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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
Andrus, S. H., Kuriloff, P. J., & Jacobs, C. E. (2015). Teaching middle school girls more effectively. Independent School, 73, 16–18.
Anonymous. (2015). The weaker sex; gender, education and work. The Economist, 414(8928), 61–62.
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.
Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15.
Castro, J. C. (2007). Enabling artistic inquiry. Canadian Art Teacher, 6(1), 6–16.
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.
Dancstep (née Dancu), T., & Sindorf, L. (2016). Exhibit designs for girls’ engagement: A guide to the EDGE design attributes. San Francisco: Exploratorium.
Dancu, T. (2010). Designing exhibits for gender equity (PhD dissertation). Systems Science: Psychology, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA.
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.
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.
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.
Jabobs, C. E., Kuriloff, P. J., Andrus, S. H., & Cox, A. B. (2014). Reaching girls. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(1), 68–75.
Juarrero, A. (2002). Complex dynamical systems and the problem of identity. Emergence, 4, 94–104.
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.
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.
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.
Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2008). The emergent curriculum: Navigating a complex course between unguided learning and planned enculturation. Curriculum Studies, 40(3), 313–328.
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.
Pew Research Center. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Rosin, H. (2013, April). The touch-screen generation. The Atlantic, pp. 56–65.
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.
Twenge, J. M. (2017, September). Have smartphones destroyed a generation? The Atlantic.
Yancey Martin, P. (2003). “Said and done” versus “saying and doing” gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 1(3), 342–377.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Forget, B. (2019). Girls and Their Smartphones: Emergent Learning Through Apps That Enable. In: Castro, J. (eds) Mobile Media In and Outside of the Art Classroom. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25316-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25316-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25315-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25316-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)