As I’ve been thinking through the role of spatial literacies in the classroom, I’ve also been thinking about the interrelation of space and time within the texts we read.

A clear example of this is below. No, it’s not down there at the bottom of the screen and, likely, you didn’t look to your toes to see if I had miraculously transferred an example asynchronously to your current time and location. Instead, the word “below”, as typically used in texts, is a spatial marker that is used to signal time. When a writer talks about something that will be discussed later, she or he will likely say something parenthetically like, “(see below)”. When we see this phrase (or its less frequent sibling, “above”), we do not frantically scan the page in a Waldo-like search for this illusive information skulking above the bottom margin of a page. Often, we wait patiently and read on. As skilled readers we know that the below is found more in time than in place when reading a text.

We are so sure, in fact, that we will find “below” later on in a text, that the phrase often acts as a misnomer. Let’s say that you are reading “see below” and it appears at the bottom of a page. Clearly, there are no longer any lines of the text that can go below the appearing phrase. In fact, as you continue to read, you find that the referenced “below” actually appears later on much higher up on another page. Below can be above.*

When we write about below we actually write about later on. We foreshadow in text through place.

What I’m curious about (and painfully–American-ly–ignorant of) is if similar mixtures of spatial and time-based phrases are mixed in other languages. Do French or Japanese or Portuguese or Arabic academic texts have the equivalent of “see below” in their rhetoric? Or is this downward quest solely American? A literary Manifest Destiny?

So all of this can seem like another one of those quirky things about language that people just kinda point out (“a pineapple is neither pine nor apple, discuss”). However, I’d argue that this rooting of time and place within a text is counter to the possibilities of digital production.

When we type in Word or in the body of a new email message, our cursor is programmed to wrap text after a predisposed length not because it has to, but because that’s what paper and books have conditioned us to expect. When I simulate turning the page in my ebook, it’s not because the screen has run out of space but because, as someone who has come of age reading and producing on physical products with tools that make prominent use of my horrible handwritten scrawl, I expect my computer and phone and kindle and iPad to look and function like a book.

Our students today and the students coming after them do not have to cater to these same predispositions. For them, “see below” could just as easily be “see over there to the left” or “see on this link” or “see by floating your cursor over a word and an image will appear.” It doesn’t even have to be “see.” When we want to relate ideas that are to follow, digital technology allows us to disrupt within a text. There is nothing but our own imagination to stop an audio file or an embedded video or an interactive game or feature I’m unable to imagine to appear as a way to explain an idea or enrich a text.

As I typed that last sentence (on an application on my iPad), a thin line bisected my prose. The line told me I was now typing on a new page and was now writing further below. The spatial privilege we place on production and consumption of text is one that entire industries hinge upon. The constant updates about the book world’s uncomfortable crawl into eBook ubiquity, software giants, the size, shape, and functionality of printers in our households, and cultural semiotics of paper and what reading “looks like” as we teach it to young people suggest that “see below” isn’t likely to lose its meaning anytime soon. However, as we add to other ways to signal time in text than simply through textual geography, it is necessary for us to point young people to new ways of producing text that isn’t necessarily 8.5″x11″1-inchmargins12pointfontdoublespacedtimesnewroman.

*The footnote or endnote, however, stay rooted firmly in place and are easily found piling up and wandering sequentially at the bottom of a page or document (they are the true “below”).

I’m thrilled to be a part of the Digital Media and Learning 2012 conference committee. The full conference description and call for proposals is listed below. I am organizing the theme Innovations for Public Education.

Particularly, I am hoping to see a larger cadre of teachers and students present at this year’s conference. If you are a teacher, student, or researcher working around the role of digital innovation in public education, please consider submitting a proposal to present. As noted below, proposals are due October 19th through Fastapps.

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

BEYOND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY: LEARNING INNOVATIONS IN A CONNECTED WORLD

Digital Media and Learning Conference Website: http://dml2012.dmlcentral.net/

San Francisco, California March 1-3, 2012

Conference Chair:

Diana Rhoten (News Corp.)

Conference Committee:

Tracy Fullerton (USC) Antero Garcia (UCLA) Mitch Resnick (MIT) Mark Surman (Mozilla Foundation)

Technology will revolutionize education. That was the shout heard around the world as early as the 1970s when “microcomputers” first appeared on the scene. In the last forty years, the exponentially increasing powers and dramatically decreasing costs of computer technologies have surpassed even the wildest dreams of those early days. Yet, there is still little evidence of any major technology-enabled disruptions to the structure and culture of mainstream education. Today, technology has once again become the rallying call for education innovation. Whether as efforts to establish new institutions, experiment with mobile devices, develop learning applications, or incorporate personalized and distance education platforms, information technologies and digital media are at the center of the education innovation conversation.

