a model of knowledge transfer to a model that encourages knowledge discovery (Farkas, 2012). Farkas writes about the potential that mobile media tools offer for heightening the independence of the students' learning experience by giving them more choice regarding the learning activities in which they engage. Participatory technologies have become virtual prosthetics for knowledge acquisition enabling the learner to further define their educational experience (Alexander, 2004).
Pedagogical approaches have always been a reflection of the benefits and challenges of the environment in which they are situated. Traditional approaches to teaching were developed in an environment where knowledge was scarce and only held by experts (Farkas, 2012). In education today, access to knowledge has become widely available and less dependent on the information held by only a few people. Participatory technologies support these current trends in education of collaboration and discovery. Farkas (2012) cautions that as participatory technologies find more of a place in education, the rush to embrace these tools has to be tempered with the knowledge that they are not transformative in and of themselves. As students have first adopted these tools in their personal lives, they may be not easily embracing them in their classwork. Squire proposed that our general school materials have not been designed for the most part; to address the specific needs of the "information-rich, constantly connected" student body (Squire, 2009, p. 10). For most schools, the abundance of mobile devices and the proliferation of use can be overwhelming unless planned for. Outside the walls of the school, mobile media are enabling users to connect to a world of information at their fingertips, and redefine the process of knowledge building and collaboration (List & Bryant, 2009). Inside the classroom, we are still unsure whether to lock these devices out for the distractions they cause, or research ways to leverage their potential for learning. It has become difficult for schools to manage an educational environment with classrooms where dozens of students using dozens of devices independently access global information. A new hierarchy and architecture of the classroom may be the best way to mitigate these disruptions rather than trying to fit new technologies into old frameworks for education. (Roschelle & Pea 2002).
Mobile media devices (smart phones, MP3 players, tablets etc.) have gone from novelty items to standard personal tools for communication and collaboration. The proliferation of these tools has been a combination of their convenient size, computing power and price point. The first billion owners of these devices were users with the financial means to purchase a mobile device in countries that provide broad support and infrastructures (Evans, 2012). The second billion users, it has been suggested, will be the less affluent of our global community. For these countries and communities, the adoption of wireless Internet and omnipresent mobile devices has the potential to be revolutionary (Evans, 2012). These devices operate according to the logic of multiplicity of place (Squire, 2009). The benefit and challenge is not so much in the stability of the hardware, but in the way we adapt to the potential of our daily lives being connected to more than one place at a time. Squire has proposed that augmented reality or “AR” games are one way to leverage the benefits of our mobile devices in the educational environment. AR games use mobile devices to connect a virtual context over the users actual places (Squire, 2009). Geolocation of web documents is another example of AR utilization (Alexander, 2004). The choices that mobile media devices afford encourage personalization of students' knowledge acquisition. When learners literally carry these devices everywhere they go, it makes it possible to bring their personal interests into the school environment and their school work back out into their daily lives. Most students are already doing this. Squire (2009) wonders whether educators will grasp the potential for leveraging the multiplicity of place and be able to design learning experiences that span the work, home, school, and informal settings of our lives.
Impact of Participatory Technologies On the Classroom
Participatory technologies have gradually infiltrated the once protected environment of the classroom (Alexander, 2004). The Internet and technology have been long viewed as game changers for the classroom. The early views of this change had to do much more with large-scale shifts, rather than the transforming of the individual student experience (Farkas, 2012). The ease of connection and virtual limitless access to information have aided in breaking down some of the barriers to the acquisition of knowledge (Squire, 2009). We may not have robots or other once imagined tech gadgets in the classroom, but more significantly, we all have the world of knowledge at our fingertips. Participatory technologies help point us to a different hierarchy or ecology of the classroom. Students can be publishers or producers of information as well as being consumers. In a traditional classroom, the artifacts of learning are mostly shared between teacher and individual student. In the new classroom ecology, participatory technologies allow for peer-to-peer sharing of the products of learning (Farkas, 2012).
