Advertisement

Girls and Their Smartphones: Emergent Learning Through Apps That Enable

  • Bettina Forget
Chapter

Abstract

In “Girls and Their Smartphones,” Forget addresses the question: Could a girl’s mobile device be integrated into an educational framework that promotes more active engagement with creativity and digital technology? Drawing from MonCoin interview data, Forget examines smartphone apps through the lens of complexity thinking and a student-based, constructivist teaching approach. She identifies a parallel between “constraints that enable” (Castro, 2007) and “apps that enable learning” (Gardner & Davis, 2013) through a critical examination of mobile app functionality. The qualities of “enabling apps” dovetail with the ways girls learn best, and they may also create an access ramp to digital technology and the STEM field (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), an arena where women and girls are currently underrepresented.

Keywords

Mobile media Social media Art education Girls STEAM STEM Identity Apps Learning Creativity 

References

  1. American Society for Quality. (2009). Engineering image problem could fuel shortage. Milwaukee, WI: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2016 from http://www.qualitymag.com/articles/86139-asq-engineering-image-problem-couldfuel-shortage.
  2. Andone, I., Blaszkiewicz, K., Eibes, M., Trendafilov, B., Markowetz, A., & Montag, C. (2016, September 12–16). How age and gender affect smartphone usage. Ubi/Comp/ISWC ’16 Adjunct, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
  3. Andrus, S. H., Kuriloff, P. J., & Jacobs, C. E. (2015). Teaching middle school girls more effectively. Independent School, 73, 16–18.Google Scholar
  4. Anonymous. (2015). The weaker sex; gender, education and work. The Economist, 414(8928), 61–62.Google Scholar
  5. Bos, B., & Lee, K. (2013). Mathematics apps and mobile learning. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2013, pp. 3654–3660). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/48675.
  6. Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castro, J. C. (2007). Enabling artistic inquiry. Canadian Art Teacher, 6(1), 6–16.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, R., & Heaverlo, C. (2013). Problem solving and creativity and design: What influence do they have on girls’ interest in STEM subject areas? American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
  9. Dancstep (née Dancu), T., & Sindorf, L. (2016). Exhibit designs for girls’ engagement: A guide to the EDGE design attributes. San Francisco: Exploratorium.Google Scholar
  10. Dancu, T. (2010). Designing exhibits for gender equity (PhD dissertation). Systems Science: Psychology, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation: How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Grimus, M. (2013). Mobile phones and gender: Chances and challenges in education around the world. Graz University of Technology. Retrieved from http://www.education-and-gender.eu/edge/pdf/MOBILE_PHONES_AND_GENDER_13.pdf.
  13. Harris, T. (2016). How technology hijacks people’s minds—From a magician and Google’s design ethicist. Retrieved May 20, 2018 from http://www.tristanharris.com/essays.
  14. Jabobs, C. E., Kuriloff, P. J., Andrus, S. H., & Cox, A. B. (2014). Reaching girls. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(1), 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Juarrero, A. (2002). Complex dynamical systems and the problem of identity. Emergence, 4, 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kessels, U. (2014). Bridging the gap by enhancing the fit: How stereotypes about STEM clash with stereotypes about girls. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(2), 280–296.Google Scholar
  17. Leaper, C., Timea, F., & Spears Brown, C. (2012). Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to their motivation in Math/Science and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 268–282.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9693-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ofcom. (2017, November 29). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. Office of Communications, UK. Retrieved from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/data/assets/pdf_file/0020/108182/children-parents-media-use-attitudes-2017.pdf.
  19. Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2008). The emergent curriculum: Navigating a complex course between unguided learning and planned enculturation. Curriculum Studies, 40(3), 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., & Smith, G. (2012). Self, self-concept, and identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity. New York and London: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pew Research Center. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  22. Rosin, H. (2013, April). The touch-screen generation. The Atlantic, pp. 56–65.Google Scholar
  23. Stevenson, M., Hedberg, J., Highfield, K., & Diao, M. (2015). Visualizing solutions: Apps as cognitive stepping—Stones in the learning process. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(2), 366–379. Retrieved from www.ejel.org.
  24. Twenge, J. M. (2017, September). Have smartphones destroyed a generation? The Atlantic.Google Scholar
  25. Yancey Martin, P. (2003). “Said and done” versus “saying and doing” gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 1(3), 342–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bettina Forget
    • 1
  1. 1.Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations