cultural literacy !

Journal of Curriculum Studies ISSN 0022–0272 print/ISSN 1366–5839 online ©2008 Taylor & Francis http://www.informaworld.com

DOI: 10.1080/00220270801930655

J. CURRICULUM STUDIES, 2008, VOL. 40, NO. 3, 329–351

Sociotechnical cultural activity: expanding an understanding of emergent technology practices

DONNA DEGENNARO

Taylor and Francis LtdTCUS_A_293231.sgm10.1080/00220270801930655Journal of Curriculum Studies0022-0272 (print)/1366-5839 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis0000000002008DonnaDeGennarodegennarod@mail.montclair.eduThis paper examines the evolving participation of instructors and learners in an after- school web page-design course intended to improve technology practices. Defined here as technology fluency, these practices emerge through a highly fluctuating dance among social interactions with others and with the technology. In this digital divide initiative, White suburban high-school boys teach web page design to middle-school-aged African- American youths. Using sociotechnical and cultural sociology theories, this qualitative case study explores the development of technology practices as they evolve through social, tech- nical, and cultural interactions. Attention is given to the transformation of instructor sche- mata and practices as instructors and learners interact throughout the course. The methodology uses case-study and design-research approaches to analyse observational, video, fieldnote, and e-mail data. The results offer a conceptualization of change as well as the affordances and constraints of that change, and provide insight into the design of emer- gent technology programmes.

Keywords: after-school programmes; cultural influence; social environment; technological literacy; urban youth; web page design

The importance of cultivating technology-proficient youth is a largely agreed upon educational goal (National Academy of Engineering 2002). If young people learn aspects of technology, it is argued, they have a greater chance of succeeding in a technology-pervasive society. Yet the views on how to teach these proficiencies have prompted a fervent debate. One view recommends focusing on technology literacy in which proficiency develop- ment is considered a checklist of discrete skills separate from a larger activ- ity.1 An alternative view suggests developing technology fluency by which students gain knowledge of technology as they learn with and through computers in a community.2 In both views, there is a risk that activity can be determined in advance in programmes fixed from beginning to end. In so doing, educators might design activities in advance with a specific purpose and set of skills as well as with a particular envisioned role for the learners within a given situation. Authentic technology practices, however, are much more dynamic than this (Seely-Brown 2000, Resnick 2002). These practices

Donna DeGennaro is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching, Montclair State University, 1 Normal Avenue, University Hall 2176, Montclair, NJ 07943, USA; e-mail [email protected]. She has taught physics and educational tech- nology in various formal and informal settings for over 15 years. She has contributed papers to R. A. Goldstein (ed.), Useful Theory: Making Critical Education Practical (New York: Peter Lang, 2006), K. Tobin (ed.), Teaching and Learning Science: A Handbook (New York: Greenwood, 2006), and C. Montgomery and J. Seale (eds), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 2007).

330 D. DEGENNARO

can be conceptualized as technology fluency that emerges through a highly fluctuating dance between social interactions with others and with the tech- nology within particular cultural frameworks. This dance has historically been analysed as a sociotechnical system (STS). In effect, STS theory views social activity and technology systems as inseparable (Emery and Trist 1960, Mitchell and Nault 2003). In such a system, activity emerges through an evolving set of intersecting practices. These intersecting practices are also informed by distinctive and dynamic cultures that shape the social participa- tion and actions of those involved in the activity (Tobin 2002). If educators are to help young people develop authentic technology practices, attention must be given to understanding the ‘what and why’ of this dynamic dance among social interactions, technical systems, and culture.

Two important models, both examples of after-school programmes, illustrate such authentic technology practices. The first has a goal of strengthening children’s cognitive and social abilities (Bremme 2003/2004) whereas the second aims at fostering social interactions, new types of activ- ity, and new attitudes toward learning (Resnick and Rusk 1996). Both focus on minority groups (digital divide reports3 still indicate that minority youth lack access to and social support for technology). Furthermore, these young people continue to be characterized as having fewer opportunities to practise critical social skills (Brice-Heath and McLaughlin 1994). In addition, activ- ity in these models spotlights the shifting roles of ‘learners’ and ‘teachers’, use of tools, and collective goals. The continuous flux of roles, rules, and goals provides insights for understanding these dynamics. Race, gender, and age add a dimension to the dynamics as well. In particular, adults in these programmes are often White, upper-middle-class males (Dryburgh 2000). Focusing on all aspects that might inform participation over time brings to light how to support the complexities of emerging activity when fostering authentic technology practices.

Several questions about fostering authentic technology practices can be asked:

● How can researchers conceptualize change in these settings? ● What in an activity affords or constrains change? ● How can educators foster change in order to develop fluency?

To explore these questions, I examine a case-study of evolving participation in an after-school programme. The examination of this US case-study illu- minates not only how the social interactions and the technology are related but also how culture shapes and is shaped by the dynamic interplay among social interaction, technology, and culture. In the programme in the study, White suburban high-school boys teach web page design to inner-city Afri- can-American middle-school youths. The suburban teens act as ‘instructors’ to engage the inner-city youths as ‘learners’. Participation shifts considerably throughout this course. This shift is conceptualized through the inter- relatedness of social interactions, technology, and culture, which I will term sociotechnical cultural activity. Although this study, like those on which it is modelled, has been implemented in an out-of-school setting, much can be applied to cultivating authentic technology practices in regular school environments.

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 331

In what follows I bring together two frameworks to analyse an after- school web page-design course. First, I define and bring together sociotech- nical and cultural theories to construct sociotechnical cultural activity. Then I describe the context and goal of the web page-design course. I subse- quently use sociotechnical cultural activity as a framework to conceptualize the how and the why of the changes that took place in the web page-design course. Next I analyse how the practices over time help to highlight and support the reasons for change. This analysis demonstrates how this partic- ular activity offers insights into dynamic sociotechnical cultural activity in general. Finally, I outline what can be learned from this particular case-study by both out-of-school and in-school curriculum programme designers.

Sociotechnical cultural activity

In programmes that foster authentic technology practices, social interac- tions, technology, and culture intersect to form and re-form activity. To examine this complex intersection, I draw upon two complementary frame- works: sociotechnical theory and cultural theory. STS theory emerged as a means of comprehending how social systems and technical systems are inter- connected rather than separate. Cultural theories pervade various fields, including psychology, anthropology, and sociology. In this paper, I draw on cultural sociology to inform an understanding of culture in these settings.

STSs, it is argued, are interlocked; they cannot be thought of only as technological factors, but rather as a ‘complex interplay among different factors with no mere linear causality involving one factor alone’ (Lenk 1997: 105). Although emphasis is placed on social interaction and technology factors, culture is another key factor that adds to the complexity. STS researchers maintain that as social groups and technology meet, individuals will draw upon their historical and cultural experiences to attribute meaning to both the technology and the task.4 This implies a linear causality that sociotechnical theory seeks to avoid. The historical and cultural experiences cannot be thought of as simply influencing how to use technology and how to determine the task, but rather as a symbiotic relationship among persons, technology, and culture from which activity emerges. In this view, culture is not ‘an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life’ (Geertz 1973: 89), but rather culture is symbols, systems, and meanings that shape and are shaped by practice in activity (Sewell 1992). Thus, activity is formed and re-formed through the relation- ship between initial culturally-informed social and technology resource use (structure) and the on-going attempts to use creatively these resources (agency) to achieve the goals of the task.

