‘Jam Hot!’ Personalised radio ciphers through augmented social media for the transformational...

8/6/2019 Jam Hot! Personalised radio ciphers through augmented social media for the transformational learning of disadva

1/10

Jam Hot! Personalised radio ciphers through augmented social media for thetransformational learning of disadvantaged young people

Andrew Ravenscroft, 1Graham Attwell, 2David Blagbrough and 1Dirk Stieglitz

CASS School of Education and Communities, University of East London

[email protected]

1Pontydusgu, 2Inspire! (Hackney Education Business Partnership)

Abstract

This paper describes a new approach to conceptualizing, designing and developing

personalized and community-based approaches to informal learning with new media. Itprovides a new articulation of personalisation as cultural practice, linked to the work ofPaulo Freire, leading to the technical reformulation of the concept of ciphers within a newpedagogical framework of participative edutainment. These new concepts and linkages arethen applied to the problem of addressing the engagement, informal learning andemployability of disadvantaged young people through internet radio and augmented socialmedia within a pilot project called RadioActive. The paper describes the new rationale andpedagogical approach to design; the methodology for developing RadioActive platforms; thecurrent platform; our current experiences within a pilot project; and, the broader implicationsfor this and similar projects when we consider the reality of designing for lived culture.

Keywords: radical pedagogy, internet radio, ciphers, social media, disadvantaged groups.

Introduction: Designing personalized new media spaces to support transformationallearning

Relatively recent research into, and definitions of, Personalised Learning Environments(PLE) (e.g. van Harmalen, 2008) have proposed new technological configurations orlearning design patterns. These typically harmonise individual learner agency and initiativewith a developing ecology of open web services and tools. This is the PLE from analternative learning technology perspective. Another and complementary way to viewpersonalisation, that has a history beyond relatively recent technological developments, is toview personlisation as cultural practice. In this sense, personalisation is rooted in the deepmatching and development of learners interests, experiences and motivations with theirchosen informal or formal learning trajectories that may be realized through personalisedtechnologies within particular cultural contexts. This is a psycho-social approach topersonalisation and learning technology design and use, that conceives of learning assomething that grows out from the learner, rather than something that is acquired from somepre-structured, external and imposed curricula. How this approach relates to currentthinking on PLE design is given in the Section below.

RadioActive and current thinking about PLE design

Many accounts of the ongoing changes in education tend to be driven from a technologicallydeterminist viewpoint. As Josephine Green (2005) points out given the Wests love affair

with a rationalistic and technological approach, and contrary to historical evidence, too oftenattention and emphasis is given to the technological and economic aspects of change and
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/10

not to the social aspects. Taken to the extreme, a technological and economic determinismdrives the assumption that the future will arise out of a continuum of technology roadmapsand market forces. Put simply: that technology and economics determines the future.

However, contextualist approaches to the history of technology have emphasised the socialdimension of technology implementation. Staudenmaier (1985) says a contextualist

approach shows "the internal design of specific technologies as dynamically interacting witha complex of economic, political, and cultural factors" Such approaches emphasize theparticularities of the social and historical conditions in which different technologies havedeveloped (Pannabeker, 1995).

Within education, Georgia Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides (1996) has suggested theadoption of educational technology is shaped by and shapes the educational paradigm. Shegoes on to say The characteristics which lie in the core of what is named as educationalparadigm are curriculum content, teachers discourse and teaching practices, and decisionmaking processes.

Thus technologies have developed which emphasize and perpetuate control andtransmission models of education reinforcing what has previously been called the industrial

model of education (Attwell, 2009). In the pedagogic sphere the development of virtualclassrooms has tended towards supporting and even reinforcing traditional pedagogicapproaches and teacher-learner relationships albeit whilst extending the potential foraccess to classroom based education. It is little surprise that a leading commercialeducational technology platform is named Blackboard.

The idea of the Personal Learning Environments arose in opposition to the Virtual LearningEnvironment. Although there are different definitions of PLEs and indeed differentdiscourses (see Attwell, Buchem and Torres, 2011) a prevalent theme in research literatureis a shifting in the nexus of control from teachers to learners. PLEs also initially tended to beseen in technical terms, as presaging the development of a new wave of educationalsoftware or learning platforms.