In 20th Century United States, schools were seen as the primary locus of education, where teachers are transmitters and students are receivers of information and knowledge. As a result, education reform movements focused on promoting school-based practices and processes that would maximize institutional efficiencies. In that context, the then emerging “education technology” community (as it has since come to be known) drew from the “best practice” of their time and focused mainly on the development of instructional hardware to increase standardized test scores, administrative technology tofacilitate record keeping, or content management systems to deliver traditional curriculum online.

More recently, however, cutting-edge research from the social and behavioral sciences has begun to show that an individual’s learning can be accelerated by tapping into personal interests that span different social experiences including but beyond schooling. Evidence also suggests that individuals may learn more efficaciously and more equitably, without gaps between rich and poor, when they learn in specialty domains and practice areas that they choose and for which they are motivated. Compared to older education paradigms, this 21st Century pedagogical view reframes learning as the creation and acquisition of knowledge through observing, interacting and collaborating with others anywhere, anytime. As a result, we are now seeing new technologies and digital media designed not to deliver a faster, cheaper schooling but rather to enable richer, deeper learning. As this new “digital media and learning” movement (as it is becoming known) expands, we are seeing the emergence of Web-enabled, mobile-based platforms that promote new models of peer-to-peer learning, anywhere / anytime learning, blended learning and game-based learning.

The “education technology” and “digital media and learning” views on education innovation represent differences in thinking not just about technologies for but also – more importantly – pedagogies and epistemologies of learning. While there are fundamental differences between these perspectives, we do not think these two visions need be or should be in conflict with one another. In fact, we believe they are complements to one another, with critical and necessary synergies between their approaches. For example, there is great evidence to suggest that “basic skills” and “core competencies” may be best learned in classroom environments but then augmented and advanced with the type of independent, interactive learner-centered experiences that new technologies can provide outside of the classroom. Building a new future for education and learning in a connected world not only allows but actually requires bridging in-school and out-of-school learning practices and philosophies through networks of learning institutions and alliances.

Inspired by Silicon Valley’s culture of technology-led innovation, the 2012 Digital Media and Learning Conference will explore ongoing questions and debates around the role of technology and the future of education and learning.

• What are the primary purposes and practices of education, and how can technology accelerate or decelerate them?

• When we talk about disruptive technologies, what systems and players are we really seeking to change and to what end?

• What sectors, institutions and populations are we mobilizing for innovation and for whom are we mobilizing them?

• How do we design, build and fund infrastructures around new connections across and configurations of learning?

• How do we cultivate a healthy, symbiotic ecosystem of innovation that leads to a future of Connected Learning?

In answering these and other questions, we hope attendees will challenge their assumptions and share their visions about what education and learning could or should look like in a connected world. To that end, we invite provocative sessions that address the intersections and tensions inherent in different approaches to innovation, and we strongly encourage interactive discussions that push panelists and participants alike to ask themselves where they are in the innovation conversation and how they plan to translate that conversation into action.

ABOUT THE WORKSHOP, PAPER AND PANEL PROPOSALS

We welcome workshops, panels and papers along five themes: Making, Tinkering and Remixing; Re-imagining Media for Learning; Democratizing Learning Innovation; Innovations for Public Education and Digital Media and Learning.

Making, Tinkering and Remixing. To become full and active participants in 21st century society, young people must learn to design, create, and invent with new technologies, not simply interact with them. What are the pathways for becoming a maker and not just a user in a world of Connected Learning? What social and technical infrastructures provide the best support for young people as they learn to tinker with materials, remix one another’s work, and iteratively refine their creations?

Re-imagining Media for Learning. What does it mean to think of media and games in the service of diverse educational goals and within a broad ecology of learning? In particular, how can we balance the needs of multi-stakeholder alliances against the challenges of designing engaging, playful and truly innovative media experiences? Especially those that go beyond implementations of technologies and platforms to create real communities of playful learning and rich opportunities for individual discovery and growth.

Democratizing Learning Innovation. Looking to the groundswell for massively collaborative innovation and change, what does it take to pull from a participatory and networked ecology to push innovation from the bottom up and from the outside in versus top down and inside out?

Innovations for Public Education. Too often cutting edge technology innovations serve the interests of the already privileged “creative class.” What can we do to ensure that the most innovative forms of learning are accessible to all educators and young people relying on public education infrastructures? How can digital innovation directly impact disparities in achievement of students based on race and class?

