Ripley found that students turned to social media as a way to cope with boredom. She found it particularly revealing that students took “selfies” in which they strove to express boredom through expressions and posture. She was also impressed by the creativity that some students employed to make their tweets, vines, and Instagram posts about boredom anything but boring. Like the students Ripley observed, some of the students discussed in the present book turned to social media to alleviate boredom, sometimes scrolling through other people’s posts, sometimes messaging friends, and sometimes talking about boredom. As an example from the current study, Gabriela used Twitter as an outlet for emotions and thoughts in the moment. Scrolling through her Twitter feed turned up her weekly updates about feeling “bored enough to die” at school.
Burkus (2014), Gasper and Middlewood (2007), and Mann and Cadman (2014) have argued that boredom can foster creativity. However, their research describes specific contexts (mostly experimental settings) and often describes tedious tasks (e.g., stacking cups or reading a phone book) that fail to mirror the highly regimented and controlled spaces of high school. Boredom isn’t merely the absence of stimulation; it is an unpleasant state that prompts a person to want to escape and disengage. It is often cited as “a motivational barrier” that can be “a detriment to academic learning” (Pekrun et al. 2002, cited in Vogel-Walcutt et al. 2012). Different individuals assess boredom differently, but it is often induced by tasks that are perceived of as pointless and repetitive and tasks over which people have little control (Vogel-Walcutt et al. 2012). When considering research that suggests boredom can be a positive motivation, we must also consider how individuals respond to boredom. In a German study of 976 teenagers, Nett, Goetz, and Daniels (2010) found that students who evaded boredom—that is, who distracted themselves to alleviate boredom—did worse in school and experienced more boredom than students who reappraised the situation, coped with boredom by trying to find the value in what they were doing, and attempted to talk themselves out of boredom. The findings of Nett et al. suggested that reappraising was a more productive coping strategy than evasion. However, at school many students reach for technology or other distractions as a way to evade boredom, rather than search for more productive or creative ways to cope.
On the other end of the boredom spectrum, educational environments that deliberately construct engaging conditions that alleviate boredom have “the potential to be of considerable value to educators and may ultimately improve student performance (Belton and Priyadharshini 2007, cited in Vogel-Walcutt 2012). Engagement (i.e., the lack of boredom) is best achieved in challenging and motivating environments that facilitate autonomy (Belton and Priyadharshini 2007). Unfortunately, many participants in our study described school in ways that were antithetical to engagement and learning. Participants often felt that they had little control over their physical environment or their academic pursuits (i.e., that they lacked autonomy). Others expressed frustration that school hindered opportunities for them to pursue their own creative interests. Far too often students reported that they did not understand the larger purpose of what they were learning and that they considered the methods of teaching boring or outdated. For example, some expressed frustration that they could not choose what literature to read, or that they were not allowed to listen to music to help them concentrate when working on assignments by themselves in class. Other students complained that teachers relied too heavily on boring PowerPoint presentations and wished that more teachers would incorporate media and interactivity into the classrooms. When asked what would make school more engaging, Antonio replied:
Maybe if they had better lessons, because most teachers, they do the old stuff. They stand in front of a board, they’ll say it many times. People won’t get it. Maybe if they had a video to go with that, it would be better, because I know I learn better if I see a video or something. In my astronomy class, my teacher shows us a lot of videos, and I actually learn like that—projects that let you be creative and do stuff. Or where you move around, because if you’re standing still in one class for a long time, you get bored of that and you stop learning. Moving around gets blood flowing to your head and everywhere … and the brain starts working more, so I think moving around would be good.
In saying this, Antonio echoed many other participants who were frustrated that school did not allow them to be more active or to incorporate their interests into assignments. In a different interview, Antonio expressed irritation that his English teacher would not let him write a book report in the form of a script. “She says she wants me to write. But a script is writing! And it’s what I like, it’s more creative, you know?” Antonio’s interests in screenwriting exemplified an opportunity to connect his personal interest with formal education, but in this particular instance his teacher would not allow him to do a more creative writing project instead of a more traditional book report. As will be discussed in the concluding section of this chapter, students consistently described projects as their favorite mode of learning because projects allowed them to bring in their own interests, express creativity, and often allowed them to incorporate media into the projects.
Antonio felt passionate enough about the technology rules at school that he chose those rules as the topic for a required paper in his English class. In that paper he raised many of the points that I have addressed in this chapter. He explained his viewpoint in the following interview:
Antonio:
One of my teachers, every time you walk into the class, she’ll tell you to get your headphones out, put your cell phones up, put everything and all your electronics up, and it gets really annoying because she says it every day. After a while it’s just, like, “Why? People are going to have them and have them out. What’s the point of enforcing this?” I think electronics can help a lot—that’s why I wrote the thesis paper on it.