And indeed the emergence of PLEs were themselves based on changing forms ofinteraction and design within the world wide web through the movement from Web 1.0 toWeb 2.0. But as Web 2.0 itself started enabling fundamental changes in forms of knowledgeconstruction, moving from expert knowledge to rhizomatic knowledge (Cormier, 2009), thefocus of PLE research also began to change. Instead of using educational technology,learners could expropriate social software for learning, mixing and remixing tools andapplications to meet particular needs. Indeed the practice of designing the PLE could beseen as an outcome of learning in itself (Wild et al, 2008).

As technology has ceased to be the primary focus in PLE research there have been newconsiderations and emphases related to the different contexts in which people learn. EarlyPLE research saw the importance of bringing together learning that is drawn from the

community and the workplace as well as from education (Wilson et al, 2006). Some recentwork (e.g Attwell, 2010, Pachler, 2010) has looked at the affordances of mobile devices andthe development of a socio-cultural ecology for learning, based on the new possibilities forthe relationship between learning in and across formal and formal contexts, between theclassroom and other sites of learning. Such an ecology is based on the interplay betweenagency, cultural practices and structures.

Along similar lines Hughes (2010) has drawn our attention to issues of legitimacy inpersonlised and informal learning. What forms and processes for learning are defined aslegitimate and what outcomes are recognised? A number of researchers have drawnattention to the potential use of PLEs for informal learning and learning through interactionwithin Communities of Practice, but there are only limited accounts of practice. Amongst

other contexts of learning identified by Hughes (2010) are a series of relations: therelationship between teachers and learners, the relationship between learners themselves,


3/10

the relationships between learners and technologies and the relationship between learnersand the wider community. This thinking can be articulated within broader holisticpedagogical frameworks that fully appreciate the interrelationship between cognition,communication and community (Ravenscroft, 2004; Ravenscroft & Boyle, 2010 ), that havebuilt upon classical social constructivist approaches (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978; Bahktin, 1993;Engestrom, 1995) but reformulated these perspectives in line with the features of learning inthe digital age (Ravenscroft, Wegerif & Hartley, 2007; Ravenscroft 2011). In embracing thisemphasis on relationships and the socio-cultural dimensions of learning we can propose thatPLEs have the potential to change certain relationships, particularly through:

a) The appropriation of technologies for learning;

b) Changing roles for teachers in supporting and scaffolding learning;

c) The development of Personal Learning Networks or the support of peers as MoreKnowledgably Others (Vygotsky, 1978);

d) A shifting locus of learning from the institution to the real world.

This position and these points, especially a, b and d, are particularly important when we are

attempting to find technology-enabled ways to engage, retain and support the learning ofdisadvantaged people who are excluded, or at risk of exclusion, from traditional learningpaths and trajectories. Arguably, this problem is most severe in the burgeoning numbers ofyoung people not in education, employment or training (NEET) throughout the UK andEurope. Addressing the needs of these growing communities requires new and radicalapproaches to learning, learning design and technology-enabled practice that are trulytransformational in terms of life chances, and also transformative in Mezirows terms (1997).One foundation for a radical and technology-enabled pedagogy for disadvantaged groups isthe groundbreaking work of Paulo Freire (1970).

Applying Friere to PLE design: Technical reformulation of ciphers

In Paulo Freire's seminal work "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" (Freire, 1970), he emphasizedthe importance of critical engagement in and analysis of broader societal cycles and theireffects. One way to do this is through using lived culture, and praxis (action that is informedby values) as the foundational elements for developing circles that promote transformationallearning. These ideas have recently been taken up within the non hierarchical, shared,creative, inclusive, safe and supported spaces called ciphers" - which have emerged fromthe urban youth culture particularly around hip hop music (Wiliams, 2009). This is alsosimilar to the notion a jam, which was the inclusive cultural activity that powered the birth ofhip hop in New York in the 1980s, a parallel we return to later.

These ideas have recently been taken up within the ciphers" or inter-group dialogues used

as a tool to problematise existing social relations and construct new social relations byteachers and researchers working with socially disadvantaged young people in inner cities inthe USA. The work focused on hip hop culture (a music genre popular in many urban areasof the world) and historically the term cipher was the place within hip hop culture where MCs(Mic Controllers) would get together in a circle and initiate a freestyle construction ofrhymes.

