The Prospects of Participatory Cultures in K-12 Classrooms

I think that it is possible to construct spaces for participatory cultures to exist within a formal classroom and really to be a driving force for how learning is “done.” I also believe that these learning spaces are in line with the types of learning objectives and standards laid out by the Common Core, which leads me to my contested assertion that standards (possibly within their own vacuum) can actually co-exist with creative, collaborative, and exploratory learning. However, I see this contingent on two big IF’s–

IF… schools/districts/states allow for teacher agency and autonomy in designing learning experiences in their classrooms. When curriculum is instead sold as pre-packaged products devoid of context (and mostly meaning) there is little chance of constructing the room (both physically and in terms of scheduling) for these types of learning environments to flourish. Many of the characteristics that typically define “formal” learning must be reconfigured in this type of learning environment (physical space, teacher role, technology access, etc), yet I believe these are within easy reach for a willing teacher to embrace. However, a school setting that imposes the formality of norms (through curriculum, behavior management, censorship, etc) may be an insurmountable challenge.

IF… learning experiences are intentionally designed. I really love the integration of Understanding by Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), because I think backwards design is even more important when constructing digital learning experiences, even moreso in participatory cultures. I think it can be easy to get caught up in the technology itself, without carefully attending to the process of learning (the scaffolding of skills it might require and how to rethink what these skills look like in a digital context–even again after students bring their own understanding to the community, expanding on the original goals, complexities, or potential outcomes the teacher may not have invisioned). I see the culture itself as not only allowing for but embracing “play” and flux–a clear vision is important, but unlike traditional settings/assignments, I think there is a greater need for the vision itself to be negotiated and refined through the community. Allowing for flux also takes into account many of the logistical concerns of implementing these experiences in real classrooms (access, tools, timelines, etc).
Reviewing the list of experiences Jenkins describes of “What Could Be Done” across the different core skills, it is clear that none were accomplished by serendipitous accident. Many will require not only a teacher’s knowledge of content but also a reconceptualization of what teaching means in a participatory culture. Furthermore, teachers will likely need to collaborate with resident tech experts or instructional technology coaches to support their learning of the tools themselves. After all, it might be hard to envision how to design experiences around “judgment” if the teacher can just barely use the technology at a functional level. Which only further supports the need for developing these core skills in the teachers themselves. Sure we can say that the learning and teaching is distributed–which it is– but most teachers will only feel comfortable moving into this space with at least some degree of competence themselves. We might support them to see their role as facilitator or co-learner as opposed to expert, but going forward with no knowledge might make intentional design not just a harder sell but practically impossible.
​
But what does this mean in an era where “Failure is Not an Option?”
I was also thinking about failure in terms of teaching being perceived as “failing” if certain assessment goals are not met on standardized tests. In questioning my first response, I came to a larger question: Can people enact (not just embrace) progressive reforms while operating within a regressive state? The essence of participatory culture asks teachers to rethink their traditional teaching roles and relationships to students, understanding of content delivery and construction of meaning, and learn to play and take risks with new forms of digital tools– risks that might be readily accepted as new challenges and paths to learning but only under circumstances that allow for and support risk-taking. A national climate that instead imposes daunting standards and standardized testing as the measure of teaching ability and professional competency, as well as determining pay and even employment is NOT a climate in which teachers would be as likely to willingly embrace a whole new approach to teaching and learning–rather a more likely outcome might be to sacrifice progress to at least maintain credibility. Can you have authentic progress if your goal is to measure each mis-step as a failure and means for exposure? I’m wondering if this is more problematic than I may have originally thought…