meaning making and transformation in a community mobile ... ·...

DOI: 10.4018/IJMBL.2018100104

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 4 • October-December 2018

Copyright©2018,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

52

Literacies and Learning in Motion:Meaning Making and Transformation in a Community Mobile Storytelling ProjectJessica Frawley, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Laurel Evelyn Dyson, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT

Mobile and participatory cultures have led to widespread change in the way we communicate;emphasizingusergeneratedcontentanddigitalmultimedia.Inthisenvironment,informallearningmayoccur throughdigitalandnetworkedactivities,with literacyno longer limited toalphabeticand character-based texts. This article explores adult learners’ new literacies within the contextofadigitalmobilestorytellingproject.Aqualitativeapproachisusedtoexploretheartifactsandpracticesofnineadultparticipantswhocomprisethestudy.Participantscreatedarangeoffiction,non-fiction,poetryanddiary-stylecontentinavarietyofmodesandmedia.Outcomesfromcontentanalysis,interviewandsurveymethodsdepictmobiledigitalliteraciesascharacteristicallysituated,experientialandmultimodal.Themobileandparticipatorynatureof thisprojectwascatalytic toparticipants’imaginativere-interpretationoftheworldaroundthemassourcesformeaningmakingand transformation. This paper contributes a case example of mobile learning with adults in acommunitysetting.

KeywoRdSCreative Practice, Digital Storytelling, Informal Learning, Mobile Learning, Mobile Phones, Multimodality, New Literacies, Participatory Culture, Student-Generated Multimedia, User-Generated Content

INTRodUCTIoN

Mobilelearning–asweunderstandit–isnotaboutdeliveringcontenttomobiledevicesbut,insteadabouttheprocessesofcomingtoknowandbeingabletooperatesuccessfullyin,andacross,newandever-changingcontextsandlearningspaces.And,itisaboutunderstandingandknowinghowtoutilizeoureverydaylife-worldsaslearningspaces(Pachler,Bachmair,Cook,&Kress,2010,p.6).

Social media, web 2.0 applications and mobile devices have come to characterise a digitallandscapethataffordspeoplewithnewwaystointeract,communicateandlearn.Thecommunicationcultureandtheartefactsthatcompriseitareoftenparticipatory,visual,andmultimodalinnature.Mobiledevicesarejustonetoolthroughwhichpeoplenavigatethesenewsemioticsurrounds.Thetechnicalconvergencethattypifieslatergenerationsofmobiledeviceshasprivilegeddigitalmedia(e.g.video)andmultimodalcontent(e.g.image,video,sound)overtraditionalwrittentext.Peoplenowhavethetoolswithwhichtoproduceandsharetheirownmultimediacultureandmeanings(Dyson,Litchfield,&Raban,2010).User-generatedcontentplatformsformanenvironment thatsupportswidespreadparticipatoryculture:non-expertsareabletocreateandsharenewcontentonline(Jenkins,Purushotma,Weigel,Clinton,&Robison,2009;Merchant,2009).Mobiledevicesareone


53

gatewaytoparticipatinginsuchaculture,withparticipationandauthoringbehavioursacquiredandhonedoutsideofeducationalinstitutionssuchasschools,universitiesoronlinecourses.

Educationalresearchhaslongrecognizedtheimportanceandlegitimacyoflearningthat‘occurswithoutthepresenceofexternallyimposedcurriculacriteria[…]inanycontextoutsidethepre-establishedcurriculaofeducative institutions’ (Livingstone,2001,p.1).Outside theboundariesoftheeducationalinstitution,convergedmediaandtheirassociatedculturalpracticeshavehadatransformativeeffectonlearning(Pachleretal.,2010).Thoughparticipatorylearninginnovationssuchascrowdlearning,makercultureandcitizeninquiryareintheirascendency,thesehaveyettoleaveamarkedimpactoneducationoreducationalresearch(Sharplesetal.,2013).Intothiscontextthequestionisnotwhetherlearningisoccurringinformallythroughnewsocialnetworks,technologies,mediaandculturalpractice,buthowitisoccurring.Howdoadultswhoarenotenrolledwithinaneducationalprogram,whohavenosetcurriculaandareuntetheredfromtheestablishedsequenceoflearningoutcomes,assessmentandlearningactivities,utilizetheireverydaylife-worldsandtheirtechnologiesofchoiceastoolsforlearninginthesespaces?Answeringthisquestionisdifficult.Theunboundedandinformalnatureofmobile learningthat takesplacewithineverydaysettingspresentsnumerousmethodologicalchallenges(Sharples,2009;Traxler,2009).Mobilelearningthatischaracteristicallyinformal,personalizedandsituatedmayhavetoomanyvariablesandpresenttoomuchnoiseortoolittlesignal(Traxler,2009,p.160).Judgingwhenlearningstartsandendsisalsodifficult(Sharples,2009).Methodologicalchallengesinherenttomobilitymayalsobefurthercompoundedininstancesofinformallearning,whichhasalwaysbeendifficulttoresearchsinceitremainsoftenunacknowledgedbythelearner(Foley,2001;Hrimech,2005)whilehistoricallybeingvaluedlessthanitsformalcounterparts(Colley,Hodkinson,&Malcolm,2002;Marsick&Watkins,1990).

Thispapercontributestounderstandingsofmobilelearningthataccountforadultlearnerswhoarenotenrolledwithinanyformaleducationalprogram.Buildingonunderstandingsofmobilelearningasacontextualandecologicalphenomenon(Pachleretal.,2010)thispaperreportsanempiricalstudyofaparticipatorymobiledigitalstorytellingproject.Establishedasadigitalalternativetoatraditionalface-to-facecommunitywriters’group,themStoriesprojectprovidedtheboundedcasebywhichtoexploreunboundedphenomenaassociatedwithinformalmobilelearning.Thisprojectfocusedexplicitlyonhowadultsusemobileandotherdigitaltechnologieswithinmobileandnon-mobilesettingstocreatedigitalmultimediawithinacreativeandexpressivecontext.Asanexploratorystudy,qualitativemethodswereusedtomakesenseofmeaning-makingpracticesandartefactsassociatedwith theproject. It contributes anunderstandingof learning that takesplace informally throughuser-generatedcontentandservestoemphasisetheroleofmobilitywithinadults’newliteraciesdevelopment. In focusing on both the practice and the products associated with mobile digitalstorytelling,theresearchdrawsattentiontotheinherentlymultimodal(e.g.imageandtext,soundandvideo)natureofmobiledeviceuse,andhowthisusagerelatesecologicallytoothertechnologies.Specifically, thisarticledescribeshowadultsengagedincreativemultimodalpracticewithintheever-changingcontextofthemobilespaceandthelearningthatparticipantspresented.Fromthesecontributions,futureresearchmaybebetterplacedtoexplorehowsuchskillsareinitiallyacquiredorbestutilisedtofacilitatefuturelearningwithincommunitysettings.Thisworkaddstheoreticaldiscussiontoexistingdigitalstorytellingpractices(e.g.Lambert,2002)andoffersalternativewaysthatmobilitymayalterdigitalstorytellingandbeadoptedwithincommunitybasedlearning.

WebeginwithareviewoftheliteraturebeforedescribingthemStoriesprojectdesignanditsmethodology.Asacase study, thedesignandmethodsarepresented in tandem.Following this,keyfindingsarepresentedandadiscussionrelatestheempiricalworkbacktothewiderliterature.Implicationsforpractitionersarethenhighlighted.Thepaperconcludesbysuggestingavenuesforfurtherwork.


54

LITeRATURe ReVIew

Thissectioncoversrelevantliteraturefromtwoconvergentdisciplinaryfields:newliteraciesresearchandmobilelearning.Newliteraciesresearchinformsthestudy’sunderstandingofthesocio-technical,communicativeandsemioticlandscapethatlearnersengagewith,whilemobilelearningresearchfocusesoninformalandcommunitybasedlearnerpopulations.Gapswithintheresearchliteraturearehighlightedandusedtoframetheempiricalworkatthecentreofthemainstudy.

