Participation & production

Participation & production

I just finished watching a remarkable research-based video on child-driven education that presented itself to me as a result of a chain of events in participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006). The content of the video itself describes and mirrors the phenomenon that occurred in order for me to access it. Let me explain . . .

.     I have been blogging and uploading videos related to Raising Creativity for the better part of this year, 2013. As a result, I have received many viewer comments posted in reaction to the videos, and I have had many people subscribe to my channel to receive future updates. These participatory actions, made possible through online connectivity, are now contributing to my production in a couple of ways. First, the comments and feedback posted on the videos generate discussion and thereby contribute to “collective intelligence” (Jenkins, 2006). Sometimes viewers respond to other viewers, and more often I respond to comments to perpetuate discussion. Second, when a viewer comments or subscribes, his or her YouTube profile is accessible to me (indeed, it’s public). I can (and often do) click on a viewer’s profile to see what else they like, what else they have to say (as comments on videos), and who else they’ve subscribed to. I do this because chances are, if they’ve demonstrated somehow that they like Raising Creativity, they are likely interested in either creativity, education, or both, which may likely be demonstrated in their other YouTube activity—and if this is the case, then I would be interested in that content. To illustrate, in the case of what happened today, I clicked on the profile of a new subscriber and found that this person had recently liked a video by sulibreezy (2013; see below). I watched this video because I was intrigued by the title: “My Response To The Teachers.” Sure enough, I found the content to be right in line with that which I seek for part 4 of my research—the part where I access collective intelligence and remix clips together to satisfy my research question (“how can we nurture creativity in education?”).

Then, as I watched, at 18 seconds in to the video, the narrator (presumably the person behind the alias “sulibreezy”) suggested another video along the same lines: a TED talk by Sugata Mitra (QLFthailand, 2012; see below). This is the video I referenced at the outset of this post. Mitra’s educational research demonstrates that learning can happen just as effectively or more effectively when formal teaching is replaced by online technology (i.e., when a teacher is replaced by a computer that cannot prompt the user to do anything). The learning that happens is a result of participatory engagement with online collective intelligence. Mitra’s eventual goal is to develop a school in the cloud (i.e., online) based entirely in participatory culture which is generated and mediated by child users. Why not? Similarly, it was entirely through participatory action that I was directed to Mitra’s work, which is now influencing the production of my own work. Indeed, participation and production constitute an important synergy in my research and in 21st century research, teaching, and learning in general.

 

 

References

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide.
.
      New York, NY: New York University Press.
.
QLFthailand. (2012, July 25). Sugata Mitra: The child-driven education. Retrieved
.
.
      December 22, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKPvQCMATw
.
sulibreezy. (2013, November 5). My response to the teachers. Retrieved
.
.  
    December 22, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cIQy-wbX04

 

 

Posted by Rebecca Zak

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

or