The cipher was used as a means to promote the active and democratic co-construction ofcurricula between teachers and learners, thus moving curricula from expert control to thecontrol of the community.

The Critical Cultural Cipher project was designed to challenge the dominant middle classEurocentric discourse of education in the USA. One way of rectifying the inadequacies of the

education system in addressing students from different cultures was seen to be toincorporate elements of students lived culture in the curriculum thus acknowledging their


4/10

values and identities from outside school.

The aim was to develop a Critical Pedagogical Framework that would empower thestudents, together with the teachers, to challenge marginalizing social contexts, ideologies,events, organizations, experiences, texts, subject matter, policies and discourses.(Williams, 2009). Important in this was the development of an identity that is consciously

critical through learners acting as active agents who can take control of the construction oftheir own being.

We are currently using this cipher concept as a metaphor for designing digitally enabledciphers within RadioActive. This is a hybrid internet-radio and social media platform tosupport the transformational learning of disadvantaged young people.

Critical to this is the appropriation of technologies as a form of expression of popular culturesand their use of technologies within those cultures to explore and develop a criticalapproach. This re-formulation of Freires (1970) seminal notion of developing a criticalpedagogical framework in his work on literacy is an attempt to develop new critical literaciesthrough the use of new media.

Radio and disadvantaged or NEET young people: How is RadioActive different?

There have been various initiatives that have used radio with disadvantaged, at risk andNEET young people such as Fundamental FM (a project supported by the youth services inWandsworth, London, UK). But there is little literature on these initiatives that seem to comeand go based on the availability of finding. These have often been difficult to sustain due totheir reliance on significant funding for their running costs and inconsistent levels ofcommitment from usually voluntary staff. They also rely on the organizers behind thestations, that have typically broadcast in FM, selling the idea to a community. In RadioActivewe aim to manage the challenge of sustaining the radio and social media platform throughusing low cost or Open Source technology, internet broadcasting (that does not require a

licence like FM), and, as far as possible, growing the internet radio out of existing digitalcultures and linking to existing networks of established community activities. This does notremove the need for direct recruitment, engagement and retention of young people,however, it significantly reduces the reliance on this as the only method to realize suitablelevels of inclusion and participation.

A new design methodology for developing socio-technical systems

A key feature of our approach is to develop a design and development methodology that canbe re-used adapted and configured to different contexts with similar broad challenges. It willdo this through developing a design and development methodology linked to a softwaretoolkit, or radio station in a box, allowing the approach to be up-scaled and replicated withindifferent communities of young people. Central to the approach is the systematicexamination of the existing digital practices and cultures of the target groups followed byphysical and virtual interventions that recruit, facilitate and shape practices that are suitablefor RadioActive. This means that we are designing learning within lived cultures andpractices, not imposing learning practices and technologies into lived cultures. Themethodology and platform is being co-designed and deployed with young people and theirsupport actors (e.g. teachers, youth workers, parents) in London borough of Hackney. And itis aimed that during a replication and up-scaling phase the methodology and radio toolkitwill be disseminated and supported to facilitate its re-use within other community contextswith similar and contrasting demographics, namely another London Borough (such as TowerHamlets or Wandsworth) and the South Wales valleys. This approach extends the previous

work of Ravenscroft et al., (2011) into designing socio-technical systems for knowledgeworkers in the digital workplace. In this previous work, the broad rationale was similar, to


5/10

view socio-technical design as an intervention within existing digitally-mediated practicesand cultures, to solve particular problems, catalyse certain types of informal learningprocesses or realize new and more efficient collaborative learning processes. However, inthese work-related contexts, such as Careers Advice, the practices and extrinsic motivationswere explicit within the work environment and the knowledge workers were (obviously)highly digitally literate. In the RadioActive case, we need a refined approach that placesgreater emphases on linking personal interests, passions and existing digital behaviours torelatively open-ended and peformative practices. This requires that previous methodologiesneed to be extended to include a more extensive problematisation and recognition phase,and with a greater emphasis on harmonizing virtual and physical contexts and behaviours.Typical knowledge workers will have their broad activities and performance criteria mostlydefined by their working contexts, and their roles in those contexts. In contrast the roles,activities and developmental trajectories of the young people in RadioActive will co-evolvewith the performances and feedback within the RadioActive communities, that are a clearhybrid of the virtual and the real. The section below describes how we anticipate the organicgrowth and co-evolution of the RadioActive technology and community will be realizedthrough a particular approach to social media design, that co-ordinates on the ground

activities with evolving digital networks and technical developments.