The interplay between structure and agency that becomes the evolving activity is not formed in cultural isolation. Instead, individuals exist in and draw upon multiple cultures simultaneously (Seiler 2002). For exam- ple, individuals use technology at home, at work, at school, and in social situations. In each of these cultural activities individuals develop ways of

332 D. DEGENNARO

conceptualizing technology’s use (schemata) as well as ways of using it with others (social practices) (Sewell 1999). Enacting culture (schemata and practices) to use technology at home, however, is not distinct and separate from enacting culture at school. Rather, boundaries across settings where culture is acted out are weak (Sewell 1992). Thus individ- uals have the agency to transfer cultural schemata and practices from one setting to inform how they might try to achieve their goals in another setting (Swidler 1986, Sewell 1992). Attempted employment of cultural schemata and practices can either cohere or conflict across settings. The conflicts materialize as contradictions in the structure (Engeström 1987). These contradictions are positive possibilities (El’konin 1971, Il’enkov 1977) that become fodder for changes in social interactions, in culture, in technology use, and thus in the structure of activity. Ito and Okabe (2005: 28) assert, ‘[t]echnologies structure emergent technosocial orders’ as well as ‘erode the boundaries of prior ones’. This statement places emphasis on the technology as the impetus for change. Yet it is the dance among social, technology, and culture crossing borders that brings about emergent structure.

Conceptualizing activity not as social, technical, or cultural alone, but instead as sociotechnical cultural activity affords an opportunity to see emer- gent authentic technology practices as a reciprocal relationship between the agency to appropriate resources (social, technology, and permeable cultural boundaries) and the emerging structure of activity. This study uses socio- technical cultural activity specifically to examine a setting that brings together diverse participants in an inner-city community centre.

Context and participants

At the time of the study (in 2002), this neighbourhood community centre was located in an old converted North Philadelphia home. Entering the building was welcoming; hardwood floors and a grand staircase led to the second floor. On this second floor, there was a Macintosh (MAC) lab to the immediate left, video-production equipment in the next room, and straight ahead was a large ‘living area’ that now looked much like a class- room. In it were bookshelves filled with books, tables, chairs, and a few computers. In the hall another set of stairs led to a third level. On that floor were several offices and one dedicated personal computer (PC) lab. The course would take place in the MAC lab and in the PC lab.

The computer resources in each room were relatively up-to-date, and each of the rooms was arranged in a similar manner. In the MAC lab, the bright natural light glistened on the eight recently purchased computers. These computers were positioned on tables that flanked the perimeter of the room. The up-to-date software included Dreamweaver, MS Office, and Photoshop.5 There was no blackboard in the room; however, there was an easel in one corner. The PC lab was somewhat darker; although two walls had large windows, the light did not enter in the afternoons when the instructors and learners were there. The computers in this lab were also on tables that bordered the walls, but they lined three walls instead of four. On

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 333

the fourth wall was a large whiteboard. The IBM computers were about a year old, but still were equipped with the same up-to-date software as the MACs.

The centre was technology-rich, because its core mission was to bridge the digital divide. Many courses, such as digital newsletters and video production, were offered; they were structured, but relied heavily on student interests and student-generated goals. The web page-design course would be another offering; its initial goal, determined by the programme director, emerged from the centre’s core mission. The original intention was to provide inner-city youths with technology exposure and experience that would be contextualized within the activity of researching future job aspira- tions. An added requirement was that the youths research how technology was used in these jobs. The expectation was that outside instructors would assist the learners in using technology to obtain information about a chosen career. The learners would construct a web page about their career interest as the culminating activity.

For 12 weeks, six suburban high-school students taught web page design to 10 female and two male, urban, middle-school youths. As a part of their service-learning requirement,6 the high-school boys travelled from a subur- ban private boys’ high school to teach these middle-school youths. The suburban students were grade 11 and 12 students from a predominately White, affluent, technology-rich school in the suburbs of Philadelphia. The inner-city youths were low-income African-American grade 7–9 students who attended the neighbourhood community centre. These youths also attended the same neighbourhood middle school. The suburban boys spent little—and in some cases no—time in urban environments. The middle- school students seldom, if ever, interacted with individuals outside their own neighbourhood. Although these youths have access to technology at school and at home, the primary technology use is in the community centre. The aforementioned descriptions, although brief, reveal the complex diversity in terms of race, age, socio-economic status, and available resources of these groups.

In this course, the instructors’ roles and my role were overlapping, yet distinct. The instructors designed and implemented the lessons and activi- ties, and submitted weekly e-mail reflections to me. The reflections centred on their lesson-design rationale, their successes and challenges, their projec- tions for future lessons, and any other observations. As the initiator and supervisor of this initiative, my role was multifaceted. I engaged in the weekly planning conversations and was present during (and sometimes guid- ing) the course implementations. My role as researcher took shape through- out and following the course. During the course, I combined a case-study methodology (McMillan and Schumacher 2001) and design-research frame (Edelson 2002, Cobb et al. 2003) to obtain a holistic portrayal of the culture/ structure relationship. I observed the lessons, recorded fieldnotes, operated the video camera and audiotape machine, aided instructor planning and meetings, and solicited e-mail responses. I watched videos, listened to the audiotapes, and read fieldnotes and e-mails after each lesson. The intent was to perform preliminary analyses to assist the instructors in developing mate- rials and lessons for subsequent weeks. I transcribed these data, looking at

334 D. DEGENNARO

gestures, positions of instructors and learners, as well as placement and use of physical materials. With these insights, I had the opportunity to make visi- ble the component parts of the whole that might otherwise be implicit or unseen (Edelson 2002).

At the end of the course, I reviewed and re-analysed the data. I looked for emerging themes that revealed how the instructors developed their own technology fluency. I began to organize data into broad categories of patterned practices that suggested how the learners were using resources to complete activities. Viewing the videos at various speeds, focusing on one resource at a time, and watching video with and without sound, I was able to discover how schemata and practices shaped the structure of the learning environment. I coded for gestures, positions of instructors and learners, as well as placement and use of physical materials. I triangulated my initial findings in the observations transcripts against the e-mail and interview data, looking for coherences and contradictions between schemata and practices as well as across practices. This triangulation was important to cross my perceptions of the social phenomena with participants’ perspectives (McMillan and Schumacher 2001) to understand the what, why, and how (Cobb et al. 2003) of instructors’ practices that were cultivating their own adaptation and the active participation of all persons involved. Finally, I drew conclusions about how the structures afforded and constrained participation of the instructors and the learners and what design principles helped to advanced instructors’ technology fluency.

