Abstract
In this chapter I draw upon theoretical concepts broadly consistent with a sociocultural view of technology to discuss a series of observations about emergent digital practices and school learning, and to raise implications for ed-tech research. Specifically, I seek to claim some space for—and to argue the merit of—“close-up” studies of the actual (Selwyn, 2010): studies that seek to document the diversity of doings that comprise technology use by young people in and out of school. Three main arguments are made:
-
1.
Conceptualizing technology as indeterminate provides more sophisticated and more generative lenses for seeing new technologies and emergent practices than do more naturalized understandings of technologies as already-completed-things that can be known independent of the context of use.
-
2.
Stories play an important role in what meaning we make from the use of technological artifacts in educational settings, serving as agents in what we authorize as valuable and what we see as possible. This is as true for the stories produced by researchers as it is for stories told by those teachers, parents, and students who participate in our research.
-
3.
“Close-up” studies (Trowler, 2012) of marginalized practices can provide alternative accounts to those that take an authorized center as their starting point, thus affirming emergent practices and troubling tacit assumptions about schooling and the roles of educational research.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ahearne, J. (1995). Michel de Certeau: Interpretation and its other. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Anyon, J. (2009). Introduction: Critical social theory, educational research and intellectual agency. In J. Anyon (Ed.), Theory and educational research: Toward critical social explanation (pp. vii–ix). New York: Routledge.
Apperley, T. (2010). Gaming rhythms: Play and counterplay from the situated to the global. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
Berg, A.-J. (1994). Technological flexibility: Bringing gender into technology (or was it the other way round?). In C. Cockburn & R. Furst-Dilic (Eds.), Bringing technology home: Gender an technology in a changing Europe (pp. 94–110). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Bigum, C. (2012). Schools and computers: Tales of a digital romance. In L. Rowan & C. Bigum (Eds.), Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms: Future proofing education (pp. 15–28). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bigum, C., & Rowan, L. (this volume). Gorillas in their midst: Rethinking educational technology. In S. Bulfin, N. F. Johnson, & C. Bigum (Eds.), Critical perspectives on education and technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Burnett, C. (2010). Technology and literacy in early childhood educational settings: A review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 247–270.
de Certeau, M. (1974). Culture in the plural (trans. T. Conley). London: University of Minnesota Press.
de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (trans. S. Rendall). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R. (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 213–229.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Davidson, C. (2009). Young children’s engagement with digital texts and literacies in the home: Pressing matters for the teaching of English in the early years of schooling. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(3), 36–54.
Davies, B. (2003). Death to critique and dissent? The policies and practices of new managerialism and of “evidence-based practice.” Gender and Education, 15(1), 91–103.
Edwards, S., Nuttall, J., Mantilla, A., Wood, E., & Grieshaber, S. (this volume). Digital play: What do early childhood teachers see? In S. Bulfin, N. F. Johnson, & C. Bigum (Eds.), Critical perspectives on education and technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Groundwater-Smith, S., & Mockler, N. (2009). Teacher professional learning in an age of compliance: Mind the gap. Dordrecht, Springer.
Highmore, B. (2006). Michel de Certeau: Analysing culture. London: Continuum.
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: Harper and Row.
Ipri, T. (2010). Introducing transliteracy: What does it mean to academic libraries? College & Research Libraries News, 71(10), 532–567.
Lessig, L. (2012). Remix: How creativity is being strangled by the law. In V. Madiberg (Ed.), The social media reader (pp. 155–169). New York: New York University Press.
Lynch, J. (2003). Why have computer-based technologies failed to radically transform schooling? Looking for the right question. Online Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association (BERA), Edinburgh, retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003272.htm
Lynch, J. (2006). Assessing effects of technology usage on mathematics learning. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(3), 29–43.
Lynch, J., & Redpath, T. (2014). “Smart” technologies in early years literacy education: A meta-narrative of paradigmatic tensions in iPad use in an Australian preparatory classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(2), 147–174. doi: 10.1177/1468798412453150
Mavers, D. (2007). Semiotic resourcefulness: A young child’s email exchange as design. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7(2), 155–176.
Nelson, M. E., Marple, S., & Hull, G. (this volume). Youth breaking new “ground”: Iconicity and meaning making in social media. In S. Bulfin, N. F. Johnson, & C. Bigum (Eds.), Critical perspectives on education and technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Mara, J., & Laidlaw, L. (2011). Living in the iworld: Two literacy researchers reflect on the changing texts and literacy practices of childhood. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4): 149–159.
Ohi, S. (2008). The teacher’s role in the research-policy-practice nexus. Australian Journal of Education, 52(1), 95–109.
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile learning: Structures, agency, practices. New York: Springer.
Rogers, T., & Winters, K. L. (2010). Textual play, satire, and counter discourses of street youth zining practices. In D. E. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents’ online literacies: Connecting classrooms, digital media and popular culture (pp. 91–107). New York: Peter Lang.
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards a critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73.
Thomas, S., Joseph, C., Laccetti, J., Mason, B., Mills, S., Perril, S., & Pullinger, K. (2007). Transliteracy: Crossing divides. First Monday, 12(12–3).
Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Abingdon: Routledge.
Trowler, P. (2012). Wicked issues in situating theory in close-up research. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(3), 273–284.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2015 Scott Bulfin, Nicola F. Johnson, and Chris Bigum
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lynch, J. (2015). Researching with Heart in Ed-Tech: What Opportunities Does the Socially Indeterminate Character of Technological Artifacts Open up for Affirming Emergent and Marginalized Practices?. In: Bulfin, S., Johnson, N.F., Bigum, C. (eds) Critical Perspectives on Technology and Education. Palgrave Macmillan’s Digital Education and Learning. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385451_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385451_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-48124-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-38545-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Education CollectionEducation (R0)