The RadioActive platform: tools and processes

The radioactive platform has been designed to be as simple as possible to establish andmaintain. We wish to focus on the pedagogy ands utilize technologies for developing criticalliteracies, rather than focus on technologies in themselves. Indeed radio has been aroundfor many years. However in developing an internet radio platform, this opens the media foruse jn community settings. The radio platform is based on an Icecast server with astreaming server allowing access to the stream through any online MP3 player. Input isprovided through a portable mixing deck with remote radio microphones. Audio Hijack Prosoftware allows the signal to be channeled to the Icecast server on an Apple MacBook,meaning the whole radio station is portable rather than relying on a studio, or this is theradio station in a box concept. Other industry standard and open source software can beused for music mixing etc.

Portable MP3 players are used for pre-recording interviews, music or features and can beedited using the Open Source Audacity program or Apple GarageBand.

A key issue is developing an online social network around the radio programmes. In the pastwe have used a number of different platforms and social networking applications includingJoomla, Wordpress and Buddypress. We have also established a presence on Facebookand iTunes and have used AudioBoo for short radio clips. Obviously there are other socialnetworking applications which could be used. The main point is that the users, in the case of

RadioActive socially disadvantaged people, take ownership of the platform and apps andthat the look and feel of the different sites reflects their interests and cultures. In this senseany platform should be a perpetual beta with design and feel changing to reflect interestsand activities through a co-design process.

In terms of process, it is important that the project initiators (and authors) are not seen as theexperts and that the young people are involved in every aspect of the development anddesign of the radio output. Our models are responsive and reflexive, and we anticipate arange of approaches from mentoring and apprenticeship to spotting and harnessing andpromoting people, activities and assets. One aspect of the technical set-up is that it is simpleto learn and manage. In previous projects we have usually found at least one person withtransferable experience and an interest in the technology is sufficient to seed a radio project.Radioactive is using a cascade training process, with a workshop for Youth leaders who willthen work directly with the young people. The workshops will focus as much on the processof media production and social networking as on the technology itself.


6/10

The RadioActive pilot

The initial radio-social media platform is being co-designed with 14-19 year old, at risk andNEET young people and their related stakeholders (e.g. youth workers and communityworkers) in the London Borough of Hackney. Here, it is clear from the current interest andfeedback that the going live aspect acts as a catalyst for community engagement and

cohesion, linked to related social media activity. Put simply, the internet-radio gives apresence, real-time narrative and an energy that can complement and animate physical onthe ground activities, to collectively drive participation, interaction and content creation

This is an innovative and participative broadcasting model that combines Open Source oreasily affordable technology to create the communities radio platform. Inspired by Web 2.0trends, this deliberately fuses traditional distinctions between broadcaster/program plannerand listener/consumer. The broad pedagogical notion is one of participative edutainmentthrough using the RadioActive platform to offer and promote connections with, and theexpression of a hard to reach community. Where this community will be engaged, retainedand developed through a combination of innovative digital and established techniques, withthe platform and performances as the hub that coordinates, reflects back and develops a

hybrid of the virtual and the real of relevance and value to the community. Key in makingand maintaining this connection (between the virtual and the real) is the cipher approach,which will ensure that RadioActive is a live entity that is constituted by the community andtheir activities, rather than the community being seen as a separate audience that isbroadcast to.