New LiteraciesChangestothetechnological,culturalandsociallandscapechallengetheconceptofliteracyandwhatitmeanstobeliterate.User-generatedcontent,participatorycultureandthetechnologiesthatsupportthishaveallowedpeopletoconsume,produceandsharearangeofmediaandmodes.Contentmayincludewrittentext,image,video,soundandmusic.Bothartefacts(whatpeoplemake)andpraxis(whatpeopledo)havechanged,withrecentresearchrecognisingthatbotharenecessarytounderstandthephenomenonofinterest.Traditionaldefinitionsofliteracythatprivilegethewrittenwordtotheexclusionofallelse,failtoaccountforthediversityofskills,toolsandartefactsthatshapehowpeoplenowinteractandconstructmeaning.Researchfromthedisciplineof‘newliteracies’hasbeguntoredefineandexploreliteracyinanewway.Definitionsmayencompasstheabilitytouseandinterpretmovingimage,music,soundandgesture(seeIedema,2001;Kress,2000;Kress,2003;Kress&vanLeeuwen,2006).Asthetermliteracyexpands,newterminologyemergestoarticulateand mark new literacy practices from traditional lexicographic counterparts. Discussions haveshiftedfromthesingular‘literacy’totheplural‘multiliteracies’(Cope&Kalantzis,2000).Termssuchas‘visualliteracy’(Kress&vanLeeuwen,2006),‘multimodalliteracy’(Jewitt,2005),‘digitalvisualliteracy’(Spalter&vanDam,2008),‘designliteracy’(Sheridan&Roswell,2010)and‘newliteracies’(Lankshear&Knobel,2006)attempttoaccountforboththemodeandskillassociatedwithsuchbehaviours.

For educators and technologists, new literacies present us with more than just a change interminology.Theacquisitionandlearningoftheseskillsdiffersfromthatoftraditionalliteracy.Wheretraditionalreadingandwritingwereacquiredwithintheeducationalinstitutionand/orhome,newliteraciesmaybeinformallylearnt,self-taughtandformedoutsidetheclassroom.Assuch,theconceptofnewliteraciesispartofawiderparadigmaticshiftinlearning.Educatorsmayfindthemselvestobelessliterateinthesenewskillsthantheirstudents(Nordmark,Frolunde&Milrad,2010).Intheseconditions,achievingacompletemasteryof thesenewcommunicationskillsmaybe impossibleforanyoneindividual–teacherorstudent,adultorchild(Ranieri&Bruni,2013).Suchpracticesdisrupttraditionalmodelsoflearning.Likereadingandwriting,understandingdigitaltechnologiesandmultimodalliteracyareessentialforparticipatinginasocietythatutilizesboth(Mills,2010a).

Therelationshipbetweendigitaltechnologiesandtheacquisitionofmultimodalliteracieshasbeenrecognisedasasignificantareaforresearch.Despitethis,inquiryfocusingonadultlearnersandtheirinformallyacquiredpracticesislimited.Todate,empiricalstudieshavefocusedonthepracticesofchildren,asopposedtoadults.Studiesofmultimodalliteracieshavebeenconductedinearlychildhood(seeFlewitt,Messer,&Kucirkova,2014;Wolfe&Flewitt,2010),primary(Fails,Druin,&Guha,2010)andsecondary(Mills,2010b)educationsettings.Inmanyways,thisisnotsurprising.Literacyhasalwayshadstrongtieswithearlychildhooddevelopment.Furthermore,asayoungandconvergentdiscipline,newliteraciesinheritsitsresearchfocifromotherfields(Livingstone,vanCouvering,&Thumim,2008),namelytraditionalliteracyscholars,whosedomainhastypicallyfocusedonschool-levellearners.Wherethediscoursecentresaroundtechnology’simpactonadultliteracythishasfrequentlypreoccupieditselfwithananalysisofthephenomenaofuseratherthanhowmasteryofthenewmediaisacquired,whetherthisbesocialanxietyabouttheuseofTxt spk(seeCrystal,2008),tothemuchcontestedarchetypesofthe‘digitalnative’(Prensky,2001)and‘the


55

NetGeneration’(Tapscott,1998),totheroleofphotographsonFacebookincommunication,identityconstructionandtheunderstandingofreality(Winston,2013).Howadultshavelearnttheliteracyskillsneededtousethesenewmediaisgenerallynotinvestigated.

Mobility and LearningMobilelearning,asadiscipline,ishabituatedintothinkingaboutlearnerswhoaremobileandaffordedwithself-directionwithinadhocenvironments(Wang&Shen,2011),sometimesoutsideofformaleducationalinstitutions(Livingstone,2001).Inthecaseofnewliteracies,mobilelearningallowsindividualsto‘re-interprettheireverydaylifecontextsaspotentialresourcesforlearning’(Pachler,2009,p.5).Foradultsininformalsettings,learningdiffersfromtheheavilystructuredandoutcomesbasedformatprevalentinformalcurricula.Thisisimportantifwearetorecognizeeducationasbeingmorethanjust“learningfacts,acquiringskillsandbecomingsocializedinroles”(Nohl,2009,p.287).Despitethis,thefieldhasoftenfocusedonlearnersenrolledineducationalinstitutionssuchasschools,collegesanduniversitiesthathaveaformalizedandsetcurricula,eveniflearningtakesplacewithinaninformalsetting.

Mobiledevicesareonetoolthatenablespeopletoengagewiththeireverydaysurrounds,notonlyasconsumers,butalsoasproducersofdigitalartefacts.Thisissomethingthat,theauthorsargue,remainsacriticalcomponentnecessarytounderstandnewliteracies.Thoughresearchintotheroleofmobilitywithinnewliteraciesislimited,findingsfromexistingstudiesdemonstratethepowerofuser-generatedcontentapproachesforadultlearnersinthecommunity(Ranieri&Bruni,2013;Ranieri&Pachler,2014).InRanieriandPachler’s(2014)studyofmobiledigitalstorytelling,mobiledeviceswerea‘resourceforidentityformationandself-representation’.Thisreinforceswhatweknowaboutdigitalstorytellingasameansofempoweringandgivingvoicetoitsparticipants(Lambert,2002;Meadows,2003).Secondly, theresearchersalsofound thatmobilestorytellingenabledpowerfultransformativelearningexperiences(Ranieri&Pachler,2014).Transformationallearningtheory(seeMezirow,1991)isanimportantconceptinadultandlifelonglearning,wheretransformativelearningexperiencescanhelpus“challengeandsubsequentlychangeouryetunchallengedpsychologicalandculturalassumptionsthatconstituteour‘meaningperspectives’(Nohl,2009,p.287).

Adult Mobile Learners, Informal Practice and New LiteraciesThequestionformobilelearningishownewliteraciesareenactedwithinthemobilespace.Mobiletechnologies support learning that is informal (e.g. Pachler, 2009; Pachler et al., 2010; Traxler,2007), lifelong (O’Malleyet al.,2005;Sharples,2000)and flows ‘across locations, time, topicsandtechnologies’(Sharples,Arnedillo-Sánchez,&Milrad,2009,p.235).Itcansituatealearningconversationwithintheindividualuser’swork(Coulby,Hennessey,Davies,&Fuller,2011)orwithintheirpersonaltimeandspace(Sharples,Taylor,&Vavoula,2007).Tounderstandwhatformthislearningconversationmighttake,weneedtounderstandnewliteraciesfromamobileperspective.Thismeansnotonlypracticallygroundingtheresearch,forexampleinstudiesinvolvingmobiledevicesoractivities,butorientatingsuchstudiestheoreticallywithinexistingcontributionsofmobilelearning.Fromsuchavantagepoint,studiesmaybetteraccountforhumanandcomputermobility,informalpracticeandhowliteracypracticeformspartofthewiderecologicalmobilecomplex(seePachleretal.,2010).Likewise,whiledigitalstorytellinghasbeenusedsuccessfullywithinthecommunity(seeLambert,2002;Meadows,2003),itremainsunder-theorized,lackingunderstandingsofeitherliteracyormobility.Thus,buildingonunderstandingsinnewliteraciesandmobilelearningmayallowustobetterunderstandhowsuchskillsareacquiredandpracticedoutsideoftheeducationalinstitution.Thisisimportantforadultlearnersinatimewhenthewaysweconstructandshareknowledgebecomemorevisual,participatoryandmultimodal.Usingacommunity-basedproject,thisresearchexplorestheroleofmobilityonnewliteracyacquisitionandpracticeoutsideofformaleducationalprograms.


