Affinity Online. Mizuko Ito
young people and affinity networks reinforces these views of interest development. We draw from Azevedo’s view that interests are an interaction between individual preferences and “lines of practice”—the ways in which interests are sustained over time through joint activities. We see an ongoing and dynamic interaction between individual inclinations and the network of relationships, affinities, and activities that are available in a young person’s social world. Even when young people have a strong personal passion for a particular interest area, involvement waxes and wanes depending on whether they feel a sense of belonging, if they have friends, family members, and mentors who share the interest, and on access to activities that sustain their involvement. We describe young people’s personal predilection for an interest as an “affinity” in order to highlight its relational and culturally situated nature. A young person’s demonstration of interest is grounded in personal preference as well as whether he or she can relate to the culture, people, and practices that embody the interest. Whether it is math, surfing, or knitting, an interest cannot be separated from its culture, people, and places. These contextual features are fundamental drivers of young people’s attraction to the area of interest.
We see our work on sociocultural contexts for interest development as complementary to psychological research that investigates how interest is triggered, sustained, and deepened (e.g., Renninger and Hidi 2016). We see deepening interest as both “internally” developmental and as an “external” process of building connections that are relational, cultural, and practical in nature. In other words, robust interest is not a process of “internalization” and is characterized by growth in situational ties; the focus of our investigation has been the development of these sociocultural ties and networks. In this we draw from a long tradition in sociocultural learning theory that recognizes how learning is part of belonging in situated practices (e.g., Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989; Cole 1996; Lave and Wenger 1991). Unlike the seminal case studies of situated learning in professional “communities of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991; Orr 1990; Wenger 1998), however, our cases center on networks of affinity and interests that are only loosely institutionalized. We draw broadly on sociocultural approaches in the learning sciences, but we focus specifically on the unique forms of social learning that thrive in technology-enabled affinity networks.
Growing out of sociocultural research traditions, connected learning also draws from learner-centered and socially situated approaches to educational practice. At least since John Dewey (1916) articulated a vision for progressive educational practice that connects school and community, educators have sought to support meaningful, hands-on learning that connects young people to the wider world. The connected learning model draws from this progressive tradition, situating it within today’s challenges of equity, inclusion, and a changing media environment. Connected learning sees common cause with hands-on and experiential approaches such as project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and constructionism (Papert 1993), in addition to affinities with culturally relevant approaches (e.g., González, Moll, and Amanti 2005; Gutiérrez and Rogoff 2003) and critical pedagogy (Freire [1970] 2000). Connected learning is not limited, however, to a particular pedagogical approach. Instead, the focus is on building relational, practical, and conceptual connections across settings and experiences, centered on learning interests and affinities (see figures 1.2a and 1.2b). Often a project-centered and culturally relevant approach is the best way to build these connections.
If we return to the story of Amy that introduced this chapter, we can see that her process of developing interests and expertise relied on a growing network of relational supports, activities, and opportunities to share. Her online affinity network in Hogwarts at Ravelry helped fill gaps in knowledge, as well as in her social and cultural supports, so that she could sustain her learning and interest in a unique specialization. Unlike an interest such as chess or basketball, which is often supported within schools and other community-based institutions, a specialization in knitting and pattern making would have been difficult to sustain without her online supports.
Figure 1.2a. Learning and interest development as a pipeline or progression.
Image by Nat Soti.
Figure 1.2b. Learning and interest development as a process of network building.
Image by Nat Soti.
The fundamental drivers of specialized, expert learning are the same as what we see in more traditional professional groups—learning in situ, sustained engagement with peers with related expertise, and productive social and cultural contributions. What differs is how Amy’s interests are supported through an online, affinity-centered infrastructure that is only loosely institutionalized. Online affinity networks are more accessible than a formal professional community or a community-based organization such as a sports team. This also means, however, that they have fewer ties to the local communities and contexts of participants. In Amy’s case, her supportive family provided these connections, thus enabling a connected learning experience that linked her online and face-to-face settings. Our case studies of online affinity networks and connected learners such as Amy enable us to understand these unique affordances of the online world as well as to reflect on our assumptions about learning and interest development.
Figure 1.3. Connecting the spheres of learning.
Image by Mizuko Ito.
The chapters of this book are sequenced to trace how young people get involved in online affinity networks, find a place for themselves in the social scene, and connect those experiences and that learning to academic, civic, and career opportunities. This arc is not so much a learning trajectory as much as it is a map of how online affinity networks can fit into a network of learning activities and relationships centered on youth interests. Although there are steps and pathways that young people traverse through time, connected learning is more appropriately conceived of as the growth of a network of connections than as a linear pathway or an internalization of skills and knowledge. Connected learners are situated within a set of personal and organizational relationships that knit together their interests and affinities, relationships, and organizational sites of power and opportunity such as schools, civic institutions, and workplaces (see figure 1.3).
Online affinity networks can play a powerful role in connecting a young person’s learning network because they distill and make accessible a set of relationships and roles that are centered on personal interests and identities. For young people who do not have peers and mentors in their local communities and organizations that share their interest, online affinity networks can fill a vacuum in their connected learning networks. And when they are able to connect the relationships and learning from their online affinity networks back to their local relationships and organizations, the outcomes can be transformational—opening new educational pathways, civic engagements, and economic opportunity. The chapters in this book take on these three dimensions of the network of connected learning by first describing the interests and shared practices that draw young people into online affinity networks, and then turning to the dynamics of peer status that they encounter when they are engaged in these communities. The final chapter looks at links from online affinity networks to academic, economic, and civic opportunity. The organization of the chapters also mirrors the interdisciplinary nature of this study, which brings together internet studies, social network analysis, and the learning sciences. Each chapter highlights the contributions that a study of online affinity networks can make to each of these fields of study in turn.
Interests and Affinity
In the second chapter of this book, we delve into the core practices and structures that make online affinity networks tick: how they wrap themselves around a shared “content world” (Jenkins 2012), organize shared practices that engage participants, and build open online infrastructures that welcome new participants and challenge veterans. We draw from prior research on participatory