To allow for distinction throughout the following discussion of the find- ings, the suburban students are identified as ‘instructors’, the urban youths as ‘learners’. In this course, the instructors considered themselves technol- ogy ‘experts’ and their learners ‘novices’. As experts, the instructors initially expected to draw upon their technology practices at school in order to teach successfully their learners in the web-design course. However, over time the social interactions between instructor and learner, the expected use of tech- nology and the enacted culture shaped and reshaped the structure of activity. This activity evolved from a ‘teacher-centred’ instructional model to a ‘learner-centred’ one. I argue in what follows that the change came about through a complex arrangement of sociotechnical cultural activity.

Conceptualizing activity in the web page-design course

Although the instructors and learners came from diverse backgrounds, their exposure and experiences with technology were somewhat similar in terms of structure. The following descriptions provide a background to imaging the different cultures of learning with technology upon which each group might draw.

Instructors

The instructors attend a private suburban all-boys’ school. The way in which these boys learn technology in school, and other subjects for that matter, is

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 335

very traditionally organized: the teachers stand in the front of the room, verbally describe the task to the students, and then provide their students with methodically thought-out lessons that have a logical sequence. Seldom do students interact with each other or with the teacher other than to answer or ask a question. Social interactions reflect a position of authority, a hierar- chical and formal exchange of dialogue. The technology is a ‘place’ to perform the activity. Chalkboards or projectors display instructions. In essence, the culture of this activity is teacher-centred. In contrast, these same boys experience technology in a very different way outside school. When they describe how they come to know technology outside school, their stories have qualities of exploration with others. For example, when they use the internet or instant messenger,7 the technology assists tasks that develop out of personal interests. The learning of the technology often comes through play, and through the exchange of ideas or shared understandings of the applications of use.

Learners

These young people attend the same school. Technology classes take place weekly in a lab. Although the resources are not as up-to-date, the technology classes are not entirely different from the boys’. The instruction is still directed in the labs, goals are set for the students, and students are asked to perform those tasks individually. The technology itself, however, is not up- to-date and often suffers from technical problems such as freezing or failure to connect to the internet. Furthermore, there are no projection devices in their school. In the community centre, the technology uses are very different. The computers at the centre are used for play or for design. During times of play the youths use the computers to search for music or music groups or to engage in on-line chats. When these youths choose to take a class at the centre, the technology is used to edit video or create magazines. In both these settings, the social structure is ‘loose’ in that youths move about freely to talk to each other, share ideas, and show each other how to use the technology.

The interplay: social interactions, technology, and permeable cultural boundaries

Although experiences of learning technology outside school for the instruc- tors is less formal, they chose to organize the course in a way that was more reflective of in-school culture. As teachers and designers of the course, the instructors initially drew upon their in-school conception of ‘teacher’ to position themselves as authority figures, designate a task for each lesson, insist that students sit in their seats and listen and use the technology only through direct instruction. Yet as the instructors attempt to put this cultural schema into practice, several contradictory and problematic interactions result.

An example that reflects this enacted culture as well as the contradictions is evident in the following excerpts. The instructors in the excerpts are Steve

336 D. DEGENNARO

and Kenny.8 The learners are Silk, Hana, and Ianna. Steve is sitting on a table which is currently under the whiteboard. He is holding a sheet of paper in front of him. It is the print-out of a sequence of steps that he and the other instructors created for the day’s lesson. The goal set for this activity is for students to understand first the definition of a web page and then to build a simple page with text, colour, and an image. Steve immediately begins the lesson as he enters the room:9

Steve: What is a web page? Silk: Do you always wear the tie? [Silk is leaning over her chair looking at

Steve.] Steve: Yes, we have to. Dreamweaver is. … Silk: [interrupting Steve] What time do you all get out of school? Steve: We get out at 2:10. Silk: How long does it take to get here? [She rocks back and forth on her

chair.] Steve: OK, let’s get started. Everybody up here. Does everyone here know

what a web page is? [Steve is sitting. His shoulders are slightly hunched and his eyes scan the room. He looks down on his paper.]

Silk: Yes we do! Steve: OK, what is a web page? [Steve’s eyes go from side to side. He repo-

sitions himself on the table upon which he sits.] Hana: I don’t know. Isn’t it like when you go to the internet …? Silk: Ain’t this a web page? [She points to her computer screen.] Steve: Web pages are a document that is on the internet and anyone can

access. It is a way to get information. … [He is interrupted.] Hana: Isn’t it like Yahoo or something like that? Steve: Yes. What we are going to be working on is a web page. A web page

is a page on the internet and a website is a collection of web pages. [He again looks down to his paper that he holds.] Look at your computers, find the Dreamweaver icon and double click. [The learn- ers are chatting with each other in the background while Steve continues.]

Steve: OK, when it is open, right click on the white screen. Hana: Right what? Silk: I don’t get it. Hana: What you doing on TeenChat?10 [Hana sits up straight and turns to

Ianna. Ianna does not answer. Rather she continues to use this website.]

Silk: What am I clicking on? [Silk’s eyes are fixed on the computer screen. Steve walks toward Silk to answer her question.]

Silk: You all still got my thing on here? [She is asking the guys if her docu- ments that she completed in the last few weeks are still on her computer. She had trouble finding them last week.]

Steve: Now look at Dreamweaver. … [Steve still continues as there is continued talking in the background. The learners do not look at Steve.]

Steve: Everybody up here. Everybody turn off your monitors for now and look at me. [He is standing next to Ianna’s computer.]

Ianna: That’s not even funny. [She is reading a line from TeenChat.] Silk: What you doin’ in that big chair? [Now turned away from her

computer, she is addressing one of the other instructors.] (Video, 22 October 2002)

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 337

In this example, Steve uses social resources such as questioning, answer- ing, and verbal cues to capture the learners’ attention. In the beginning, one learner uses her social resources to ask the instructor peer-like questions. As Steve moves on, he constrains these kinds of social interaction. For the time being, the learners’ interactions begin to reflect actions often seen in the in- school structure. The learners are answering questions and listening. Steve then gives a direction and moves the learners’ focus from himself to the computer. Multiple contradictions arise. First, the learners attempt to ask personal questions to gain insight into who these teachers are. Secondly, the learners do not seem to be familiar with the language that Steve uses (e.g. ‘right click’). Thirdly, the interactions shift when the youths turn to their computers. Instead of talking in direct response to a question from the instructor, the learners now spontaneously call out questions that pertain to their individual situations. Attention is also now directed toward multiple activities in the room, e.g. the observation that Ianna is doing TeenChat, and the fact that someone is sitting in a large chair and not in front of a computer. When the room seems to turn to chaos, Steve halts the activity:

Steve: OK, everybody look over here. [Steve walks over and stands next to Ianna’s monitor. He points at her screen. Ianna slaps his hand. There is laughter.]

Kenny: What just happened? [He, like Steve, stands over and at a distance from the learners.] [There is talking now. A few minutes go by with many different conversations and an occasional outburst of a scream.]