56

MeTHodoLoGy

Infocusingourattentiononinformaladultmobile learning, theusualboundaries thatscopeanddelineateanareaofresearchareunclear.Thefactthatittakesplaceadhocandunplannedposesseveralmethodologicalchallenges,asdoesaninformallearnerpopulationwhomaynotacknowledgethatwhat theyaredoingcountsas learning(Foley,2001;Hrimech,2005).Likewise, there isnoestablishedtimeperiodsuchasasemester,orobjectssuchaslearningoutcomesorassessmentsthroughwhichtomeasurethislearning.Researchintoinformalmobilelearningrequiresamethodologythatprovidesscopeandboundariesthroughwhichtoaccesstheadultlivedexperience.Inthisstudy,theresearchersapproachedthisphenomenonofinterestthroughmStories,acreativedigitalwritingprojectthatsupportedadultsinthecommunityinlearningtocreatemobilestoriesusinganycombinationofimage,video,textandsoundaffordedbytheirmobiledevice.Participantswereprovidedwithaone-pagebriefanduploadedtheircontributiontoasharedpublicprojectwebsite.Likeotherkindsofinterventionistandeducationalresearch,theprojectisbothavehicleforthephenomenonofinterestandaresearchmethodinandofitself.Inthissection,theauthorsdescribetheresearchandprojectdesignasameansofunderstandingadults’informalmobileliteracieswithinacommunitycontext.Thissectionbeginswithamacroleveloverviewoftherationaleforacreativeandparticipatorycasestudyapproach,beforeoutliningthespecificresearchquestionandmethodsfordatacollectionandanalysis.

Creative Participation as a Means of InquiryCreativeapproacheshavelongbeenunderstoodasamethodoflegitimateinquiry(Sullivan,2005),onethatcanoftenbecollaborativeandofferrevelatoryinsightsintoacommunitywhenpairedwithaparticipatoryethos(e.g.Lykes,2001).Asnewtechnologiesarereappropriatedinnewways,insightsthatexplorethiscreativeusestandtooffervaluableinsights intobothmultimodalsemioticsandpractice(seevanLeeuwen,Djonov,&O’Halloran,2013).Creativeapproachesmayalsofacilitatelearning,sincecreativeexpressionhasbeenlinkedtotransformativelearning(Davis-Manigaulte,Yorks&Kasl,2006).Byofferingparticipantsablankcanvasinwhichtodosomethingdifferent,themStoriesprojectisameansforunderstandinghowpeoplelearnandapproachnewdigitaltasks.Originallystructuredaroundtheconceptofawriters’group,mStoriesoffersaparallelcommunitygroupforinformallearning,sharing,andengaginginacreativeactivity.Whilepre-existinguser-generatedplatforms(e.g.Facebook,YouTube,Instagram,Flickr)offerplacesforpeopletocreatemultimodalcontent, such forumsalreadyhave firmlyestablishedgenresandsocialnetworks. Incontrast,mStories,asanindependentcreativeproject,providedanovelspaceinwhichpeoplecouldengageinnew,andextended,meaningmakingandstorytellingpractices.WithinthemStoriesproject,participantsweregivenanopeninvitationtocreateandshareadigital“story”usinganyfeatureorfunctionoftheirmobiledevice.Mobilestoriescouldincludeanycombinationofimages,video,textandsound.Thecommunitywebsiteactedasagalleryandhubforcontentsharing.

A MoBILe ANd dIGITAL ‘wRITeRS’ GRoUP AS CASe STUdy

Inthisstudy,themStorieswritersgroupandprojectareinterpretedtobethe‘functioningspecific’(Stake, 1994, p. 236) necessary for case study research. Treating the project as a specific caseallowsustoinvestigatecircumstances,suchasinformalmobilelearning,whereboundariesbetweenphenomenonandcontextarenotclearlyevident(Yin,1994)whilecontinuingtorespecttheagencyofadultlearnerswithinthecommunity.Thisapproachprovidestheboundariesthroughwhichtoinvestigatetheproblematicallyunboundedphenomenon.Furthermore,incenteringthestudyontheparticipantgroup,asopposedtoaspecificapp,platformortechnology,theprojecttookahuman-centered approach that accommodated and responded to the diverse range of individual needs,technologies,interestsandmotivationspresentwithinthegroup.Theparticipantsthusdeterminethe


57

boundsofbothprojectandcase.Thisisimportantforinformalmobilelearningthatischaracteristicallypersonalized,situated,andpronetohavingtoomanyvariables,toomuchnoiseandtoolittlesignal(Traxler,2009,p.160).Thoughacasestudyapproachlacksbreadthandgeneralizabilityofitsfindings,itneverthelesscontributesvaluablein-depthfindings,andlike‘blackswans’canoffersignificantinsighttoafieldofinquiry(Flyvbjerg,2004).

data Collection and AnalysisAsanexploratoryandparticipant-directedstudy,theresearchersadoptedqualitativeandemergentmethods.Theresearchersexploredboth‘whatismade’and‘howitismade’,sincetheseperspectivesareimportantwithinliteracyresearch(Andrews&Smith,2011).Qualitativedataisusedtoaddressthefollowingresearchquestion:

RQ:Howcanwebestdescribeadults’informallyacquiredmobileliteracypractices?

Forthepurposesofthisstudy,literacyreferstothemeaning-makingprocessassociatedwiththe‘reading’and‘writing’ofdigitalartefacts.Theresearchquestionwasinvestigatedthroughthreeiterativephasesofdatacollectionandanalysis.ThestagesaredepictedinTable1.

FINdINGS

The findings from the mStories project are presented sequentially by stage. Qualitative data issummarizedusingexamplequotations.Ininstanceswhereitisbothclearerandmoreinformativetopresentfindingsnumerically(e.g.commonthemes)weusenumericdata,thoughasaqualitativestudythatisrootedwithinaninterpretivistresearchparadigmthisdatahasnostatisticalsignificance.

Stage 1: Preliminary SurveyThepreliminarysurveywasdesignedtoexploreexistingmobileuseandmotivationsforparticipatingintheproject.

Participant EngagementThe project established itself by recruiting participants through writers’ groups and communitynetworks.Followingtraditionalparticipatoryandactionresearchapproaches,thegroupwasoriginallyestablishedtoworkfacetoface.However,thedigitalnatureofaspectsoftheprojectledtoashifttoonlineparticipation,outlinedinearlierwork(Frawley,2012).Thoughestablishedonawriters’groupmodelitwaslargelynon-writers(two-thirds)whoexpressedinterestinjoining.ThefinalmStories

Table 1. Methodology and data collection

Stage Method Aims Data collected

1 Preliminarysurvey Whoparticipatedandwhy?

•Participants’demographics•Typeofphoneandexistingusage•Occupationandhobbies•Motivationsforparticipating

2 Contentandartefactanalysis Whatwascreated?

•Modesandmediaused•Genresandcontentcreated•Semioticfeatures

3Post-projectinterviewandsurvey

HowdidpeoplecreatethedigitalmobilestoryanalysedinStage2?