Digital Media and Learning: We also welcome submissions that address innovative research and practice in the field of digital media and learning.

Presentation Formats

This year we will be accepting proposals in three formats: panels, workshops and short talks.

Panels bring together in discussion four participants or presentations representing a range of ideas and projects. Panels are scheduled for 90 minutes and should include a mix of individuals working in areas of research, theory, and practice. We also encourage the use of discussants.

Workshops provide an opportunity for hands-on exploration and/or problem solving. They can be organized around a core challenge that participants come together to work on or around a tool, platform, or concept. Workshops are scheduled for 90 minutes and should be highly participatory.

Finally, we welcome short, ten minute talks where presenters speak for ten minutes on their work, research or a subject relevant to the conference theme and/or subthemes.

Note: Proposals for ignite sessions will be announced in January 2012.

Submitting Your Proposal

The DML2012 Conference proposal system is now open and full proposals will be due on October 19, 2011 (11:59 pm PST). To propose a panel, participants will be required to register with Fastapps http:// fastapps.dmlcentral.org, our submission system at the Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Participants will be able to edit their proposals up until the final deadline.

Panel and Workshop proposal abstracts should cover the theme, format (e.g. discussion, interactive, presentations), how the session addresses the theme of the conference and/or subtheme in up to 500 words. Short talk abstracts should cover the theme, format (e.g. discussion, interactive, presentations), how the talk addresses the theme of the conference and/or subtheme in up to 250 words. List of participants, affiliations, emails and titles of talks/presentations (if applicable) should also be included. We will not be soliciting full papers or publishing conference proceedings.

Please note that each participant will be limited to participation on no more than two panels at the conference. Participants will be expected to fund their own travel and accommodation.

Like many of you, I am experiencing an interpretation of the riots taking place in London through a mediated lens of retweeted photographs [see image above], blog posts, +1d news articles, and forums sharing freshly sparked memes. Nested commenting across online sources-like this video/blog post/tweet-are rich and inherently different from how information is shared and absorbed than ever before.

The experiences of the urban youth that are engaged in political dissonance, in resistance, in bringing social issues to the foray are, in many ways, retelling a narrative that I’m already uncomfortably familiar with. The prominence of looting and of reprehensible behavior in the dominant narrative here echoes the social discourse of looters during Katrina and Rodney King (events so engrained in America’s consciousness I can signal them through proper nouns only somewhat associated with the events themselves).

As I continue to follow along with what is happening–now geographically distanced from the culturally familiar–I am struck by the fact that this is precisely the urgency for a widespread induction of critical engagement with participatory media and its resulting media literacies in formal schools. Right now,  it is the livelihood and well-being of entire communities at stake. Technology’s role in mediating resistance efforts across global channels means that a media literacy today extends directly into illuminating these repeating narratives and in equipping a generation of youth with the tools to successfully interpret, contribute to, and reflect upon the myriad thread of information about physical world activism and protest. A pedagogy of participatory media begins with what is happening in the streets of England right now and empowers educators and students alike in transforming & challenging dominant narratives.

Last week’s episode of This American Life described the troubling problem with innovation and ownership of patents*. Specifically, the show questioned, how we protect our intellectual work and our ideas. In listening to this, I realized how closely the challenges of patents are to the current struggles of ownership of textual products in an age of remix.

As educators need to reevaluate concepts like plagiarism for a generation that is being apprenticed into practices of remixing and appropriating old media for new purposes, so too do we need to think of the relationship between textual production and productive innovation. Pragmatically, I can imagine students–in ELA classrooms no less–will be required to produce mobile apps or participatory media platforms to demonstrate their skills as writers and producers. In this sense, where does the line between writing and building start and end? When we write in response to literature and yield a mobile app that integrates into our everyday use, at what point does our work become patentable? At what point need it be copywritten in an old paradigm?

Last month, I spent a significant chunk of time enveloped in an intellectual tussle with M.M. Bakhtin. I still have not fully wrested my thoughts from his Discourse of the Novel and see directly how language practices are constantly in negotiation with the reader/viewer/user/customer/programmer and how these negotiations spin out into larger areas of exploration. For now, as content and its method of delivery become intwined in even more complex relationships, educators need to prepare for work that defies metrics like paragraphs, double-spaced 12-point font and pesky one-ince margins.

*As I don’t spend a whole lot of time here discussing the actual show, I suggest listening to the whole thing. I should also mention that this response from Intellectual Ventures is interesting.