Affinity Online. Mizuko Ito
world offers and the relatively low uptake, particularly among less resourced and less tech-savvy young people, is cause for concern (Ito et al. 2013).
Building on the Digital Youth Project, the Leveling Up study was designed to focus on online practices and networks that could bridge the divides between in-school and out-of-school learning. For our case studies, we sought out online communities that are both highly engaging to youth and also tied to academic, career, and civic practices. We also tried to include interest areas that attracted youth historically underrepresented in technology-related areas, specifically girls and youth with lower socioeconomic status. Our case studies include tech-savvy groups of gamers as well as less stereotypically “geeky” communities, such as knitters and fans of boybands and professional wrestlers. Through these cases, we investigated the supports that connect young people’s interests to opportunity—such as Amy’s father supporting her emerging online business—as well as missed opportunities and disconnects that inhibit this kind of connection and brokering.
To understand the implications of these points of connection and disconnection, we draw from the model of connected learning. Connected learning is a “synthetic model of learning” (Penuel et al. 2016); it both describes a form of meaningful and opportunity-enhancing learning and guides design and policies that expand access to this form of learning. The model grows out of an expanding body of evidence that learning is resilient and meaningful when it is tied to social relationships and cultural identities, and when it spans in-school and out-of-school settings. As a model for design and social change, connected learning focuses on connecting young people’s interests and peer culture to opportunity and recognition in academic, civic, and career-relevant settings. Connected learning strives for equity by embracing the cultural identities of diverse young people, meeting them where they are in their communities of interest, and building points of connection and translation to opportunity in schools, employment, and civic and political institutions.
Connected learning differs from more traditional learning and reform approaches in that it is centered on young people’s interest-driven learning and is agnostic as to the types of relationships and institutions that can support this learning. While teachers and classrooms are critical in the learning of most young people, we also see online communities and communication, and caring adults at home and in their local communities, as valuable supports for learning. By focusing on shared interests and social practices, connected learning draws attention to how social relationships and networks fuel learning and broker opportunities in varied settings, including online affinity networks.
The Leveling Up study was designed to investigate the role that online affinity networks play, and could potentially play, in connected learning. We are still far from realizing a world where all young people are able to fully engage in learning and opportunities tied to their interests and passions, but we see the potential for online networks’ playing a larger role in making this happen. Our decision to focus on practices and communities that embody this potential comes from our commitment to engaged scholarship. This book is an effort to make this potential more visible to educators, parents, and policy and technology makers who are seeking to expand educational opportunity. Our approach is animated by challenges that educators and technology designers face, and in turn, our findings are targeted toward insights that can be of value to researchers as well as practitioners. We orient our questions and methods to problems in practice as much as to scholarly debates.
We ask questions that social scientists have asked of social networks more generally, keyed to problems in educational practice. How do relationships and networks provide social support, information, and connections to opportunity? We probe more specifically into questions of learning and affinity. What kinds of relationships and networks support connected learning? Can online affinity networks help develop social capital, learning, and opportunity? And finally, what kinds of additional relationships and supports do young people need to connect their learning in affinity networks to academic, civic, and career opportunities?
Affinity networks provide a lens through which to deepen our understanding of social networks and learning. Our analysis pivots around how online affinity networks open unique avenues for young people to find “their people”—peers and mentors who share an identity or interest. While sharing similarities with other hobby and sports groups, the relationships that young people develop in online affinity networks differ in important ways from those developed through families, in schools, and in extracurricular activities. They are both more limited—tailored to bonding around a specific interest—and more expansive—more accessible across time and space. They are “intentional” or chosen networks that can result in a strong sense of affiliation and social bonding. These networks are not layered with the same status hierarchies as young people’s school peer culture, or the accountabilities of teachers and parents. Young people described this aspect of online affinity networks as liberating. Conversely, this means that these networks are thin along measures we traditionally associate with strong social ties, such as face-to-face interaction and institutional embeddedness. The intentional and self-contained aspects of affinity networks are also the features that limit their ability to connect to broader learning and civic and career opportunities. Investigating youth online affinity networks enables us to understand how online networks are changing how young people shape their social relationships, identities, and learning in ways that inform educational practice.
After introducing the broader social, cultural, and economic climate that frames the agenda for this research, we describe the research study. We then describe the conceptual framework for this work and how it organizes the chapters to follow.
The Problem: Technology, Learning, and Equity
In the past decade, as young people have flocked to social media, mobile phones, and digital media of various kinds, we have seen a dramatic rise in media engagement and mediated communication. Between 1999 and 2015, the average number of hours that youth between the ages of 8 and 18 spent a day using media rose from 7.29 to 9 hours (Common Sense Media 2015). This rise in media engagement has led to concerns about the loss of reflective thought and cognition (Carr 2010), the rise of loneliness (Turkle 2011), declining standards of literacy (Bauerlein 2008), and media addiction. By contrast, proponents of digital learning have argued that these new technologies offer rich new opportunities for learning. Many have argued for the value of particular tools and technologies, such as gaming (McGonigal 2011; Prensky 2010), personalized learning systems, learning analytics, and open online content (Khan 2013).
Both proponents and detractors often focus more on the technology and generalizations about youth than on the specific social, cultural, and institutional contexts of their uptake. Technologies and techniques, however, take on different characteristics depending on the cultural and social settings they are embedded in. History is replete with examples of how new learning technologies have been heralded as the answer to our educational problems, only to become incorporated within existing institutionalized practices in decidedly nontransformative ways (Cuban 2003; Ito 2009; Rafalow 2016). Even when they are deployed in free and open online settings, we find that new educational technologies tend to amplify existing inequity; the most highly educated are the most likely to adopt these new open-education opportunities (Carfagna 2014; Hansen and Reich 2015; Reich and Ito 2017). Institutionalized practices, in education, entertainment, and the emerging technology landscape, drive the ways in which young people adopt new technology in differentiated ways in their everyday lives.
These studies of educational technology deployment have argued that focusing on the promise of a particular technology, technique, or platform can deflect attention away from deeply rooted and institutionalized forms of stratification and cultural differences. In other words, access to social, cultural, and economic capital, not access to technology, is what broadens opportunity. This recognition on its own, however, does not guide the way to positive and equitable roles for technology in learning. Both proponents and critical scholars must focus less on pinning hope and blame on technology, and more on understanding and adapting institutionalized practices and policies, if we are truly concerned about better and more equitable educational futures. The connected learning approach is an effort to move beyond a “boosters versus critics” divide through a shared agenda informed by both critical empirical studies of learning technology and forward-looking theories of change.
A