•Modalchoice•Technologychoice•Perceptionsandattitudesofoutcomeandprocess


58

participantgroupwascomposedofninepeople.ParticipantswerefromAustralia(n=5)andtheUK(n=4),withanagerangespanningfrom21-25to46-55.Genderwascomprisedofmale(n=4)andfemale(n=5).Thissmallsamplesizeallowedforresponsiveandlabourintensiveresearchmethodsincludingthemultimodalanalysispresentedinthispaperandtheintersemioticanalysispresentedinearlierworkbytheauthors(Frawley&Dyson,2014).

Existing Device UsageTheresultsfromthissurveyfoundthat,whileallparticipantsusedtheirphoneforcallsandtextmessaging,therewasadifferenceintheextenttowhichpeopleengagedinmultimodalconsumptionandproductionbehaviours(Table2).Thiscanbeinterpretedasareflectionofthedifferencesindeviceownershipatthetime,withnotallphoneseasilyaffordingmultimodalpractices.Thoughtherewasarangeofinterests,noneoftheparticipantshadeverusedtheirdevicetocreateamobilestorybefore,thusconfirmingtheprojectasanopportunityfortheparticipantstolearnsomethingnew.

MotivationsAlthoughwriters’groupswereinitiallyapproached,membersfromwriters’groupsaccountedforonlyonethird(n=3)ofthefinalgroup.Whilstthereweretwoprofessionalwritersinthegroup,otherparticipantshadarangeofoccupations(Table3).Participants’hobbiesweresimilarlydiverseandincludedthingssuchasphotography,dramaandacting,sportsandoutdooractivities.Interestintheprojectwasgaugedthroughtheopenquestion:“WhatinterestedyouinparticipatinginthemStoriesproject?”Participants’responseswerecodedthematically.Fromthiscodingthreedominantthemesemerged:

• To be creative (n= 5):e.g.“Achancetobecreativeandconductmyowne-show”• Interesting or fun (n=4):e.g.“soundsfun,interestingandatinybitsilly”• It is different or new (n=5):e.g.“Writingashortstorywithamobilephoneisn’tsomethingmany

peoplewouldconsiderandallthebetterawaytoinjectsomestimulusintothewritingworld”

Table 2. Thematic coding of participants’ existing mobile literacy practices

Literacy practice as categorized by the researcher Activities Instances (n= _/9)

Multimodalandmultimediadominantliteracy

Consumption Surfingthenet 7

Watchingonlinevideo 4

Downloadingmusicorvideo 1

GPSandmaps 7

Playinggames 3

Production Takingphotos 7

Makingvideos 3

Recordingsound 2

Both Socialnetworking 4

Textdominantliteracy Reading ReadingeBooks 2

Readingandwriting Text 9

Email 6


59

Stage 2: Content AnalysisThecompletedmStoriesandtheir inclusionwithinthemStorieswebsiteprovideddataaboutthemedia,genreandcontextthatwereemployedbyusers(Table3).

Modes and MediaOftheninecreativestoriesgeneratedbyparticipants,allemployedthevisualmodethrougheitherstillormovingimage.Textandimagecombinationsaccountedforthemajorityofstoriesuploaded.Oneexampleof this is“WhatamIwearing today?”–asequenceofdailyself-portraits thatareaccompaniedbytextofferingtheauthor’spersonalreflectionsandcomments(Figure1).Participantsdemonstratedtheabilitytonotonlyusedifferentsemiotics(e.g.imageandtext)buttocombinethesetocreateasinglecomprehensivesemanticunitinwhichdifferentsemiotics“spoke”toeachother.AnexampleofthiscanbeseeninFigure1,wherethepronoun“this”(inthewrittentext)canonlybeunderstoodinrelationtothevisualimagetowhichitrefers.

Table 3. Participants’ digital mobile stories – genre, media and context

ID Participant/Author Genre Media Contexts and locations

Occupation and location

Gender Age (Years)

1 FirefighterSydney(Australia)

M 21–25 Documentary Video Journeyfromfirestationtofire.

2 WriterCambridge(UK)

M 26–30 Poem“iambictextameter”

TextPhoto

Poemandphotoinspiredbyviewofachurchyard.

3 FundraiserLondon(UK)

F 26–30 Themedphotos

Photo MorningsinLondontakenfromflatandcommutetowork.

4 ManagementConsultantLondon(UK)

M 26–30 Photodiary Photo CommutetoworkinLondon.

5 AccountantSydney(Australia)

M 31–35 Mixedgenre(CompositeDiary)

PhotoVideoMusic

IdealisedSaturdaycompiledofmanySaturdaysatmarkets,beaches,artgalleries,gardens,andafireworksdisplay.

6 InteractionDesignerSydney(Australia)

F 31–35 Diary TextPhoto

Dailyportraitanddiaryentryabouttheclothesapersonwears.

7 MedicaldoctorCambridge(UK)

F 31–35 Photodiary Photo Momentsfroma“specialday”inLondontakenatmarkets,onthetube,intheshops,atthetheatreandathome.

8 WriterandmotherSydney(Australia)

F 36-45 Shortstoryfiction

TextPhoto

‘Spookystory’setinmanydifferentlocations:playground,thestreet,apre-schoolclassroometc.

9 ResearcherSydney(Australia)

F 46-55 Poems TextPhoto

Poemssettophotoportraitsofflowers.


60

GenreSeveralgenreswererepresented,includingashortspeculativefictionstory,poetry,documentaryanddiaryforms.PhotoorvideodiarieswerethemostcommongenreonthemStorieswebsite.However,whileparticipantsadoptedacceptedgenres,thesewereappropriatedinwaysthateitherbentorby-passedexistingconventions.Forexample,onepoem(pairedwithaphotoofthespecificlocationthatprovided inspiration to the text)waswrittenusingSMSandcomprisedfour linesof iambicpentameter.However,theauthorchosetorefertothisastheiambictextameter,inrecognitionofthemobiletechnologyusedtocreateit(Figure2).

Similarly,thevisiblepresenceofthemobilephonecoveringthefaceoftheauthorinthestory‘WhatamIwearingtoday?’(Figure1)divergesfromboththetraditionalconventionsofportraiture,andthecontemporaryconventionofa‘selfie’,whichisaphototakenofoneselfusingaphoneheldatarm’slengthsothatthedevicedoesnotshowintheimage.

Thoughthediarygenrewaspopular,theseweresometimespartfictioninnature.Onestory,entitled‘MySaturday’wasacompositemixofphotoandvideofrommanySaturdaysthatformedasinglenarrativestructuredfrommorningtoevening(Figure3).

Asapasticheofphotos,videos,soundrecordingsandmusic,thestoryof‘MySaturday’resistsclearcategorization.Similarly,thequestionofwhatcountsaspoetryischallengedbythetwopoeticcontributions,bothofwhichusetextandimage.Giventhatthepoem’smeaningisboundtobothmodes,suchcontentpresentsachallengetodefinitionsofpoetrythatfocussolelyonthetext,howeverconcretethatmightbe.

ContextWhatiseasilyobservablefromTable3istheextenttowhichthestoriesportraythecontextinwhichtheyaresituated.ThoughStory9wasaseriesofmobilepoemswritteninSMSthatreflectedonthe

Figure 1. What am I wearing today? (excerpt)


61

participant’sprofessionallytakenphotographsofnativeAustralianflowers,theeightotherstoriesalldirectlyprovideadialoguebetweentheindividualandthemobilecontextinwhichtheyaresituated.Thisdialoguecanresultindifferentoutcomes.InStory8photosoflocalplacesinSydneyarerewrittenbytextintoaspooky,speculativefiction.Anintersemioticanalysisofthisrevealedthesophisticatedwaysthatmodeandmediawereusedtoredesignthecontextforthestory(Frawley&Dyson,2014).Ontheotherhand,inStory6‘WhatamIwearingtoday?’(Figure1),wheretheparticipant’schoiceofclothesismadeinthemorningbeforeshegoestowork,eachphotoreflectsthetimeofthatperson’sexperienceandtheirplaceofdecisioninfrontofthemirror.Inanotherexample,thefirefighter’sstory,theimmediatecontextofhiswork,thefilmingofthefireasitwasbeingfought,resultedinthecurtailmentofthestorywhenthedemandsofthejobprecludedanycontinuanceoffilming.Themobiledevicesthusallowedeachparticipanttoexploretheirexperiencewithinthecontexttheyhadchosenfortheproject.Incapturingtheircontextualizedexperiencesthetechnologyandtheprojectaddressedoneofthemainaspectsofadultlearning,thatis,theacknowledgementthat‘adultsdefinethemselveslargelybytheirexperience[and]haveadeepinvestmentinitsvalue’(Knowles,1980,p.50).