In his book, "The Book of Learning and Forgetting", Frank Smith highlights the need for students to learn in connection with others (Smith, 1998). He places a priority on the understanding of the context in which new knowledge to be acquired exists. Farkas cites constructivist pedagogy that views students as active participants in the process of learning. The products of this collaboration are based on students' construction of knowledge and their own understanding, in combination with interactions with their teachers and peers. Participatory technologies enable students to share their work with their peers and the world. This free flow of ideas and the ability to challenge and be challenged, with regards to the construction of knowledge has been shown to personalize the learning experiences (Squire, 2009).
Mobile technologies that promote a multiplicity or hybridity of place have caused a shift in the classroom. When students are active participants in their own learning and can leverage the flexibility of mobile media devices to be in more than one place at a time, their needs for knowledge transfer are different (Squire, 2009). The demands on faculty in this new learning ecology are greater as the learning path of each student is unique. One positive impact on faculty that may offset some of these demands is the potential for a greater role of peer review (List & Bryant, 2009). It is the promise of these participatory technologies that enable a “nomadic” or highly mobile connection to information (Alexander, 2004).
I am reminded of Franz Kafka’s "An Old Manuscript," an account of a nomadic army arriving in an imperial city. The nomads arrive suddenly, surprising the urban population and appearing without warning in city streets, markets, libraries, and homes. Kafka’s tale focuses on the incomprehension of the city-dwellers, as well as on their dogged willingness to attempt living life as if the nomads simply weren’t there. The story charts their progressive decay and their slipping grasp on reality while the nomads build a new civilization literally in their front yard. It’s a very funny story, in Kafka’s unique way, but of course it’s also a cautionary tale, especially for those of us in higher education. At colleges and universities around the world, the nomadic swarms are already arriving (Alexander, 2004, para. 11).
Finding a balance between this increasing mobility of learning and what we generally consider the offline or informal areas of our lives has become a regular consideration, as the lines between these two areas have been blurred (Farkas, 2012). When students can work together to construct new knowledge through consideration of their own points of view and the points of views of others they develop critical skills for working in groups inside and outside the classroom (Squire 2009). It is in this new learning ecology that the classroom, once a place with four walls, now includes anywhere that students learn (Farkas, 2012).
Participatory technologies have gradually infiltrated the once protected environment of the classroom (Alexander, 2004). The Internet and technology have been long viewed as game changers for the classroom. The early views of this change had to do much more with large-scale shifts, rather than the transforming of the individual student experience (Farkas, 2012). The ease of connection and virtual limitless access to information have aided in breaking down some of the barriers to the acquisition of knowledge (Squire, 2009). We may not have robots or other once imagined tech gadgets in the classroom, but more significantly, we all have the world of knowledge at our fingertips. Participatory technologies help point us to a different hierarchy or ecology of the classroom. Students can be publishers or producers of information as well as being consumers. In a traditional classroom, the artifacts of learning are mostly shared between teacher and individual student. In the new classroom ecology, participatory technologies allow for peer-to-peer sharing of the products of learning (Farkas, 2012).
In his book, "The Book of Learning and Forgetting", Frank Smith highlights the need for students to learn in connection with others (Smith, 1998). He places a priority on the understanding of the context in which new knowledge to be acquired exists. Farkas cites constructivist pedagogy that views students as active participants in the process of learning. The products of this collaboration are based on students' construction of knowledge and their own understanding, in combination with interactions with their teachers and peers. Participatory technologies enable students to share their work with their peers and the world. This free flow of ideas and the ability to challenge and be challenged, with regards to the construction of knowledge has been shown to personalize the learning experiences (Squire, 2009).
