i-manager Publications

Dynamic Learning In Virtual Spaces: Producers And Consumers Of Meaning

Sandra Abrams*, Jennifer Rowsell**

* Assistant Professor, St. John's University, USA.

** Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair in Multiliteracies, Brock University, Canada.

Periodicity:June - August'2011
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.1.1514

Abstract

Twenty-first century education includes dynamic learning that is complicated by interactions in both fixed and protean virtual spaces, and it is important to consider the degree of power, agency, and awareness students have as producers and consumers of interactive technology. Outside of school, students engage in meaning making practices, and media, such as video games and websites, embrace certain “technologies of power”—space, surveillance, and documentation (Foucault, 1977)—to shape consumers’ thinking and behavior. This article calls attention to the role of students and media executives in the development and maintenance of power structures, and we present new understandings of students’ interactions with virtual texts and the producers’/designers’ significant role in shaping the literacy experiences. Data from a three-year longitudinal study of thirty media producers of sites, such as Club Penguin and MyPopStudio, and an eight-month study of four adolescent gamers and their video game playing both reveal regulatory measures that promote and constrain student-navigated literacies. Understanding the dynamics of these virtual spaces and how they regulate and create a learning culture that hinges on collaboration and communication, educators can capitalize on the cooperative skills students develop and help students hone a critical sensitivity and understanding of their digital literacies.

Keywords

Digital Literacies, Dynamic Learning Environments, Technologies Of Power, Virtual Worlds, Critical Literacy.

How to Cite this Article?

Abrams,S.S., and Rowsell ,J.(2011). Dynamic Learning In Virtual Spaces: Producers And Consumers Of Meaning.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(1),7-13. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.1.1514

References

[1]. Arends, R.I., & Kilcher, A. (2010). Teaching for student learning: Becoming an accomplished teacher. New York: Routledge.

[2]. Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking Education in the age of Technology, New York: Teachers College Press.

[3]. Dreyfus, H.L., & Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: nd Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2 ed.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

[4]. Ford, M. (2003). Unveiling technologies of power in classroom organization practice. Educational Foundations, 17(2), 5-27.

[5]. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & Punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.

[6]. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interview and other writings 1972-1977. ©. Gordon, Ed., C.Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.

[7]. Foucault, M. (1983). Afterward: The subject and power. In H.L Dreyfus and P. Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond nd structuralism and hermeneutics (2 ed.), (pp. 208- 226).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[8]. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us nd about learning and literacy (2 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

[9]. Hussain, I. (2008). Information technologies and globalization: New perspectives of teaching learning process. Journal on School Educational Technology, 3(4), 8-15.

[10]. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and Power. New York: Routledge.

[11]. Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago.

[12]. Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2011). The work of writing in the age of its digital reproducibility. In S.S. Abrams & J. Rowsell (Eds.). Rethinking identity and literacy education in st the 21 century. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 110(1), 40-87.

[13]. Llamas, J.M.C. (2006). Technologies of disciplinary power in action: The norm of the 'Good student.' Higher Education, 52, 665-686.

[14]. Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 43(5), 448-461.

[15]. Merchant, G. (2010). View my profile(s). In D. Alvermann (Ed.). Adolescents'' Online Literacies: Connecting Classrooms, Digital Media, and Popular Culture (pp.51-69). New York: Peter Lang.

[16]. Moll, L.C., & Greenberg, J.B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp.319-348). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

[17]. Muspratt, S., Luke, A., Freebody, P. (1997). Constructing critical literacies. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

[18]. Vasudevan, L., DeJaynes, T., Schmier, S. (2010). Multimodal pedagogies: Playing, teaching, and learning with adolescents' digital literacies. In D. Alvermann (Ed.). Adolescents'' Online Literacies: Connecting Classrooms, Digital Media, and Popular Culture (pp.5-25). New York: Peter Lang.

[19]. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Single Article

	North Americas,UK, Middle East,Europe		India	Rest of world
	USD	EUR	INR	USD-ROW
Online	15	15

ADD TO CART

Options for accessing this content:

If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.