Figure 2. Iambic Textameter – A view from my window


62

Narrative ViewpointsInconsideringthewaysthatparticipantsconstructmeaningfortheviewerorreaderoftheirstories,twocommonthemeswereidentified.Withinvisualsemioticanalysistheinterpersonalmetafunctionsuggeststhesocialrelationshipenactedbetweentheviewerandtheimage(Kress&vanLeeuwen,2006).Within themobile stories, especially those thatwerephotodiaries, imagesconstructedarelationshipwherebytheviewerbecametheparticipantandsharedintheirviewoftheworld.ThisismostnoticeableinStories1,3,4and7.Toillustratethis,anexcerptfromtheStory4,MyLondonCommute(Figure4)positionstheviewerasthecommuterwithinthestory.Thiscanbeinterpretedasthevisualequivalentofliterarydevicesthatalignthereaderwithasinglecharacterbynarratingthestoryfromthatperspective,forinstance,inthefirstpersonorthroughadiaryformat.ThoughStory4’sindividualimagesareoftenblurredandoutoffocus,theperspectiveandsequenceoftheseimagescreatesanarrativethatmakessenseofthisactionandgivesitastory.

Thoughlessvisible,asecondaryapproachwasalsoused.ThiswasmostnotableinstylisedorsymbolicstoriessuchasStories3and7,wherea‘stilllife’ofclothes,foodorwinewasusedinlieuofrepresentingaprocessoranaction.Forexample,excerptsfromStory7,‘Aspecialday’(Figure5),depictbreakfastandgettingreadyforthedaythroughastylisedsettingofobjectsthatindicateaperiodwithinawiderevent.Theseobjectsagainpositiontheviewerintheplaceoftheparticipant.Themobiledevicesthusallowedparticipantstoconstruct,shareandexternaliseeachindividual’sownreflectionsandunderstandings.Inconversationallearningtheory,aminimumrequirementforlearning

Figure 3. My Saturday (excerpt)


63

isthatforapersonmustbeabletoconversetothemselvesaboutwhattheyknow;moreeffectivestillisforsuchexternalisedrepresentationstobesharedwithothersaspartofalearningconversation(Sharples,2002).Whatthenarrativeviewpointsdemonstrateisthedifferentwayslearnersconstructthisconversationinordertointerrogate,articulateandexternalisetheirownexperiencesandidentities.

Stage 3: Post-mStory Survey and InterviewThepost-mStoryinterviewandsurveyexploredhowparticipantscreatedtheirstoryandmadedecisionsaboutthemodeandprocessassociatedwithgeneratingthatcontent.

Modal Choice and AgencyParticipants’choiceofmodeormediawasprincipallymotivatedbytheperceivedneedsofeithertheindividualauthor/creatororthestoryitself.Thedominantthemesthatemergedfromthedatawere:

• Practical Needs:“Iwantedtoillustratethepaceofmyjourneytoworkandneededsomethingthatwasquicktouseandeasilyaccessible.ThecameraworksononeclicksoIcouldgetanimagequicklywithoutdrawingtoomuchattentiontomyself.”

• Expressive Needs:“IthoughtabouttakingaseriesofphotosandaddingtextbutdecidedthatthetaskcouldbeaccomplishedmoresimplyifIallowedthepicturesandsoundtospeakforthemselves”

• Interest Needs:“Ilovephotography.Ithoughtitwasagoodwaytoregistermydaylikeadiary”

Figure 4. Sharing perspectives on action and process

Figure 5. Still life and symbolism in mStories photography


64

ParticipantswereaskedwhethertheysupplementedtheirmStorywithanycontentnotcreatedontheirmobilephone.Twoparticipantschosetouseacameratotakephotosbecauseoftheperceivedlimitationsoftheirdevice:oneperson’sphonedidnothaveacamera,whilstonechosetousetheircameratogeta“higherqualityofphoto”thantheirphoneallowed.Bothsaidthatthephoto“addedagreatdeal”totheSMSpoemsthattheyhadwritten.Inadditiontothis,twoparticipantswhocreatedmobilevideocontentresortedtotheirlaptopstoformattheirfinalsubmissions.Bothparticipantsfoundittobetootime-consuminganddifficulttodoontheirmobiledevice.

Participant ProcessIndescribingtheprocess,participantswereheavilyinfluencedbyin-situactionsandreflectionsonthemobilecontextofuse.

• “Iwasinspiredbytheviewoutofmywindow…”• “Iwantedtogivetheimpressionthattheyweredoingthecommutewithme”

However,whilstthemobilespaceprovidedcreativeimpetus,theshapingofthisintoameaningfulstoryisaresultoftheindividual’sowndialogueandactionwiththatmobilecontextofuse.ThiswasnoticeableinStory9.InthismStorytheparticipanthadwrittenacollectionofpoemsusingSMSbutinspiredbyphotographyofflowersshehadtakenusingaDigitalSLRcameraonaphotographycourseintheBlueMountainsNationalPark.However,theverylastimageandpoeminthesequenceisofanEchidna(Figure6),whichwascapturedinthebackgardenusingthedeviceshehadonheratthetime–hermobilephone.

Thisdialoguewas inseparable from the individual and their personalmotivations, interests,likesandreflections.Decisionsonwhattocreateastoryaboutweredrivenbywhattheindividualperceivedtobeinteresting:e.g.“Iwantedtocreatesomethingfunandexciting”.Likewise,learningbyreflectingonthatenvironmentalsobecameanimportantpartofthisdialogicinteraction.InStory1,afirefighterwhousedhisphonetocreateavideostoryabouthisworkdescribes:“SincemakingmymStoryIhavecaughtmyselftakingphotosofthings.Ifeelthisisbecausecapturingthesethingsmakesmeawareofthem”.Thus,theparticipant’sbehaviourchangedbecauseoftheirexperienceinthisproject,demonstratingthepowerformobilelearningtobeusedincommunityprojectstofacilitatetransformation.

Learning in Mobile SpacesOutsideofaneducationalenvironmentandinaninformalsetting,itisoftendifficultforpeopletorecogniseorarticulatewhattheyaredoingintermsoflearning.Askingdirectquestionsonlearning,especiallywithinacreativeproject,ispotentiallyproblematic.However,fromindirectquestionssuchas‘whatdidyougainfromthisexperience?’and‘whatdidyoulikeordislike?’qualitiesandpotentialprerequisitesforlearningdidemerge,mostchieflywith:

• Self-efficacy and identity: “IgainedalotandIfoundthatIgainedtheknowledgethatIcanthinkonmyfeetmorethanIthinkIcan…Andyeahthat’sthethingIlearnt[…]thinkingonyourfeetyou’vegotnothingbackingyouup.You’vegotnopermissiontowrite.AndIwasabletoembracethatchallengeandIwashappywhenIproducedsomethingthatIkindofliked.”

• Adaption and overcoming technical constraints:“OnacomputerathomeIwouldhavearesearchdocument,drafts[…]youcan’tdothatonaphone,soIhadtoproducesomethingcompletelydifferent.”