Q:
You wrote a thesis paper?
Antonio:
Yes. On personal electronic devices in school.
Q:
Do you mind telling me about it?
Antonio:
I basically just searched up online why do they ban electronics in school? I mean—most schools have all these resources—electronic, they buy laptops, they buy computers, but they stop it at cell phones and iPods. But why if they’re free and they already come with the student—they don’t have to pay for anything. … They’re just being weirdos and not letting us use them because they think it’s going to distract us. And I know it distracts some people, but for me, I can actually get my work done and not get distracted and then just plug in my iPod after I’m done. Or if the class is loud and you’re trying to concentrate on something, why not put your headphones in? I know for me, it makes it way easier if I have headphones in and I’m trying to read a book and the class is loud—it’s just easier.
Q:
What do you think is easier?
Antonio:
It helps me drown out—for me, the music is helping me concentrate and—I put this in my thesis paper—there is proven fact that music helps you study and learn, so if it helps you study and learn, why not have it in schools? It just bugs me that they’re not allowing it. We’re in a new age—it’s the 21st century. People are buying technology every single day no matter what the price is—they’re very useful. You can write notes on them or keep an agenda—that’s basically what I wrote in my thesis paper.
Q:
You are writing an argument in favor of more technology in school?
Antonio:
Yes. In favor.
Antonio’s comments highlight a larger problem with the school environment: it’s distracting. Many participants complained about the lack of discipline in class, for example, that students talked too much during class and made it hard to concentrate. As Antonio put it, “If the class is loud and you’re trying to concentrate on something, why not put in your headphones.” Far from being a technology problem, this reveals a larger concern about lack of c
ontrol in classrooms. For students such as Antonio, music was not a distraction; it was a way to cope with an already disruptive environment—a way to bolster his ability to be productive, not detract from it.
Media technology has the potential to make the classroom a more engaging and interactive space that can enhance learning. Yet instead of finding ways to bring interactivity and media into the classroom, the majority of teachers banned it. Without opportunities to use media in responsible ways that enhanced learning, students relied on media as a way to alleviate boredom. Creating barriers that prevented students from incorporating their personal interests into the curriculum is another way in which formal learning environments are at odds with the ways young people expect to learn. Rather than harnessing the educational potential of mobile media or validating the educational ways teens were already using mobile media, banning mobile media sent the message that mobile media were essentially risky and therefore dismissible in the formal learning environment. In fact, however, research has demonstrated that mobile media can enhance learning, particularly for disengaged teens (Ison, Hayes, Robinson, and Jamieson 2004). “Modern mobile phones,” Brian Ferry contends (2009, p. 47), “can be used to help learners access web-based content, remix it, share it, collaborate with others, and create media-rich deliverables for the classroom teacher as well as a global audience.” How the students mentioned in this book view media—as entertainment, as a distraction, as a tool for socializing, as a way to learn autonomously, and as a resource—differs greatly from how many teachers and adults view media—as merely a distraction and a threat to learning.
Conclusion: What Can We Gain If We Lose Control?
In his statement comparing school to prison, Sergio invokes a discourse of rights with relation to technology. Right or wrong, students feel entitled to media and technology at school. Despite the rules, they expect the right to be autonomous learners (at least in some contexts) and they expect access to the social aspects mobile technology facilitates—aspects that can bolster learning. Teachers, on the other hand, largely expect media to be a distraction, to be a risk, and to disrupt the learning environment. And they aren’t wrong; it can be all of those things. Where then is the middle ground? Are students using their phones in disruptive and distracting ways simply because those are the only means of use they are afforded? If they were expected to use media responsibly—if they were entrusted with the privilege of media, rather than having it punitively banned—would their expectations and practices change? How would a policy of “acceptable use,” rather than “unacceptable use,” shift students’ and teachers’ frustrations, expectations, and trust? I do not deny that there are potentially harmful psychological, social, and physical risks associated with misuse of mobile media. But policies making the use of such media unacceptable—policies that reflect harm-driven expectations—fail to take into account what is lost when we ban media at school: opportunities to develop literacies, as well as more equitable opportunities and access for disadvantaged students.