Mobile technologies that promote a multiplicity or hybridity of place have caused a shift in the classroom. When students are active participants in their own learning and can leverage the flexibility of mobile media devices to be in more than one place at a time, their needs for knowledge transfer are different (Squire, 2009). The demands on faculty in this new learning ecology are greater as the learning path of each student is unique. One positive impact on faculty that may offset some of these demands is the potential for a greater role of peer review (List & Bryant, 2009). It is the promise of these participatory technologies that enable a “nomadic” or highly mobile connection to information (Alexander, 2004).
I am reminded of Franz Kafka’s "An Old Manuscript," an account of a nomadic army arriving in an imperial city. The nomads arrive suddenly, surprising the urban population and appearing without warning in city streets, markets, libraries, and homes. Kafka’s tale focuses on the incomprehension of the city-dwellers, as well as on their dogged willingness to attempt living life as if the nomads simply weren’t there. The story charts their progressive decay and their slipping grasp on reality while the nomads build a new civilization literally in their front yard. It’s a very funny story, in Kafka’s unique way, but of course it’s also a cautionary tale, especially for those of us in higher education. At colleges and universities around the world, the nomadic swarms are already arriving (Alexander, 2004, para. 11).
Finding a balance between this increasing mobility of learning and what we generally consider the offline or informal areas of our lives has become a regular consideration, as the lines between these two areas have been blurred (Farkas, 2012). When students can work together to construct new knowledge through consideration of their own points of view and the points of views of others they develop critical skills for working in groups inside and outside the classroom (Squire 2009). It is in this new learning ecology that the classroom, once a place with four walls, now includes anywhere that students learn (Farkas, 2012).
Conclusions
Participatory technologies and multiplicity of place have been shown to have the potential to provide a disruptive influence on society, education and the classroom (Farkas, 2012). A new ecology of learning has caught the attention of our mainstream media, and schools everywhere as they try to find the greatest return on investment with the latest academic technologies. But some caution is warranted, as mobile media devices are not transformative in and of themselves (Squire, 2009). To leverage the changes that these technologies present will be a challenge for schools and education that cannot be side stepped. In the recent report released by the Gartner group, mobile devices were the number one listed technology trend forecast for 2013 (Thibodeau, 2012). The lines between online and offline and even work and home have been blurred by these increasingly powerful computing devices (Farkas, 2012). Our sense of place with regard to knowledge acquisition and understanding has been gradually changed to where we now find ourselves daily communicating, collaborating and learning in multiple places at once (Squire, 2009). This "unwiring of our connectivity" has begun to enable this generation of students to enact with and access information anywhere and at anytime in formal and informal learning situations (Alexander, 2004). As educators begin to understand the possibilities for learning that these technologies possess, they will need to be strategic about how they structure the learning environment to leverage them for students. Participatory technologies and multiplicity of place have been shown to present both challenges and opportunities in a new learning ecology.
Participatory technologies and multiplicity of place have been shown to have the potential to provide a disruptive influence on society, education and the classroom (Farkas, 2012). A new ecology of learning has caught the attention of our mainstream media, and schools everywhere as they try to find the greatest return on investment with the latest academic technologies. But some caution is warranted, as mobile media devices are not transformative in and of themselves (Squire, 2009). To leverage the changes that these technologies present will be a challenge for schools and education that cannot be side stepped. In the recent report released by the Gartner group, mobile devices were the number one listed technology trend forecast for 2013 (Thibodeau, 2012). The lines between online and offline and even work and home have been blurred by these increasingly powerful computing devices (Farkas, 2012). Our sense of place with regard to knowledge acquisition and understanding has been gradually changed to where we now find ourselves daily communicating, collaborating and learning in multiple places at once (Squire, 2009). This "unwiring of our connectivity" has begun to enable this generation of students to enact with and access information anywhere and at anytime in formal and informal learning situations (Alexander, 2004). As educators begin to understand the possibilities for learning that these technologies possess, they will need to be strategic about how they structure the learning environment to leverage them for students. Participatory technologies and multiplicity of place have been shown to present both challenges and opportunities in a new learning ecology.