• Reflection and metacognition:“ThetypeofthingthatbecamemymStoryisfairlycommon,onethatInormallyexperienceandforget.EventhoughIstillhaven’tlookedatmymStorysinceIcreatedit,Istillveryclearlyrememberwhathappened,whereasIdon’trememberhalfofthe


65

othersimilarinstances.Thisissomethingthathasalsooccurredwithotherphotossince.IthinkcapturingeventshasmademeawarethatthingsIfindmundane,may,iflookedatclosely,actuallybeworthremembering.”

Awareness,thatis,reflection,wasenhancedbytheaffordanceofthemobiledevicesforcapturingeventsandcontextingraphicform,eitherasphotosorvideos.Thisallowedparticipantstoviewtheexperienceagain,forexample,whentheycompletedthestorythrougheditingoruploadingtothewebsite.Educationaltheoryshowsthatreflectionisessentialforlong-termlearning,asametacognitiveskillthroughwhichlearnersclarifytheirunderstandingsandareabletotransferthenewconceptsandskillstolatersituations(Dewey,1933).

Figure 6. Story 9 (Excerpt)


66

Allparticipantsreportedneverhavingcreatedadigitalormobilestorypriortojoiningtheproject,yetallparticipantsdidcreatesomethingentirelynew.Indeed,seekingto‘becreative’and‘todosomethingnewordifferent’weretheprimaryparticipantmotivationsrecordedinthepreliminarysurvey.Ifthisistheoutcomesetbytheparticipants,thenlearning,albeitinformal,didtakeplace.Noveltyandcreativitywereimportantinthislearningprocess;inshort,wemaynotonly‘learnbydoing’butmay‘learnbydoingsomethingelse’.

dISCUSSIoN

Mobiledevicesaffordvisualandmultimodalcommunication.Byembracingthis,themStoriesprojectwasabletowidenparticipationfromthatfoundatusualwriters’groupstoaffordreflectiveandnovelpracticesandopportunitiesforadultlearningandtransformativeexperiences.Thesepracticeswerecharacteristically situated,experiential and reflectiveandallowedparticipants toengagedirectlywiththemobilecontextofuseinawaythatwasnovelandcreative.Whencombined,thefindingsfromthethreestagesofdatacollectionallowustoformanelementaryunderstandingofhowthewidermobilecomplexaffectsnewliteracypracticesandlearning.Asadultlearnersinaparticipatorycontext,theindividualsdemonstrablyextendedtheirexistingliteracypractices,bothintermsoftheartefactstheymadeandpracticestheyengagedin.Noneoftheparticipantshadevercreatedadigitalormobilestorybefore.However,withintheparametersoftheprojectallparticipantssucceededincreatingamobiledigitalstory.ThecollectiveoutcomeofthemStoriesprojectwasanexpressiveandcreativecontributionthatdifferedmarkedlyfromexistinggenresofsocialmedia.Theprojectoutputswerecharacteristicallymultimodaland imagebased, reflecting thewidersocio-technicalshiftfromaword-centrictoavisual-centricculture(Spencer,2011).EachmStoryalsoshowedahighdegreeofsophisticationinthewayimages,textsandsoundweredesignedtocommunicatewithanimaginedreader.Participants’storiessimultaneouslyappropriateandchallengeexistinggenreconventions,demonstratingnoveltyinproductandpractice.Specificexamplesthatdemonstratedlearnedextensionofnewliteracieswerepoeticformatssuchastheiambic textameterandemergentpracticessuchasthatofthefirefighter’sreflectiononactionthroughphotographyandvideo.Suchshiftsingenresupportresearchthatsuggestsdigitaltechnologiesmaybechangingthestructureofstoriesandnarratives(Alexander&Levine,2008;Loveless,2007).Fromalearningperspective,thisprojectdemonstratesthecapacityformobilestorytellingtoprovidetheconditionsfortransformativelearningexperiences(seeMezirow,1991)fromacreativeproject.

Participants’successinthisprojectcannotbeunderstoodwithoutreferencetotheirmotivationsandthewaytheparticipatoryethosoftheprojectitselfsupportedindividuals’self-directionintheirlearning.Asindicatedinthepreliminarysurvey,participantswantedtojointheproject‘becreative’and‘dosomethingnew’.Theoriesofadultlearninghavelongrecognisedtheimportanceoflearners’settingtheirowngoals(Knowles,1980).Thus,byallowingindividualstoshareinthe‘responsibilityforplanningandoperatingalearningexperience,andthereforehaveafeelingofcommitmenttowardit’(Knowles,1980,p.57),themStoriesprojectrecognisedthevalueofadultlearners’ownexperiencesandthevalueofthiswithintheirlearning.Asasocialnarrative,eachmStoryallowedlearnerstoconstructknowledgeintheirownmodes,mediaandterms.EachstorycanbeinterpretedasbeingpartofthecollectivemStoriesconversation.Inthisproject,suchlearningconversations(seeSharples,2002)werefocusedontheindividualidentityofthestorytellerandthepersonalorthematicstorythattheywishedtoshare.

Withintheproject,mobiledevicesplayedanimportantrolewithinawiderICTecology.Mobiledevicessupportedadultlearnersindrawingontheplacesandspacesthatcomprisedtheirdailylives(seePachleretal.,2010),withcreativetriggersin situoftenbeingreflecteduponanddevelopedinothercontextsusingothertools.Thoughdevicefeatures,suchasthecamera,mayhaveafforded,constrained and facilitated different multimodal practice, participants were not technologicallydetermined.Instead,individualscontinuedtoexertpersonalchoiceandagencyastheyshapedtheir


67

digitalstory.Participantsturnedtootherdevicesavailabletothemtorealizedesignintentions.Thishighlightsthewayinwhichmobiledevicesareentangledwithintheindividual’swiderICTecology(Brady&Dyson,2010).Thougheachindividual’spersonalICTecologymaybeshapedbypersonalpreferencesandsocio-economicfactors,thisworkreinforcestheneedformobilelearningscholarsandpractitionerstocontinuetolookbeyondthedevice.Assuch,conceptsofubiquitouscomputingthatrecognisethewiderstructureofphysical,socialandinformaticssystemsthatareentangledwithinindividuals’dailylives(Shepard,2013)anddefinitionsofmobilelearningthatfocusonthemobilecomplex(seePachleretal.,2010),arebetterplacedtohelpunderstandanddesignmobilelearningforadultlearnersinthecommunity.

Throughoutthisstudyseveralthemeshaveemergetoaddresstheresearchquestion:“Howcanwebestdescribeadults’informallyacquiredmobileliteracypractices?”.Inshort,thismobileliteracyandlearningisbestdescribedas:multimodal,participantdesigned,situated,experiential,reflective,motivatedandparticipatory.

IMPLICATIoNS FoR PRACTICe

Byopeningupstorytellingtomultimodalmethodsandapproaches,themStories“writinggroup”wasabletoaccommodateadiversegroupofpeople(writersandnon-writers)inlearninghowtodosomethingentirelynew.Thisresearchandcaseexamplecanbeputintoapplicationinseveralways.Firstly,areasindigitalstorytelling(seeLambert,2002)thatadoptdesktoptechnologiesandtypicallylinearnarrativepatternscouldembracemobiletechnologiestoallowforstorytellingthatmayoccurin other formats and shapes. This may support increased creative agency, identity constructionandreflection.Thisapproachandtheresearchassociatedwithitcanbeappliedandextendedincommunitysettingstosupporttheexperientialandparticipatoryneedsofadultlearners(seeKnowles,1980).Secondly,whiletheauthorsrecognisethatwecannoteverguaranteetransformativelearning,approachessuchasthisone,andthatoutlinedbyRanieriandBruni(2013),cancreatetheconditionswherebyitispossibleforparticipantstoexperienceorencountertheperspectiveshiftthatispartoftransformativelearningtheory.Lastly,whilethisworkfocuseslargelyoncommunitysettings,theauthorsarguethatdigitalmobilestorytellinghasthepotentialtobetransposedtoformalsettingswherecreativeprojectsmayalloweducatorstosupportstudentsinexploringareasrelatingtoidentityandmeaningmaking.Thisapproachmayprovideanalternativetomoreoutcomes-basedapproachestocurriculumdesign.