There are nominal benefits to controlling mobile media at school, and certainly rules help minimize some risks. Yet I worry about students’ ability to navigate risks if schools and teachers do not play an active and intentional role in shaping mobile media norms, boundaries, and practices. Risk is inevitable, yet we must help young people manage risk. Aiming to eradicate risk but doing it ineffectively leaves students navigating precarious terrains of the mediated world without guidance or adult advocates. Instead of myopically focusing on potential harms, we should expand our focus to balance the beneficial opportunities that accompany risk.
To bring this chapter into conversation with chapter 3, my final point is that formal education has a unique opportunity to help students identify, assess, and negotiate risks via the intentional development of digital literacies. But also, and of the utmost importance, media and mobile technologies provide a unique opportunity to bridge students’ interests and modes of learning with formal learning in ways that can counter boredom, fatigue, and risky behaviors. Schools and technology can function in complimentary spaces that work together to create more equitable opportunities for marginalized and disadvantaged learners. This can only come about when schools abandon a discourse and practice of authoritarian control and punitive reactions, and instead invoke expectations of trust.
I think we should interrogate and update the same question that Schramm, Lyle, and Parker posed more than fifty years ago about television, but in today’s world the question becomes “Are schools doing everything possible to connect mobile media to the intellectual growth of students?” This question will be addressed in part II the book. The goal of part I has been to analyze how harm-driven expectations of risk affect policies at the national and state levels, and how and to what effect those policies are implemented at Freeway High. I have established that historical fears produce discourses of risk that lead to policies of panic. These restrictive policies inequitably and unproductively regulate students’ autonomy, ingenuity, and access. The policies are well-intentioned and may minimize some harm, but they also exacerbate other overlooked risks and are rarely balanced with opportunity-driven expectations. My aim is to more closely consider how expectations affect student experiences at school and online. In the following chapters I aim to answer the question “What are the implications of risk discourses in the everyday lives of teens at school and online?” I answer this by connecting and focusing on different aspects of teens’ lives, including the influence and intersection of peers, school, and home life. The analysis builds upon the connected learning model that will be more fully explained and explored later in the book.
Notes
1. In interviews, several parents complained about having to leave work to come to school to get their child’s phone, which the parent wanted the child to have so as to be in contact after school.
2. See appendix A for more detailed information about students’ ethnic identities.
3. After the 1999 Columbine High School shooting and the attacks of 9/11, parents urged schools to lift restrictions that completely banned students from bringing mobile devices to school (Trump 2009).
4. For examples of the coverage this study received and some of the misleading headlines that appeared, see Doward 2015; Kottasova 2015; Mobile phone bans lead … 2015; Singal 2015; Mobile phone bans “improve” … 2015; Taibi 2015; Barnwell 2016.
5. Of course, this app is also problematically ripe for enticing students as consumers so it can track their preferences and collect their data for marketing purposes.
6. “FOMO” dates back to 2000 but didn’t come into widespread vernacular use until about ten years later (Schreckinger 2014).
7. There is a lot of controversy and debate about the effects of television on physical health. Although some dated studies (many of them conducted under technologically determinist assumptions) show a negative correlation between more television watching and less healthy lifestyles (Dietz and Gortmaker 1985; Robinson 1999), most doctors agree that television is merely one factor that can potentially influence health. Other variables, including income, geography, ethnicity, changes in urban transportation, genetics, access to healthy affordable food, and education level significantly influence the physical health of children and teens (Anderson and Butcher 2006; Childhood obesity causes, n.d.; Maes, Neale, and Eaves 1997).
8. For more on the shifting norms of mobile phone etiquette in public, see Rainie and Zickuhr 2015.
9. See the introduction for further discussion of Ito et al.’s (2010) interest-driven and friendship-driven genres of participation.
10. See, for example, “Bored kids, busy parents” (http://www.parentfurther.com.php53-8.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/resources/enewsletter/archive/bored-busy); “Boredom” (https://www.positivediscipline.com/articles/boredom); “11 survival tips for summer boredom” (http://fun.familyeducation.com/slideshow/activities/66335.html); “Ideas for bored kids” (https://www.pinterest.com/ksilvan/ideas-for-bored-k
ids/); “I’m bored: How to deal with your child’s boredom” (http://www.handinhandparenting.org/article/im-bored-how-to-deal-with-your-childs-boredom/); “How to deal with a bored kid” (http://time.com/3919836/parenting-bored-children/).
II
Experiences
5
Networked Sharing: Participation, Copyright, and Values
A lot of what’s on YouTube is amateur; I don’t want to be seen as that so I wait until I think my film is ready. I want to build a professional portfolio.
Worried About the Wrong Things Page 22