Ubiquitous Learning

6. Notes toward a Political Economy of Ubiquitous Learning

6 notes toward a Political economy of Ubiquitous learning michael a. peters Substantial claims are currently being made for ubiquitous learning (UL). It is seen as an emergent new set of revolutionary learning technologies that is to be distinguished from conventional IT-aided learning, e-learning, and distance learning, through its utilization of new mobile technologies for the construction of collaborative, distributed, often peer-to-peer learning platforms. Thus, for instance, Ellen D. Wagner (2005, 40) in EDUCAUSE Review claims: “The mobile revolution is finally here. Wherever one looks, the evidence of mobile penetration and adoption is irrefutable. PDAs (personal digital assistants), MP3 players, portable game devices, handhelds, tablets, and laptops abound. No demographic is immune from this phenomenon.” The strengths of UL follow from its pervasive utility. It is said to possess a family of distinguishing features that emphasize accessibility, access from anywhere at any time; interactivity, including interaction with experts or peers in synchronous or asynchronous communication; immediacy, with potential for quick information retrieval and storage; permanency, with an accent on continuous and instant recording; and everyday situatedness, where learning is embedded in everyday life (Chen et al. 2002; Curtis et al. 2002; Ogata and Yano 2004). It is claimed that on the basis of the new mobile technologies, learners will be able to select the best means for learning from the available alternatives (including conventional means) depending on time, place, and other critical factors and that they will therefore “be able to learn at any time, any place, as and if they wish” (Ogata and Yano 2004, 27). These understandings are usefully developed by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis in chapter 1 of this work, emphasizing the link to ubiquitous computing and its situated, interactive, and participatory nature. They also acknowledge the need political economy of ubiquitous learning · 63 for caution, which is understandable in view of the failures of educational technology , especially instructional radio and television. These developments of ubiquitous technology are seen as part of a set of wider trends in which, as Judy Brown (2007) puts it, “Everything is connected; Everything is aware; Everything is digital; and, Everything talks to everything.” These trends will be enhanced as the size, battery life, and cost diminish, while power, connectivity, and capabilities increase. Mobile learning technologies are not limited simply to handhelds but encompass a range of different devices and technologies. Naismith et al. (2004) provide a useful classification of mobile technologies in figure 6.1. The general ethos of the emerging core of UL is alleged to make full use of Web 2.0 as platform and to exhibit the following characteristics: rich learner-user experiences, learner-user as contributor, learner-user self-service, learner controls own data, and radical trust. It is sometimes defined by a series of contrasts with Web 1.0—tagging not taxonomy, participation not publishing, Wikipedia not Britannica Online, DoubleClick not Google AdSense, mp3.com not Napster , search engine optimization not domain name speculation, syndication not stickiness (O’Reilly 2005). Doubts have been raised about whether Web 2.0 is a coherent concept, although blogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds, social software, Figure 6.1. Classification of mobile technologies. Based on figure 1 in Laura Naismith et al., Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning, report 11 (Bristol, U.K.: NESTA Futurelab Series, 2004). Personal Portable Static Shared Mobile phones game consoles Classroom response systems electronic whiteboards videoconferencing PDAs tablet PCs laptops Kiosks 64 . peters and online Web services do seem to indicate a change in Web usage. These developments , if their promise is realized, do really constitute a new paradigm in education, as Cope and Kalantzis claim and which they ably detail in a set of seven “moves” in the game, including that of building “collaborative knowledge cultures,” a strategy that I think goes to the heart of a new political economy of peer-to-peer production and collaboration (M. Peters and Besley 2006). Major claims have been made concerning the distinctiveness of this set of new learning technologies. They are claimed to be part of a worldwide proliferation of wireless handheld devices (WHDs) that in turn help to support the trend toward ubiquitous computing through “the potential of WHDs to enable sophisticated types of instructional designs” and “WHD’s fostering of new, media-based learning styles” (Dieterle et al. 2007, 35). New learning styles propagated by WHDs promote “fluency in multiple media” where “each medium, moreover, is valued...