CoNCLUSIoNS ANd FUTURe woRK

Likeadultlearnersmoregenerally(Knowles1980,p.50),participantscametothisprojectnotasblankslates,butaspeoplewithmotivations,individualinterests,attitudesandideasderivedfromtheirpreviouslifeexperiences,andusedtheirlifecontextasaplaceinwhichtobecreative.Thepictureofmobileliteracydepictedhereisplace-based,andecological.Throughthisstudywecanretainthevoiceoftheadultlearnerassomeonewhoisactiveandcontinuallyengagedinliteracylearninganddevelopment,asopposedtothemoretraditionallybinaryliterate/illiteratedistinctions.Fromunderstandinghowadultsextendnewliteracies,wearebetterplacedtotargetkeyquestionsthatrelatetoinitialacquisitionofnewliteraciesbyadultlearners,andhowandtowhatextentinformallearningoccurs.


68

ACKNowLedGMeNT

Thisproject,asaparticipatorywork,wouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouttheindividualswhosecreativeandresearchcontributionsareatthecentreofthispaper.Theauthorsthankindividualsforallowingustopublishexcerptsoftheirmobilestories.Anearlierversionofthispaperwaspresentedat the mLearn Conference in Istanbul, Turkey. The anonymous peer reviewers and inputs fromconferencediscussantshaveshapedthedevelopmentofthispaper.


69

ReFeReNCeS

Alexander,B.,&Levine,A.(2008).Web2.0storytelling:Emergenceofanewgenre.EDUCAUSE Review,(November/December):40–56.

Andrews,R.,&Smith,A.(2011).Developing writers: Teaching and learning in the digital age.Maidenhead,Berkshire:OpenUniversityPress.

Brady,F.,&Dyson,L.E.(2010).AcomparativestudyofmobiletechnologyadoptioninremoteAustralia.Paper presented at theSeventh International Conference on Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication (CATaC),Vancouver,Canada(pp.69-83).

Bryant,P.(2017).Generatinglearningthroughthecrowd:Theroleofsocialmediapracticesinsupportingstudentsasproducersatscale.InH.Partridge,K.Davis,&J.Thomas.(Eds.),Me,Us, IT! ProceedingsASCILITE2017: 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education(pp.197-207).

Colley,H.,Hodkinson,P.,&Malcolm,J.(2002).Non-formallearning:Mappingtheconceptualterrain.Retrievedfromhttp://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm

Cope,B.,&Kalantzis,M.(2000).Multiliteracies:Thebeginningsofanidea.InB.Cope&M.Kalantzis(Eds.),Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures(pp.3–8).London:Routledge.

Coulby, C., Hennessey, S., Davies, N., & Fuller, R. (2011). The use of mobile technology for work-basedassessment:Thestudentexperience.British Journal of Educational Technology,42(2),251–265.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01022.x

Crystal,D.(2008).Txtng: The Gr8 Db8.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Davis-Manigaulte,J.,Yorks,L.,&Kasl,E.(2006).Expressivewaysofknowingandtransformativelearning.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,109(109),27–35.doi:10.1002/ace.205

Dewey,J.(1933).How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process.Boston:D.C.Heath.

Dewey,J.(1938).Experience and education.NewYork:TouchstoneBooks.

Dyson,L.E.,Litchfield,A.,&Raban,R.(2010).Exploringtheoriesoflearningandteachingusingmobiletechnologies:comparisonsoftraditionalteaching,eLearningandmLearning.Paper presented at the mLearn 2010,Malta.

Fails,J.A.,Druin,A.,&Guha,M.L.(2010).Mobilecollaboration:collaborativelyreadingandcreatingchildren’sstoriesonmobiledevices.Paper presented at theIDC 2010: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children,Barcelona,Spain.doi:10.1145/1810543.1810547

Flewitt,R.,Messer,D.,&Kucirkova,N.(2014).Newdirectionsforearlyliteracyinadigitalage:TheiPad.Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,0(0),1–22.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F.Gubrium,&D.Silverman (Eds.),Qualitative research practice (pp.420–434).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.doi:10.4135/9781848608191.d33

Foley,G.(2001).Radicaladulteducationandlearning.International Journal of Lifelong Education,20(1/2),71–88.doi:10.1080/02601370010008264

Frawley,J.K.(2012).mStories:exploringmodesofparticipationinacreativestorytellingproject.anzMLearn Transactions on Mobile Learning, 1(1),10-14.

Frawley,J.K.,&Dyson,L.E.(2014).mStories:Exploringsemioticsandpraxisofuser-generatedmobilestories.Social Semiotics,24(5),561–581.doi:10.1080/10350330.2014.937073

Gayeski,D.(2002).Learning unplugged: Using mobile technologies for organizational training and performance improvement.NewYork:AMACOM.

http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01022.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01022.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ace.205

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810547

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608191.d33

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370010008264

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2014.937073


70

Hrimech,M.(2005).Informallearning.InL.M.English(Ed.),International encyclopedia of adult education(pp.310–312).NewYork,NY:PalgraveMacmillan.

Iedema,R.A. (2001).Analysing filmand television: a social semiotic accountof ‘Hospital: anUnhealthyBusiness.InT.vanLeeuwen&C.Jewitt(Eds.),Handbook of Visual Analysis(pp.183–206).London:Sage.

Jenkins,H.,Purushotma,R.,Weigel,M.,Clinton,K.,&Robison,A.J.(2009).Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st Century.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.

Jewitt,C.(2005).Multimodality,“reading”,and“writing”forthe21stcentury.Discourse (Abingdon),26(3),316–331.doi:10.1080/01596300500200011

Knowles,M.S.(1980).Themodernpracticeofadulteducation:frompedagogytoandragogy.Revisedandupdated.NewYork:Cambridge.

Kress,G.R.(2000).Multimodality.InB.Cope&M.Kalantzis(Eds.),Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures(pp.179–200).London:Routledge.

Kress,G.R.(2003).Literacy in the new media age.London:Routledge.doi:10.4324/9780203164754

Kress,G.R.,&vanLeeuwen,T.(2006).Reading images: the grammar of visual design(2nded.).London:Routledge.

Lambert,J.(2002).Digital storytelling: capturing lives, creating community.Berkley,CA:DigitalDinerPress.

Lankshear,C.,&Knobel,M. (2006).New literacies everyday practices and classroom learning (2nded.).Maidenhead,NewYork:OpenUniversityPress.

Livingstone,D.W.(2001).Adults’informallearning:Definitions,findings,gapsandfutureresearch.Toronto:NALL(NewApproachestoLifelongLearning).

Livingstone,S.,vanCouvering,E.,&Thumim,N.(2008).Convergingtraditionsofresearchonmediaandinformationliteracies:disciplinary,criticalandmethodologicalIssues.InJ.Coiro,M.Knobel,C.Lankshear,&D.Leu(Eds.),The handbook of research on new literacies(pp.103–132).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Loveless,A.M.(2007).Report 4 update: Creativity, technology and learning – A review of recent literature.Bristol:NESTAFutureLab.

Lykes,B.M.(2001).CreativeartsandphotographyinparticipatoryactionresearchinGuatemala.InP.Reason&H.Bradbury(Eds.),Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice(pp.363–378).ThousandOaks,California:SagePublications.

Makri,S.,Blandford,A.,Woods,M.,Sharples,S.,&Maxwell,D.(2014).“Makingmyownluck”:Serendipitystrategiesandhowtosupportthemindigitalinformationenvironments.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,65(11),2179–2194.doi:10.1002/asi.23200

Marsick,V.J.,&Watkins,K.(1990).Informal and incidental learning in the workplace.London:Routledge.