Hana: You all ignorant. [Steve explains and then talks through how to open a page, to make a title and to add text in the body of the page. Then he walks away from Ianna’s computer. He asks them each to make a page that has a title and text.] [Each student now has a blank Dreamweaver page open. They are attempting to complete the assigned task.] (Video, 22 October 2002)

In this clip Steve gets the attention of the learners, creates a task for them, and then puts them ‘back on track’ by asking them to complete that task. Although the instructor in this setting is attempting to create social interac- tions in an authoritative hierarchical manner, the youths now are creatively drawing upon their own social and material resources. They are using social resources such as their voice, hand gestures, and eye contact to communi- cate their needs. These needs reflect immediate feedback from the computer as learners try to open the file, make a title, or enter text. Instead of answer- ing questions individually, instructors call learners’ attention back to the front of the room. As this example shows, when the lesson shifts structures in a matter of moments, the instructor immediately reverts to his planned lesson.

As in the previous scenario, the next few weeks continued to persist as increasingly controlled. Early on, instructors drew on cultural resources of their in-school technology practices to arrange social and material resources in a teacher-centred way. Social resources were hierarchical (from instructor to student) and rigid (calculated goals). The instructors stood as the focal point of the activity and the technology was peripheral and ancillary. There

338 D. DEGENNARO

were points where instructors talk about the technology or gave explicit instructions (point here, click here, do this) to confine learner activities within given directions. The activities on the computer were planned and were to be completed one task at a time. Simultaneously, the learners creatively used resources to access their peers or attend to their individual goals. However, this attempted agency to act was quickly extinguished.

The more the instructors attempted to be a traditional teacher, the more learners tried to call out, talk with each other, and develop their own goals. Each time the instructors asserted their in-school teacher practices, the learners became gradually more distanced from the activity. They were not so interested in researching, keeping notes on, and thinking about future careers. Furthermore, they were not particularly inspired to learn how to build a web page to demonstrate successfully the achievement of this objective.

Despite the contradiction, the instructors tried many strategies to retain an in-school activity structure. One strategy that the instructors tried in order to keep the learners’ attention was to ‘bribe’ them with free time at the end of the session. These end-of-session play times became very telling for the instructors. Learners would search for music, for lyrics, for clothes, for actors. They moved from computer to computer, peer to peer, looking at what others were doing, and sharing searching strategies and websites. During these times, the instructors would sit with the learners and partici- pate in the searches and the conversations.

If the instructors themselves typically learned technology through infor- mal means, then why would they persist in attempting to have these learners partake in a structured activity? To that question several indicators provided answers. There was a collective belief on the part of the instructors that these learners did not possess technology skills. Moreover, the instructors articu- lated several times that these youths needed to understand that there was a purpose for technology; this tool is not just for fun and games. Furthermore, the data exhibited both an initial hesitation about coming into the city and the perception that the learners would be ‘trouble children’. The instructors also began to speak of their fears of the city. This fear, although not at first orally expressed, was evident in the distance that they kept between them- selves and the learners. The combination of these perceptions and fears resulted in the perceived need to structure activity as fixed, calculated, and controlled.

The same question applies to the youths. If the learners were familiar with learning technology in school, why were they beginning to resist the formal structure and reveal alternative practices? There are several possibil- ities to consider. One is that they thought that this was their out-of-school time. All other computer activities in which they engaged in this setting were playful in one way or another. What is more, the activities in this centre were organized to draw upon learner interests. Another possibility is that the visi- ble property of the computer elicits a very different type of interaction that is contradictory to direct instruction. A final thought is that the learners were interested in these instructors as peers. The age difference was only between 3–5 years. The playfulness exhibited in many of the video clips also reveals flirtation across genders.

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 339

After a few sessions, the contradictions become increasingly apparent to the instructors. This becomes evident in e-mails and informal conversations in which the instructors discuss much of what they were observing during the lessons. For example, the following discussion took place in the van as the instructors left the community centre to return to the school:

Kenny: This whole digital divide. … I don’t think that it is that big on them, in the sense that I gave them the last 15 minutes free because they got everything done.

Mike: I know exactly where you are going. … Kenny: They know how to search on-line. They know how to go on all the

band web sites—you know, the music that they listen to. Like a lot of them—they didn’t know how to work an outline and now they do. They didn’t know how to check their spelling and now they do. They didn’t know how to copy and paste and now they do (helped along by Mike). But in the sense that like, like being more into the millennium11 or the internet or what ever you want to call it. … They know. … Like the first week we were there I think that they knew a lot more about the internet than I originally thought that they would know. But now that I am getting to know them more—giving them free time, they know a whole lot. They know how to work sound on it and like digital divide. … It’s working because they are learning that they can search for than bands, but for the most part they know a lot already. (Fieldnote, 15 October 2002)

The above passage reveals insight into the learners’ skills. As the lessons continued after this discussion, the intersecting contradictory cultures continued to create tensions. Just a few weeks later, the instructors and the learners spoke about new possibilities and different forms of engagement. This dialogue occurred immediately before the instructors headed to the community centre:

Kenny: I think, I think. … I agree with what Dave said about tricking them to learn. I think that a good idea is to show you. I mean you are saying how are we going to teach them that the internet is more than just a toy—even though that is not what Alex said, but whatever— I think that a good thing today or one of the days is to go on the board and look up your, like, I don’t know—something—not like a singer or anything, but maybe look up your favourite animal and see if they know and say go to a search engine—see if they know what a search engine is and if they know that.

Rich: They do know that. Kenny: I know but just see—guide them along as much as you can and kind

of sit there and watch them and say get a picture, get some informa- tion, and put it on a Word document. I think that they realize that the internet is more than that but they don’t have any reason to go forward with that.

Rich: That’s what I’m saying. They look at music and they do do that. We don’t have to teach them––that is what they are doing. When they are getting their pictures and their links—that is what they are doing. It’s being learned as they do it.

DD: So are you saying that they have a lot of these skills or they will learn them as they are doing something that motivates them?

340 D. DEGENNARO

Rich: Exactly. Like the one of [Tim’s] kids was looking up old Jordans and fake Jordans and stuff.12 He was looking for something that was rare or hard to get. It would be the same difference if looking for some- thing like a job. That’s all this is.

DD: So are you saying that it is more personally meaningful for him to do that?

Rich: Yes. I don’t sit at home and look for things about my future job. This whole fixed curriculum thing, they just don’t care about that.

Kenny: Look at what you asked us to do last week. That is a perfect example. With the what’s it called—the SketchPad.13 I had never done that before. We had to build a snowman … as silly as it was it made us learn about the program. [I [DD] had taught their geometry class for 6 months in this school year. This was a constructionist activity to learn the functionalities of Geometer’s SketchPad]. (Fieldnote, 5 November 2002)

This discussion was very enlightening. The instructors began to ques- tion their hold on the in-school culture of activity as the learners kept assert- ing a creative use of resources. The instructors were coming to understand the learners’ personalities and their skills. In addition, they began to ques- tion the initially set goals and whether they would find them interesting. Finally, they were wondering if the teacher role they were playing really was appropriate for learning about and with technology. Although not explicit in these conversations, the technology was a significant factor in altering these perceptions. Specifically, the technology affords a visibility; that is, the computer offers a visual illustration of the learner’s interests, skills, creativ- ity, and evolving goals. The boys acknowledged that they could clearly see that the youths were learning new skills. It was also evident from viewing what they searched that personal meaning was motivating the learners to ask questions and tinker with the technology. As the learners did so, the boys saw how the learners were learning more, not only from the instruc- tors, but also from their peers and through trial and error. Finally, the boys were reflecting on their practices with technology that were more informal both in and out of school. They began to see the value of play through seeing interest and motivation and sharing knowledge in informal practices that often occur outside school. Although these realizations were formu- lated over time, it seems as if they were the tipping-point that changed the activity.

Finding a dynamic that adheres with the system

The next session at the community centre was very different from the previ- ous ones. This new activity began with a change of engagement and with the setting of a collective task. The instructors began the second half of the course by gathering all the learners into one room. They sat in a circle, instructors and learners interspersed throughout. The discussion centred on the previous few weeks as well as on looking ahead. In particular, the instruc- tors asked ‘if you were to create a web page about anything that you wanted, what would you create?’ At first the learners were silent. The instructors started to draw out ideas from the learners. The learners started sharing

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 341

ideas that included things about themselves, such as what interested them and where they live. They started to talk more personally about what indi- vidual items might be included, such as poems about their neighbourhoods as well as pictures of Jordans (sneakers) and Lil’ Romeo.14 The instructors and learners collectively decided that the task would change. Instead of creating web pages that reflected career interests, they would reflect personal ones. The web pages would have four pages: about ‘me’, ‘my neighbour- hood’, ‘my job interests’, and ‘my favourite links’.

The shift in goal from teacher-driven to collectively established was the beginning of the change in activity. As a result, there were changes in social interactions, use of the technology, and evolving cultural activity. The following passage is indicative of the activity in the second half of the course:

[In this selection, Kenny is the instructor and Hana the learner. Kenny demon- strates an interaction of guiding a collaborative goal of building parts of the web page rather than directing what to do when. The interactions in the following scenario represent the change in practices.]

Kenny: It’s too big. So you go, you go up. Go to like —5. [He is speaking to Hana.]

Velvet: What’s today’s date anyway? Excuse me. Mike: It’s the 10th. Hana: That’s big, too. [She grabs the mouse from Kenny.] Kenny: See that’s + and −. See that. Try +2. There you go, now you can’t—

you won’t be able to read it. [Kenny grabs the mouse.] Hana: I can read it. But I want it to be the same colour as the background.

All right, alright, alright, that’s OK. That colour that you just had, that was good. The last one was. …

Kenny: Yeah, see but you can’t really see it, see some of the words. Hana: Yellow? NO. Kenny: That looks good. Yellow and green match. Hana: No it doesn’t. Kenny: Look, you can read all the words. Hana: That’s ugly. [Hana taps his hand and grabs the mouse.] Kenny: Alright … so let’s save that. So hit ‘save’. All right. That’s saved. So

we’re done your neighbourhood poem. Hana: I want to have a background on it. Kenny: I know, but it’s hard, we can’t find it. Hana: I got Lil’ Romeo. Can’t you see that’s. … See that is Lil’ Romeo. Kenny: Look, watch, let me show you. [He takes the mouse back.] Hana: It came out big. Kenny: This one? Hana: No, go back to the one that I just said. That was Lil’ Romeo. So it

still came out big and. … [She is fidgeting in her seat as she points to the screen.] (Videotape, 12 November 2002)

In this vignette, the rhythm of exchanges fluctuates between Kenny and Hana, a fluctuation mediated by what is happening with the technology. This structure, unlike the teacher-centred structure imposed in the first half of the course, is a collective practice in which both Kenny and Hana are creatively using resources to negotiate a goal. This goal happens to be the design of the page. Both social and material resources structure this learner-centred activity. Social resources such as the proximity of instructor

342 D. DEGENNARO

to learner, the hand motions, and the eye contact, as well as the access to material resources, such as the mouse and the display of the screen, contribute to the form of communication, the emotions that accompany it, and how and when each contributes to the resulting design. This ebb and flow of activity allowed for instructor and learner to co-create the culture of activity that looks in the video very much like a dance. This dance continues:

Kenny: [Clicks and navigates.] Hana: Look, that came out big. Kenny: Well, what do you want to do? Hana: I want that one. [She vigorously points.] NO, right here. It’s up here.

[She points again, then takes the mouse.] Kenny: Alright. Hana: You lied to me. Kenny: No, that looks good. Hana: You told me that that wouldn’t be. … Kenny: Now we got to find … [talking her through] page properties. … Hana: See that. I want that one. Kenny: This one is going to be hard because all the colours. … Is that OK?

But then we have to find. … [He takes the mouse back.] Hana: See. You have to make it bigger. … Leave it white. [She grabs the

mouse.] Kenny: All right, so. … You have to highlight everything. Now do the size.

Try. … Hana: See. Kenny: See the about my job. … Just highlight that; now do the size. Try

something bigger, ‘cause you want the heading to be bigger. Try 5. Hit ‘apply’. That’s good.

Hana: You can’t see it. Kenny: I think that there are too many colours going on. Right click again.

Page properties. Go to text; now go to text. Try a light green. Hana: That? Kenny: Try a little brighter. See that? That’s good, right? Hana: I can make it bigger, right? Come on. … Kenny: Yeah, try to make this. … Right now you are at 3 … so how big do

you think that we should do that, like 5? Hana: Now can’t you see? Kenny: [Shakes his head.] Yes. You like that? Try 6. All right, that looks

good. Alright, save that. Alright, so we’re done that one. Now we want to go to. …

Hana: Yeah, I want to use that one. Kenny: That? Hana: Yeah. Kenny: What if we use black? Hana: Could you erase that …? Kenny: Do you want to? Hana: That look like. … Kenny: Should we take them out? Hana: Yeah. Kenny: All right, we need another colour. Hana: The orange … no, black, black, black. Kenny: All right, now let’s go to. … (Fieldnote, 12 November 2002)

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 343

In each passing moment of the continued negotiation, Hana is gaining more authority about what she perceives as her goal. The demands that she places on Kenny result in an opportunity for her to develop technical skills and an understanding of the software’s functionality. She is learning about how to change sizes, backgrounds, and colours through asserting how she envisions, and then attempts to create, the end-product. In the meantime, Kenny is learning to encourage, to suggest, and to negotiate with Hana. Unlike the beginning of the course, he like the other instructors is retreating from enforcing the task on the learner.

Not all social interactions between instructors and learners revolved around the computer. Some were much more interpersonal. The following vignette provides a window into the kinds of communications that were emerging:

Alex: Why are you so happy today? Terrel: I don’t know! [Smiles and laughs.] My uncle married to Iverson’s

sister. Deshe: Yeh, right. Alex: You two are brother and sister? Terrel: Uh huh. Alex: Is everyone here? Who are we missing? [Alex looks around.] Latisha: I’m done [she yells from a corner of the room.] Rich: Joelle, you are a little behind.