The central idea is that this radio cipher, and crucially, its attendant recruitment andengagement features, provides the space into which we can initially engage and retainNEETs, who will then be exposed to and participate in informal learning activities that lead tothe development of skills and competencies that prepare them for further education, trainingor work. The open and yet structured cipher approach, allows for the initiation,orchestration, assistance and facilitation of activities by the support actors, who will have aparticular role in ensuring that physical and virtual activities synchronise through theRadioActive hub. This will allow the young people to develop both soft and hard skills. Thesofter ones relate to personal expression, the development of self-confidence and self-esteem, and the development of collaborative working skills. The harder ones involve thedevelopment of concrete digital literacy, media production, communication andorganizational skills, that can exploited in other education or employment related activities.Similarly, their artefacts and competencies are recorded (e.g. in an e-portfolio) or madepublic (e.g on the web) in ways that can be presented to potential educators or employers.This is greatly assisted through the accreditation of the RadioActive activities, performancesand content through adapting existing programmes at the University of East London andInspire! (the Hackney Enterprise and Business Partnership). The ambition for howRadioActive might work is given in the following section, demonstrating the interlinking of

augmented social media, various forms of prompting or scaffolding and internet radio.

A RadioActive Scenario: From rhyming to campaigning

Imagine two NEET young people. They have low confidence and self-esteem but they areboth enthusiasts of hip hop. Through their friends or support actors they become aware ofRadioActive and a hip hop cipher linked to internet radio, and understand that here they can"do their own rhymes", practice them with others and eventually broadcast them either "live"or upload them to the internet.

They enter the hip hop cipher where they are provided with media scaffolding, whichstructures their creative expression in writing rhymes (hip hop phrases) and putting these to

beats: they can play them, re-play them, develop them and compare them with the rhymesof others. At this point, through online monitoring, one of their support workers, who is also


7/10

part of RadioActive, becomes aware of what they are doing and through using a persuasivescript offers advice and encouragement to them to complete a short song and upload it to alive performance, and in parallel with this intelligent prompting "nudges" them towards thisactivity. Smart and semantic technologies then profile the NEETs and the semantics of thetitle of their song and also its content, and then recommend their participation in a scheduledlive internet radio broadcasts, or "jams", along with other NEETs who have a similar orcomplimentary profile.

The latter part of this program involves the NEETs explaining and reflecting on their songs,exploring joint concerns or interesting differences, and generally sharing their fears, worriesand ambitions. They come to understand that they are "not alone", and, "can do something",and get involved with further joint activities to retain and extend their participation aresuggested by the support actor and the RadioActive persuasion and recommendationcomponents (i.e. further intelligent prompting). They are then prompted towards acampaigning cipher, that similarly provides the sort of personal and community scaffoldingthat allows them to launch an online campaign through twitter, that culminates inapproaching a local councilor to perform a live radio debate on the issue that have beenraised through the hip-hop cipher and resulting twitter campaign.

Through the RadioActive hip-hop cipher, the NEETs have become engaged in expressingtheir concerns through developing digital literacies; developed self-confidence and self-awareness; collaboratively developed a greater understanding of their communitiesproblems, their role within them and how they can be addressed; been retained in theRadioActive framework because it can facilitate their personal expression, link them withothers who have similar concerns and interests and encourage and persuade them tofurther engage and develop through related follow on activities. And finally, through theresulting campaign, they have developed a collective voice that leads to affirmative action intheir community.

Discussion and implications: Design and lived cultureAs this is an ongoing pilot project, we will now reflect upon some broader ideas andimplications that have fed into our thinking that are relevant to personalized, informal andcommunity learning with digital technologies.

Our approach represents a variation on a new approach to learning and learning technologydesign for socio-technical systems that was introduced by Ravenscroft et al., (2011). Thisconceives of design as intervention within existing digitally-mediated practices and cultures.The aim is to shape, catalyse and promote learning behaviours based on existing andemerging digital literacies. Orchestrating these literacies into meaningful, organized andpurposeful digitally-mediated activity is the essence of RadioActive. But this is complex, aswe cannot separate cultures from the curiosity, dreams and imagination of the individuals

who constitute them or the and economic, social and political climate in which thesecultures operate, emerge and evolve. Or, putting this another way, personal meanspersonal, in terms of the importance of deep and relevant meaning making linked to tangiblepositive changes within our environment. To be concrete, RadioActive has meaning,purpose and relevance to its members because it taps into their key interests, passions,challenges and frustrations and channels these in ways that can lead to more activecitizenship and voice, forms of creative expression and cultural participation, and, thedevelopment of soft and hard employability skills relevant to the Creative and DigitalIndustries (CDIs). We are also working with, perhaps less tangible, but similarly significantforces that influence learning and human behaviour and cultural development. There areclear historical parallels of emergent forms of creative cultural force and practice thatemerge despite, or in opposition to, the constraints of the prevalent cultural or economictrends that we can draw upon. In a dialectical fashion, both positive emotions and forces,such as interest, excitement, enthusiasm, love and desire for social justice and more


8/10

negative ones such as frustration, marginalization, alienation and oppression can combine torelease new, and often revolutionary, forms of cultural expression, practice and impact. Forexample, the depressed economic and social conditions in the late 1970s, and the relatedlack of hope and alienation of young people from poor backgrounds powered the punk andpost-punk movement in the US and the UK. Young people turned their alienation upon itself,using music and music performance to create a new discourse that allowed them to expressand participate in society in radical and unforeseen ways, because:

Theres no point in asking

Youll get no reply. Pretty Vacant, Sex Pistols, 1977

This was combined with an essential energy that could go nowhere except express itselfthrough music in many situations:

Hey ho lets go (*4), Blitzkreig Bop, the Ramones, 1976

Then later in the early eighties, a dangerous, depressed and broke New York fuelled thebirth of Hip Hop:

Its like a jungle sometimes it makes me wonder how I keep from going under,The Message, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, 1982

The latter has some very interesting parallels with RadioActive, as hip-hop developed thenotion of a jam, that is a metaphor we consider in our Cipher concept. During jams the poorlocal communities brought together and shared equipment, records and ideas to createinclusive, free (and loud) community spaces and events. Using mixers and break-beats theymade the new out of the old through improvisation, and unknowingly, created what is todaythe most widespread musical genre in the world. These jams, and eventually the records,videos and even films (such as Spike Lees Do the Right Thing) created and shaped a newglobal culture from beginnings with no money, no modern equipment and no broaderinstitutional or commercial recognition. The magic was expressing and organizing previously

unexposed lived culture through music and art.Of course, with RadioActive, we are not aiming to uncover and develop the next Hip Hop, weare simply pointing out that, somewhat ironically, an economic, social and political landscapenow exists, that has stimulated widespread cultural expression and development in the past.Put simply, whilst we are realistic about the work that is involved to recruit, engage andretain disadvantaged young people, we are operating under conditions that have assisted inpromoting inclusion, engagement and sustained development in the past, throughembracing a reactionary spirit.

The broader message is that, we propose that designing personalized, informal andcommunity learning can be as much about working with, or possibly reacting to social andeconomic conditions and mechanisms of control, as it is about working with the right people

and technologies. New media simply provide more ways to do these things, and do themmore easily.

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to colleagues with whom they co-developed the broadeducational approach and digital cipher concept - Vania Dimitrova (University of Leeds),Christine Vanoirbeek (EPFL) and Liliane Esnault (Independent Consultant). We are alsovery grateful to Ergel Hassan, the Director of YOH, and the young people who areparticipating in this project.


9/10

References

Attwell, G. (2008) The Social Impact of Personal Learning Environments in Connected

Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning (Editor: Steve Wheeler),Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC

Attwell, G. (2010) Supporting Personal Learning in the Workplace. Proceeding of the PLEConference, 2010,http://pleconference.citilab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ple2010_submission_66.pdf

Attwell, G. Buchem, I. and Torres, R. (2011), Personal Learning Environments AComparative Research Study, paper presented at the PLE Conference, 2011, 12-13 July,2011, University of Southampton

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Cormier, D., (2008), Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate 4 (5).http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=550 (accessed May 31, 2008).

Engestrom, Y (1995) Training for Change, ILO, London

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum Publishing.

Green J. (2005) Blending Technological And Social Innovation, Institute of Design Strategyconference, May 18-19 2005, Chicago,http://trex.id.iit.edu/events/strategyconference/2005/perspectives_green.html

Hughes J. (2010), Critical literacies, Pragmatics and Education,

http://www.pontydysgu.org/2010/06/pragmatics-in-education/Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides G (1996) Educational Paradigms and Models of ComputerUse Does Technology Change Educational Practice? T. Plomp et at. (eds.), Cross NationalPolicies and Practices on Computers in Education, 49-83 Kluwer

Mezirow, J. (1997). "Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice." In: TransformativeLearning in Action: Insights from Practice. New Directions for Adult and ContinuingEducation. no. 74, edited by P. Cranton, pp. 512. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pachler, N. (2010). Guest editorial, in Pachler, N. (ed) Mobile learning in the context oftransformation. Special Issue of International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning,December, 2010.Pannabeker J., (1995). For a History of Technology Education: Contexts,Systems, and Narratives Journal of Technology Education Volume 7, Number 1, Fall 1995

Ravenscroft, A., Wegerif, R.B. & Hartley, J.R. (2007). Reclaiming thnking: dialectic, dialogicand learning in the digital age, Special Issue of British Journal of Educational Psychology(BJEP): Psychological Insights into the Use of New Technologies in Education, 11, 5, pp 39-57

Ravenscroft, A. (2004). Towards highly communicative eLearning communities: Developinga socio-cultural framework for cognitive change. In Land, R & Bayne, S. (Eds.) CyberspaceEducation. Routledge, Chapter 9, pp 130-145

Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and Connectivism: A new approach to understanding andpromoting dialogue-rich networked learning, International Review of Open and DistanceLearning, Special Edition: Connectivism: Design and delivery of social networked learning.(Eds) George Siemens and Grinne Conole, Vol 12, No 3, pp 139-160.
http://pleconference.citilab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ple2010_submission_66.pdfhttp://pleconference.citilab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ple2010_submission_66.pdfhttp://pleconference.citilab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ple2010_submission_66.pdfhttp://trex.id.iit.edu/events/strategyconference/2005/perspectives_green.htmlhttp://www.interloc.org.uk/pubs/RecthinkBJEPfinal.pdfhttp://www.interloc.org.uk/pubs/RecthinkBJEPfinal.pdfhttp://pleconference.citilab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ple2010_submission_66.pdfhttp://pleconference.citilab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ple2010_submission_66.pdfhttp://trex.id.iit.edu/events/strategyconference/2005/perspectives_green.htmlhttp://www.interloc.org.uk/pubs/RecthinkBJEPfinal.pdfhttp://www.interloc.org.uk/pubs/RecthinkBJEPfinal.pdf


10/10

Ravenscroft, A. and Boyle, T. (2010) A Dialogue and Social Software Perspective on DeepLearning Design, Journal of Interactive Medica in Education,http://jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2010-12/html

Ravenscroft, A., Schmidt, A., Cook, J. & Bradley (2011). Designing Socio-Technical systems

for informal learning and knowledge maturing in the Digital Workplace. Special Issue ofJournal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL), on Designing and Evaluating Social Mediafor Learning, (Eds.) Ravenscroft, Warburton, Hatzipanigos & Conole. (Submitted)

Staudenmaier J. M. (1985). Technology's storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric. TheSociety for the History of Technology and The MIT Press. Cambridge

Van Harmelen, H., Design trajectories: four experiments in PLE implementation, InteractiveLearning Environments, 1744-5191, Volume 16, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 35 46.

Vygotsky, LS, (1978), Mind in Society - The Development of Higher PsychologicalProcesses. Editors: Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, and EllenSouberman, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, USA.

Wild, F. Mdritscher F. and Sigurdarson, S. (2008), Designing for Change: Mash-UpPersonal Learning Environments, elearning papers, http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=15055&rsr_id=15972 , accessed 2 September, 2008

Wiliams, D. (2009). The critical cultural cypher: Remaking Paulo Frieires cultural circlesusing Hip Hp culture. International, Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 2, 1, pp 1-29.

Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. (2006).Personal learning environments challenging the dominant design of educational systems.Paper presented at the ECTEL Workshops 2006, Heraklion, Crete (1-4 October 2006).

Conference themes addressed Theories and frameworks for Personal Learning Environments Supporting informal and contextual learning
http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=15055&rsr_id=15972http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=15055&rsr_id=15972http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=15055&rsr_id=15972http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=15055&rsr_id=15972http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=15055&rsr_id=15972

‘Jam Hot!’ Personalised radio ciphers through augmented social media for the transformational...

Documents

Transcript of ‘Jam Hot!’ Personalised radio ciphers through augmented social media for the transformational...