Meadows,D.(2003).DigitalStorytelling:Research-basedpracticeinnewmedia.Visual Communication,2(2),189–193.doi:10.1177/1470357203002002004

Merchant,G.U.Y.(2009).Web2.0,newliteracies,andtheideaof learningthroughparticipation.English Teaching,8(3),107–122.

Mezirow,J.(1991).Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning.SanFrancisco,CA:Josey-Bass.

Mills,K.A.(2010a).Areviewofthe“digitalturn”inthenewliteracystudies.Review of Educational Research,80(2),246–271.doi:10.3102/0034654310364401

Mills,K.A.(2010b).ShrekmeetsVygotsky:Rethinkingadolescents’multimodalliteracypracticesinschools.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,54(1),35–45.doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.1.4

Nohl,A.-M.(2009).‘Spontaneousactionandtransformativelearning:Empiricalinvestigationsandpragmatistreflections.Educational Philosophy and Theory,41(3),287–306.doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00417.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596300500200011

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203164754

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23200

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470357203002002004

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364401

http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.1.4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00417.x


71

Nordmark,S.,Frolunde,L.,&Milrad,M.(2010).Promotingthecreationofdigitalstoriesbyteacherstudents:ApilotprojectoncurriculumdevelopmentinaSwedishteachereducationprogram.Paper presented at the Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010,Chesapeake,VA.

O’Malley,C.,Vavoula,G.,Glew,J.,Taylor,J.,Sharples,M.,Lefrere,P.,Lonsdale,P.,Naismith,L.&Waycott,J.(2005).Guidelinesforlearning/teaching/tutoringinamobileenvironment.HALArchives-Ouvertes:MOBILearnproject(D.4.1).

Pachler,N.(2009).Researchmethodsinmobileandinformallearning:someissues.InG.Vavoula,N.Pachler,&A.Kukulska-Hulme(Eds.),Researching mobile learning: frameworks, tools and research designs.Oxford:PeterLang.

Pachler,N.,Bachmair,B.,Cook,J.,&Kress,G.(2010).Mobile learning: structures, agency, practices(1sted.).NewYork,NY:Springer.doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0585-7

Prensky,M.(2001).Digitalnatives,digitalimmigrantsPart2:Dotheyreallythinkdifferently?On the Horizon,9(6),1–6.doi:10.1108/10748120110424843

Ranieri,M.,&Bruni,I.(2013).Mobilestorytellingandinformaleducationinasuburbanarea:aqualitativestudyonthepotentialofdigitalnarrativesforyoungsecond-generationimmigrants.Learning, Media and Technology,38(2),217-235.doi:080/174439884.2013.724073

Ranieri,M.,&Pachler,N.(2014).Inventingandre-inventingidentity:Exploringthepotentialofmobilelearninginadulteducation.Prospects,44(1),61–79.doi:10.1007/s11125-014-9294-1

Sharples,M.(2000).Thedesignofpersonalmobiletechnologiesforlifelonglearning.Computers & Education,34(3-4),177–193.doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00044-5

Sharples,M.(2002).Disruptivedevices:Mobiletechnologyforconversationallearning.International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning,12(5/6),504–520.doi:10.1504/IJCEELL.2002.002148

Sharples,M.(2009).Methodsforevaluatingmobilelearning.InG.Vavoula,N.Pachler,&A.Kukulska-Hulme(Eds.),Researching mobile learning: Frameworks, tools and research designs(pp.17–39).Bern,Switzerland:PeterLang.

Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., & Milrad, M. (2009). Small devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S.Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products.Netherlands:Springer.

Sharples,M.,McAndrew,P.,Weller,M.,Ferguson,R.,FitzGerald,E.,Hirst,T.,&Gaved,M.(2013).Innovating Pedagogy 2013: Open University Innovation Report 2.MiltonKeynes:TheOpenUniversity.

Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews& C. Haythornthwait (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). London: Sage.doi:10.4135/9781848607859.n10

Shepard,M.(2013).Minorurbanism:Everydayentanglementsoftechnologyandurbanlife.Continuum (Perth),27(4),483–494.doi:10.1080/10304312.2013.803299

Sheridan,M.P.,&Roswell,J.(2010).Design literacies: learning and innovation in the digital age.London:Routledge.

Spalter, A. M., & van Dam, A. (2008). Digital visual literacy. Theory into Practice, 47(2), 93–101.doi:10.1080/00405840801992256

Spencer,S.(2011).Visual research methods in the social sciences(1sted.).NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Stake,R.E.(1994).CaseStudies.InN.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Handbook of Qualitative Research(pp.234–247).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Sullivan, G. (2005). Art practice as research: inquiry in the visual arts. Thousand Oaks, California: SagePublications.

Tapscott,D.(1998).Growing up digital: the rise of the net generation.McGraw-Hill.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0585-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9294-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00044-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2002.002148

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607859.n10

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2013.803299

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992256


72

Jessica Frawley is an academic at the University of Sydney where she works in both Educational Innovation and as an Honorary Member of the School of Architecture, Design & Planning. She was recently awarded her PhD, in which she researched Mobile Learning for Civic Food Literacy Engagement. Jessica has worked on research and consultancy projects in educational technology and mobile learning within the UTS Faculty of Engineering and IT’s School of Software and the UTS Business School. Dr Frawley led the design of mInteract, a mobile learning technology that enables interactive learning within large lectures. With a background in user interface design Jessica is interested in the role that mobile interfaces and technologies play in changing literacy and reading and writing behaviours. She has won two teaching awards: the UTS Team Teaching Award 2012 and an OLT Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning 2013.

Laurel Evelyn Dyson is an Honorary Associate of the University of Technology Sydney following her recent retirement as an IT academic. Her research focuses on mobile learning and the use of mobile technologies by Indigenous people. She has over 25 years’ experience teaching in the university and adult education sector. Her mLearning research extends to ethical issues and student-centred learning approaches such as student-generated multimedia, interactive classroom systems and mobile-supported fieldwork. Dr Dyson has won 5 teaching awards, including 2 national OLT awards, and also the UTS Equity and Diversity Award and the Pauline McLeod Award for Reconciliation. She has received 3 Best Paper Awards and 1 Best Project Award. In 2009 she founded anzMLearn. Dr Dyson has consulted for UNESCO and the Australian Government, and has delivered several keynotes, invited talks and radio interviews in her areas of research. Her most recent book is Indigenous People and Mobile Technologies.

Traxler,J.(2007).Defining,discussingandevaluatingmobilelearning:Themovingfingerwritesandhavingwrit….International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,8(3).http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/346/875

Traxler,J.(2009).Mobilelearningevaluation:Thechallengeofmobilesocieties.InG.Vavoula,N.Pachler,&A.Kukulska-Hulme(Eds.),Researching mobile learning: Frameworks, tools and research designs(pp.151–165).Bern,Switzerland:PeterLang.

vanLeeuwen,T.,Djonov,E.,&O’Halloran,K.L.(2013).“DavidByrnereallydoeslovePowerPoint”:Artasresearchonsemioticsandsemiotictechnology.Social Semiotics,23(3),1–15.doi:10.1080/10350330.2012.738998

Wang,M.,&Shen,R.(2011).Messagedesignformobilelearning:Learningtheories,humancognitionanddesignprinciples.British Journal of Educational Technology,43(4),561–575.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01214.x

Winston,J.(2013).PhotographyintheageofFacebook.Intersect,6,1–11.

Wolfe,S.,&Flewitt,R. (2010).Newtechnologies,newmultimodal literacypracticesandyoungchildren’smetacognitive development. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 387–399. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526589

Yin,R.(1994).Case study research: design and methods.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/346/875

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/346/875

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2012.738998

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01214.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.526589

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.526589

meaning making and transformation in a community mobile ... ·...

Documents