[Terrel gets up. He starts swinging in the air.] Terrel: Ping Pong basketball! [Rich looks over at Terrel. Terrel laughs and

sits back down.] Terrel: Pootie Tang!15

Alex: I saw that. Terrel: Noh uh! Alex: Yeah! OK, Terrel, what else do you want on this page? Terrel: We need a video game. Alex: I don’t think we can do that. Terrel: It would be so cool to put on Grand Theft Auto.16

Alex: I don’t think that would be appropriate for this site. Terrel: You play that game? Alex: Sure! A lot. Terrel: Man. [He looks down and shakes his head. He grabs his finger.]

Look at this. [He holds out his hand.] [Alex leans in to look.]

Terrel: I cut it. [He rubs his finger.] Alex: Look at mine. [Alex shows Terrel his hand. They are nearly touch-

ing, their heads together looking at each other’s hands.] [Terrel says something that I [DD] cannot make out.]

Alex: Shut Up! [Laugh] You’re making fun of me. [Alex looks back to the computer and continues to use the mouse. He is still smiling.] [They both laugh.]

Terrel: Uh, uh. … [Smile] See, look. … [They both look at Terrel’s hand.] [Terrel’s hands rest on Alex’s arm.] [Alex continues to hold the mouse but turns and looks at Terrel’s finger.]

344 D. DEGENNARO

Terrel: I did it cutting fruit. Alex: I’ve done that cutting an apple. Terrel: This was an orange! [He looks at Alex. They laugh together.]

[In a moment they are again concentrating on the final touches of the site.] (Fieldnote, 3 December 2002)

This exemplifies the developing relationship between the instructors and the youths. Where fear once existed, friendship and trust develop. Alex is becoming much more comfortable talking to Terrel rather than telling him what to do. Other light and whimsical conversations similar to this one were prevalent over time and increased significantly in the second half of the course. The instructors were coming to feel more comfortable with the learners, gaining insight into their similarities and shared interests. The instructors used these shared interests to motivate and to close a previously apparent physical distance between the learners and the instructors. This was instrumental in the materialized common ground and language that supported coherent communication not only about technology but about pop culture that seems to bridge a ‘cultural divide’. Instructors’ discontent- ment with uncertain and jubilant behaviour simultaneously waned as they got to know the learners.

Both light-hearted social interactions and collaboratively negotiated tasks and goals were present in other interactions among learners and instructors. Yet, this altered structure of activity not only set up increased communications between instructor and learner, it also encouraged learners to access each other. The following excerpt from one classroom is also repre- sentative of this kind of interaction:

[The instructors and learners are paired throughout the room. The instruc- tors are Rich, Tim, and Alex. The learners are Terrel, Deshe, Joelle, and Latisha. Each pair (or threesome) sits in front of a computer and opens their project. They begin to work. A glance into the room seems quite like a struc- tured chaos. Terrel occasionally gets up from his seat and dances around, conversations between learners are prominent, and the noise level is some- what loud.]

[On one side of the room, Tim is working with Deshe; on the other, Alex is working with Terrel. They are all laughing as Tim watches Deshe insert a background image on her web page. Rich, Joelle, and Latisha are on the wall in between the two pairs.]

Terrel: Don’t touch that! He is touching the computer! [He directs his comment towards Alex. Then Terrel puts his face in the computer and then sits down. Alex reads through his website. Terrel takes the mouse and begins to do a web search. He searches for sneakers and is obviously excited about finding Jordans.]

Terrel: These are all Jordans. See! [He quiets down and focuses on the screen.]

Deshe: Terrel, where did you go? [She responds to hearing Terrel’s comment about his Jordans. Alex and Terrel do not hear Deshe, if they do, they do not acknowledge it.]

Alex: Did you write your neighbourhood poem? [He asks Terrel.] Terrel: No. [He is still focused on his website. He jumps and points at the

screen, clearly excited about another pair of Jordans he sees.]

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 345

Deshe: Terrel, where did you go to? [Terrel still doesn’t answer. She gets up and looks at his screen. She returns to her seat.]

Deshe: Where did you go next? [Terrel still doesn’t answer. This time she persists. Alex finally answers her. When he does, Terrel jumps from his chair and runs over to Deshe. He leans over her and points to the screen. Alex and Tim stay on the periphery. Terrel seems to get Deshe to where she wants to be. He returns to his seat to work. Tim and Deshe focus on the website. Tim has the mouse.]

Deshe: DOWN! [Tim scrolls slowly.] Deshe: DOWN!! [She hits him with the ruler lightly. She gets up and grabs

the mouse. Now Tim is tapping her with the ruler.] Deshe: Terrel, where is it! Terrel: You have to look for it.

[Deshe focuses on the site. She explores some different pages. After about 2 minutes she finds what she wants.]

Deshe: I want those. … [There are two pictures on the screen.] Tim: Which one? Deshe: They are the same ones. Tim: They are a different view. [There is laughter. Tim shakes and drops

his head. Deshe points to the one she wants.] Tim: OK. [Tim takes the mouse and downloads the picture. Deshe takes

the mouse and inserts the image on her web page.] Alex: What did you do? Terrel: I don’t know. Don’t know what happened! [They work to figure out

how to get an image back on the site.] [Deshe finds another sneaker. These are pink.]

Tim: Who likes pink? [He laughs.] She likes these. [Directed towards Rich.]

Rich: Yuck! [He turned to look across the room at Deshe’s screen.] [Rich turns back to Joelle. He talks her through copying, toggling, navigating, importing pictures, and using short cuts. Rich and Joelle continue to build their sites. Their voices are very low. Joelle asks a question.]

Rich: Just keep holding the button. Edit, paste. Remember what we did last time.

Alex: We better save so we don’t lose this. Save. [Alex points to the screen. I [DD] am walking around.]

Terrel: Miss Donna, you want to see my page? DD: I would love to see your page. [The displayed page has a light bright

blue background with a basketball player on it and some sneakers. His title is ‘Terrance’s Life’, and an ‘I Poem’ he wrote is on the bottom.]

[Meanwhile, Rich is still helping Joelle. Joelle asks how to highlight all this. Rich talks her though. Rich goes to grab the mouse but stops. She gets stuck when there is no more room for the mouse to move down. He grabs the mouse with Joelle’s hand still on it. He shows her how to pick up the mouse and continue dragging. Latisha who is still right next to Joelle looks over at her screen. She asks Joelle a question.]

Latisha: How did you get that one? [Joelle proceeds to explain.] (Video transcript, 24 November 2002)

The above excerpt provides insight into how interactions between instructors and learners had evolved over the course of the semester. Multiple

346 D. DEGENNARO

activities were happening simultaneously, leaving a focal point of activity undefined. Across activities, social interactions now reflected communica- tions not from instructor to student, but from back and forth between students and instructors and from students to other students. The interac- tions were largely around the computer.

As the course approaches the end, the learners no longer were bound to the authority of the instructor; they access each other with questions and for assistance as well. Analyses of scenarios in the second half of the course point to instructors and learners each appropriating resources to shape activity. Social interactions have evolved from calculated to dynamic. The comput- ers, more specifically the activities at and on the computer, mediate part of the activity. Another feature that guides the construction of the websites is the learners’ articulated ideas and interests. The learners have now taken a persistent and active role, shifting from learner to collaborator and some- times ‘teacher’. The instructors have become collaborators and facilitators. Both learner and instructor roles fluctuate as each participant has become an active member in constructing the culminating activities. The chaos now reveals a fluent form.

Sociotechnical cultural activity: insights into the design of technology programmes

In this paper I have examined teens as instructors and youths as learners to understand what brings about change in a setting in which authentic tech- nology practices were the goal. During this course, change was not immedi- ate, nor was it obvious. Despite this, change was ever-present. Earlier in this paper, I identified three questions related to change that occurs when foster- ing technology practices. The following are responses to these questions which in turn will assist in thinking about the emergent design of such programmes.

Conceptualizing the change

In this sociotechnical cultural activity, change grew out of exchanged social interactions, technology uses, and enacted culture. The sociotechnical cultural activity emerged from both past and present experiences. Using the technology across weak cultural boundaries—that is, bringing the uses of technology in one setting to a new setting—was one factor that brought about new activity. The instructors originally drew upon their schemata of in-school technology practices, but their attempts to use social and material resources to structure activity did not play out as expected. The learners began to use their own cultural schemata to practice in the moment by creatively appro- priating social and material resources to achieve their own goals. This appro- priation of resources was somewhat reflective of out-of-school technology practices, but also of the enacted cultural practices in this community centre. The learners’ continued use of resources in this way, as well as the interac- tions with and around the computer, resulted in new forms of activity. Some

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 347

of these properties include personal interests, individual questions and needs, and the exploratory nature of the technology, including its unpredictable path of exploration. Using the technology enlightened the instructors’ view of their learners. It provided visible cues into learners’ skills, modes of participation, and even their personalities. This unique feedback-property allowed learners to become authors of their own goals and purposes. In the process, social interactions began slowly to shift from distant and defined roles to shoulder- to-shoulder negotiations and undefined roles. Whereas in the beginning the instructors pointed and stood back, they now sat shoulder to shoulder with the learners, sharing the mouse and keyboard. Through the crossing of cultural boundaries, including race, age, gender, schemata and practices, a new culture of activity emerged. This culture was not out-of-school or in- school, but a side-by-side collaboration of continuous interplay of social interactions, technology, and culture. In this new culture, the instructors learned skills of collaboration and facilitation while the youths gained tech- nical independence. Over time, cultures drawn from other experiences played a role in forming new sociotechnical cultural activity.

Affordances and constraints of change

In the sociotechnical cultural activities the potential for new activity to emerge confronted many affordances and constraints. In the initial stages of the course, the instructors’ attempt to control the activity constrained change. As a result, the instructors continued to truncate the agency of the learners to use their own resources to participate in the activity. Another constraint was the instructors’ commitment to using step-by-step instruc- tions. This strategy kept the learners from using the technology; instead, it forced them to perform a function that was simply a response to the direc- tion. As illustrated above, many contradictions arose through the continued intersection of different cultural practices. The contradictions provided opportunities for several affordances to bring about change. In changing the focus of activity, the learners found moments to employ agency by creatively using the resources in a way that was familiar to them. The computer afforded visibility in that learners get immediate responses to what they attempted to do, what they did not readily understand, and what became possible to create. In addition, the instructors detected the learners’ skills and what they were interested in; the immediacy of creating the pages brought about continuous opportunities for conversations and application of technical skills. Such continuous moments led instructors to reflect on what was happening in the course; their reflections resulted in discussions of other potential strategies of engaging the youths. The instructors began to think about their own practices with technology in settings other than school to inform their new ideas of activity, goal, and purpose. Affordances and constraints will be present in any given activity; in this one, the affordances become crucial opportunities eventually to bring this system to a balanced chaos where the boys developed the ability to facilitate an appropriate dynamic to attain the ultimate goal of engaging the learners in authentic technology practices.

348 D. DEGENNARO

Continuing and supporting change

Conceptualizing activity as sociotechnical cultural activity calls for emergent designs of programmes that aim to cultivate authentic technology practices. Many times as educators we design technology-related experiences from our own perspectives. The organization of social and material resources is coloured by our experiences with technology in various settings. If in a formal setting, the likelihood is that the environment (position of resources, perception of role, definition of goals, and opinions about students) will trig- ger us to draw upon practices that we expect to work in these settings. Yet our past experiences upon which we draw may not be appropriate for the task at hand. This study illustrates that holding steadfastly to initial goals results in contradictions of intersecting ideas about how to participate in this instructor-developed activity. When we do this, we run the risk of inhibiting learners’ participation. More importantly, we quite possibly inhibit these learners from gaining the very practices they need to become fluent with technology. If the instructors had continued to adhere to those ideas rather than allowing themselves to respond to emerging ones, this activity may not have been successful. Letting go of their authority resulted in increased youth participation. Permitting change when cultivating authentic technol- ogy practices created a coherent ‘chaos’ in which instructors and learners successfully co-existed.

Researchers already know that in out-of-school programmes, youth voices and ownership are essential to the success of the endeavours (Brice- Heath and McLaughlin 1994). What we as educators still struggle with is letting go of our authority to allow learners’ voices to be an integral part of the emerging activity. There were two factors in the case study that assisted in continuing and supporting change, reflection, and openness. With dialogue and written exercises as mechanisms for reflection, the instructors came to understand their actions and the learners’ responses to them. Ultimately, this process helped instructors to see that control was not necessary to work with these youths. As the instructors got closer to their learners, observed their participation with them and found common ground, they became increas- ingly open to engaging these learners in collaboratively working toward an end product. The openness led to a dialectical relationship among intersect- ing social, technical, and cultural factors. In the end, the structure that emerged did not necessitate control. Instead of maintaining control, the instructors chose to embrace the change. This choice included being inter- ested in what learners brought to the table. They chose to find connections with the learners and to be open to change. The change was a choice, a choice to be open to what the system was revealing as cultural practices with tech- nology crossed boundaries of time, place, age, and race engendered new social interactions and new possibilities for engagement with technology.

Acknowledgements

I thank Ian Westbury, Lisa Bouillion, and Kenneth Tobin for their guidance and support. This research would not have been possible without the spirit

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 349

and insights of the participants: the high-school boys and the middle-school youth. I express endless gratitude to Drew, my son, for his patience during my dissertation and while completing this work. You helped me realize that no obstacle is insurmountable.

Notes

1. See Ba et al. (2002), Crawford and Toyama (2002), Fulton (1997), and International Society for Technology in Education (2003).

2. See Bremme (2003/2004), Martin et al. (2000), Papert (1993), Resnick and Rusk (1996), and Resnick et al. (1996).

3. See Lazarus et al. (2005), Levin and Arafeh (2002), and Schön et al. (1999). 4. See Bijker et al. (1987), Callon (1986), Clarke and Fujimura (1992), Haraway (1991),

Latour (1987), and Pinch and Bijker (1984). 5. Dreamweaver, a WYS/WYG (What You See is What You Get) web-authoring software

package created by Adobe, enables the easy creation of web sites that contain text, images and multimedia. MS Office, created by Microsoft and compatible with both Microsoft Windows and Apple Macintosh operating systems, is a suite of programs that assist in the productivity of documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and data- bases. Photoshop, a professional image-editing software produced by Adobe, allows the user to manipulate and alter photos by adding effects, filters, or layers to an original image.

6. A requirement of the high-school boys’ school is to complete service-learning or commu- nity-service credits. The students thus receive credits for performing service outside school. The literature from the school defines service learning as ‘an opportunity to make a difference’; however, our working definition of service learning is a method by which participants meet the needs of the community through an educational activity. While engaged in that activity, all members learn and develop through active participation.

7. Instant messenger is a computer application that allows users to send and receive messages in a virtually instant timeframe.

8. All high-school boys’ names are real (they requested that their real names be used); all middle-school teen names are pseudonyms. ‘DD’ indicates the author.

9. Words within square brackets [ ] are memos taken during fieldnote- or video-analysis. Notes of gestures, signals, or interactions were recorded because of their potential significance.

10. ‘Teenchat’ (www.teenchat.com) is a free on-line website that enables teens to chat (instant message) with other teens on the site.

11. Kenny uses the term ‘millennium’ because it was often used at the time to refer to teens (e.g. ‘Net Geners’, ‘Millennials’).

12. ‘Jordans’ are a brand of sneakers. 13. ‘Sketchpad’ refers to ‘Geometer’s Sketchpad’, a dynamic educational mathematics soft-

ware (developed by KCP Technologies and published by Key Curriculum Press) that allows users to create and interact with geometric representations.

14. Lil’ Romeo is a US rap artist and actor. 15. The reference is to a culture cult-movie based on a stereotyped character who is a ghetto

hero. 16. ‘Grand Theft Auto’, created by Rockstar North and published by Rockstar Games, is a

video game.

References

Ba, H., Tally, W. and Tsikalas, K. (2002) Investigating children’s emerging digital litera- cies. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(4). Available online at: http:// escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol1/4/, accessed 24 July 2007.

350 D. DEGENNARO

Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T. (eds) (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Bremme, D. (2003/2004) The fifth dimension overview. Available online at: http:// www.whittierfifthdimension.org/description.html, accessed 21 July 2007.

Brice-Heath, S. and McLaughlin, M. W. (1994) Learning for anything everyday. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(5), 471–489.

Callon, M. (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul), 196–233.

Clarke, A. E. and Fujimura, J. H. (eds) (1992) The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth- Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., Lehrer, R. and Schauble, L. (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

Crawford, V. M. and Toyama, Y. (2002) Assessing the Educational Technology Proficiency of Students and Educators: A Review of Current Policy, Practice, and Research. Final Report, SRI Project 11061, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. Available online at: http:// ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/Task2_FinalReport3.pdf, accessed 20 July 2007.

Dryburgh, H. (2000) Underrepresentation of girls and women in computer science: classifi- cation of 1990s research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 181–202.

Edelson, D. C. (2002) Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.

El’konin, D. B. (1971) Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of children. Soviet Psychology, 4(1), 6–20.

Emery, F. E. and Trist, E. L. (1960) Socio-technical systems. In F. E. Emery (ed.), Systems Thinking: Selected Readings (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin), 281–296.

Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity-theoretical Approach to Developmental Research (Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit).

Fulton, K. (1997) Learning in a digital age: insights into the issues: the skills students need for technological fluency, Milken Exchange on Education Technology, Santa Monica, CA. Available online at: http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=164, accessed 23 July 2007.

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books). Haraway, D. J. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York:

Routledge). Il’enkov, E. V. (1977) Dialectical Logic: Essays in its History and Theory, trans. H. C. Creighton

(Moscow: Progress Publishers). International Society for Technology in Education (2003) National Educational Technology

Standards for Teachers (Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education). Available online at: http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html, accessed 23 July 2007.

Ito, M. and Okabe, D. (2005) Technosocial situations: emergent structuring of mobile e-mail use. Available online at: http://www.itofisher.com/PEOPLE/mito/mobileemail.pdf, accessed 3 October 2007.

Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press).

Lazarus, W., Wainer, A. and Lipper, L. (2005) Measuring Digital Opportunity for America’s Children: Where We Stand and Where We Go from Here (Santa Monica, CA: Children’s Partnership). Available online at: http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/dd_highlights.pdf, accessed 21 July 2007.

Lenk, H. (1997) Progress, values and responsibility. Philosophy and Technology, 2(3/4), 102– 119. Available online at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v2n3n4/pdf/lenk.pdf, accessed 21 July 2007.

Levin, D. and Arafeh, S. (2002) The digital disconnect: the widening gap between internet- savvy students and their schools. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=67, accessed 21 July 2007.

Martin, F., Mikhak, B. and Silverman, B. (2000) MetaCricket: a designer’s kit for making computational devices. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3/4), 795–815.

SOCIOTECHNICAL CULTURAL ACTIVITY 351

McMillan, J. H. and Schumacher, S. (2001) Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction, 5th edn (New York: Longman).

Mitchell, V. L. and Nault, B. R. (2003) The emergence of functional knowledge in sociotech- nical systems. Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Available online at: http://www.haskayne.ucalgary.ca/research/Working Papers/research/media/MIS_working_papers/2003_16, accessed 23 July 2007.

National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Technological Literacy (2002) Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology, ed. G. Pearson and A. T. Young (Washington, DC: National Academy Press). Available online at: http:// www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309082625, accessed 19 January 2008.

Papert, S. (1993) The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer (New York: Basic Books).

Pinch, T. J. and Bijker, W. E. (1984) The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441.

Resnick, M. (2002) Rethinking learning in the digital age. In World Economic Forum, The Global Information Technology Report, 2001–2002: Readiness for the Networked World, ed. G. S. Kirkman (New York: Oxford University Press), 32–37. Available online at: http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/mres-wef.pdf, accessed 23 July 2007.

Resnick, M. and Rusk, N. (1996) The computer clubhouse: preparing for life in a digital world. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3/4), 431–439.

Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R. and Silverman, B. (1996) Programmable bricks: toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3/4), 443–452.

Schön, D. A., Sanyal, B. and Mitchell, W. J. (eds) (1999) High Technology and Low-Income Communities: Prospects for the Positive Use Of Advanced Information Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Seely-Brown, J. (2000) Growing up digital: how the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Available online at: http://www.johnseelybrown.com/Growing_up_ digital.pdf, accessed 23 July 2007.

Seiler, G. A. (2002) Understanding Social Reproduction: The Recursive Nature of Structure and Agency within a Science Class. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Available online at: http://repository.upenn. edu/dissertations/AAI3043953, accessed 6 August 2007.

Sewell, Jr., W. H. (1992) A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.

Sewell, Jr., W. H. (1999) The concept(s) of culture. In V. E. Bonnell and L. Hunt (eds), Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), 35–61.

Swidler, A. (1986) Culture in actions: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 5(4/5), 273–286.

Tobin, K. (2002) Beyond the bold rhetoric of reform: (re)learning to teach science appropri- ately. In W.-M. Roth and J. Désautels (eds), Science Education as/for Sociopolitical Action (New York: Peter Lang), 125–150.