TechTrends

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 236–245 | Cite as

Mapping Playgrids for Learning Across Space, Time, and Scale

Original Paper

Abstract

In this article, we analyze the production of learner-generated playgrids. Playgrids are produced when learners knit together social media tools to participate across settings and scales, accomplish their goals, pursue interests, and make their learning more enjoyable and personally meaningful. Through case study methodology we examine how two platforms - Slack and Hypothesis - enabled learners to curate and participate among their own digital resources and pathways for learning. We contend that both theoretical and pedagogical development is necessary to support adult learners as they curate tools and pathways based upon their contingent needs and goals, and that the concept of playgrids does so by usefully connecting less formal social media practice with more formal professional learning across various settings and scales. In the end, we demonstrate the importance of honoring learners’ desire to connect their completion of formal course activities with their less formal social media practices; both sets of practices need not be in conflict and may be complementary.

Keywords

Online learning Play Web annotation Slack Hypothesis Digital media Social media 

References

  1. Author, A.Google Scholar
  2. Author, B.Google Scholar
  3. Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: gender and experience differences. Journal Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: a learning ecologies perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, G. (2016). Networked learning as experiential learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 51(1), 70–71.Google Scholar
  6. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.Google Scholar
  7. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Gleason, B. (2015). New literacies practices of teenage Twitter users. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glover, I., Xu, Z., & Hardaker, G. (2007). Online annotation–research and practices. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1308–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 6–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hagel, J., III, & Brown, J. S. (2011). From push to pull: emerging models for mobilizing resources. Journal of Service Science (JSS), 1(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karunanayaka, S. P., Naidu, S., Rajendra, J. C. N., & Ratnayake, H. U. W. (2015). From OER to OEP: shifting practitioner perspectives and practices with innovative learning experience design. Open Praxis, 7(4), 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2010). DIY media: Creating, sharing and learning with new technologies. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Kumpulainen, K., & Sefton-Green, J. (2014). What is connected learning and how to research it? International Journal of Learning and Media, 4(2), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  17. Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, S. B. (2014). Crisis crowdsourcing framework: designing strategic configurations of crowdsourcing for the emergency management domain. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 23(4-6), 389–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu, S. B., & Palen, L. (2010). The new cartographers: Crisis map mashups and the emergence of neogeographic practice. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 37(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Henriksen, D. (2013). Creativity, self-directed learning and the architecture of technology rich environments. TechTrends, 57(1), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2014). If Freire made a MOOC: Open education as resistance. Hybrid Pedagogy: A Digital Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/freire-made-mooc-open-education-resistance/.
  23. Peppler, K., & Kafai, Y. (2010). Gaming fluencies: pathways into participatory culture in a community design studio. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(4), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pierre, E. A. S., & Jackson, A. Y. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 715–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rau, P. L. P., Chen, S. H., & Chin, Y. T. (2004). Developing web annotation tools for learners and instructors. Interacting with Computers, 16(2), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salen, K. (Ed.). (2008). The ecology of games: connecting youth, games, and learning. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Slack (2016). Slack. Retrieved from www.slack.com.
  29. Turner, A. J. (2006). Introduction to neogeography. Cabastopol: O’Reilly Media Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Watters, A. (2016). The ideology of the blockchain (for education). Retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2016/04/14/blockchain-ideology
  31. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning and Performance SystemsThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.School of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations