Worried About the Wrong Things

by Jacqueline Ryan Vickery

  Social inequities far expand issues related to digital media and are indicative of greater systemic and historical problems within the education system and society writ large. Yet I believe that digital media tools and literacies can provide an opportunity for schools to contribute to learning, participation, and opportunities. It is my hope that this research identifies a need for schools, policies, and youth-serving organizations to rethink their role in shaping young people’s media and learning ecologies. At the same time, I have tried to highlight teens’ innovative, responsible, and creative digital media practices. Young people’s digital media practices and cultures will continue to evolve outside of school; however, they should also continue to evolve alongside education. I was inspired by many of the students at Freeway High. I was also inspired and encouraged by teachers, such as Mr. Lopez, who was actively helping students explore opportunities and to push the boundaries of their current social and economic positions. I am confident that over time schools will continue to evolve, embrace change, and harness the potentials of digital media in order to create more equitable futures for students. Alongside other scholars, it is my goal to contribute to emerging research that will produce more productive and positive expectations about young people and digital media. But we have to stop worrying about risks as inherently harmful and instead embrace risky opportunities together.

  Appendix A: Participants and Methodologies

  This book came about as part of the Digital Edge project, led by Principal Investigator S. Craig Watkins. The Digital Edge is part of the Connected Learning Research Network and is supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Broadly speaking, the goal of The Digital Edge is to more fully understand teens’ media ecologies, as well as the informal and formal learning environments in which they engage and interact. The research for this book was gathered as part of that project, along with the support of graduate students at the University of Texas: Andres Lombana Bermudez, Alexander Cho, Jennifer Noble, Vivian Shaw, and Adam Williams III.

  It has been suggested that networked technologies provide new opportunities for learning, both in scope and nature, which provide opportunities for new skills, as well as compliment traditional modes of learning (Sefton-Green 2004). However, research demonstrates that it can be difficult to assess how teens are learning and what is being learned via new technologies. Quantitative approaches help map ownership and access but are less suited for contributing to more nuanced understandings of teens’ motivation, skills, and learning with technologies. One way at understanding nuance and peculiarities is through in-depth qualitative approaches, which observe and build relationships with teens over a substantial amount of time. It is in this vein that this particular project enters into a growing body of research dedicated to assessing and contributing to a deeper understanding of how young people engage with digital technologies for the purpose, or with the outcome, of learning.

  In accordance with a media ecologies framework, the researchers in this study conducted ethnographic research that utilized a multi-methodological approach intended to analyze how teens and schools incorporated digital media into their learning ecologies and everyday lives. The project was conducted throughout an entire academic year in order to build trusting relationships with the participants. Although the larger project addressed issues of risk to a certain degree (e.g., by asking teens about their perspectives and experiences with issues such as privacy and bullying), risk remained more peripheral to the overall Digital Edge project. Thus, this book is my distinct contribution to that project; it is unique in that it explicitly considers how policies, teens, and schools construct, manage, and negotiate risks associated with digital media and how expectations manage those risks. Because this book came out of a larger research study (The Digital Edge), I rely on data I personally collected as well as data collected from the entire research team.

  The methodology, as will be further described, included qualitative in-depth one-on-one interviews (both unstructured and semi-structured) with students, parents/guardians, teachers, and mentors; focus groups in which several students participated; observations conducted in the after-school digital media clubs and in three elective technology classes; policy analyses related to media technologies; textual analysis of students’ digital communication (Facebook, Tumblr, text messages, etc.); and participant-generated data contributions, such as journals, maps, and photos produced by the participants themselves. Together the data gathered through these different approaches provided an in-depth and nuanced understanding of the ways digital media functioned in participants’ learning and media ecologies.

  Recruitment of Participants

  Mr. Lopez, the Tech Apps teacher and head of the Digital Media Club and the Cinematic Arts Project, initially helped recruit participants. He introduced us to students from his classes whom he thought might be interested in the project. We also held two recruitment meetings after school in order to explain the project goals and expected time commitment. We asked interested students to return the consent and assent forms (signed by a legal guardian) to Mr. Lopez. From there we used a snowball approach wherein we asked students if they had any friends whom they thought would like to participate. This allowed us to recruit diverse participants, some of whom were directly connected to the digital media classes and clubs, as well as friends who were less interested in digital media production. Because the participants shared their lives and stories with us, our “data” are really best described as collections of stories, which have informed the ethnography. As compensation for their time and commitment, participants received $150 in December and another $150 in May if they continued to participate.

  Descriptions of Participants

  The participants were 19 students between the ages of 14 and 19 years. Nine were female:

  Gabriela—16 years old, Mexican-American

  Jada—16 years old, black

  Selena—17 years old, Mexican-American

  Jasmine—16 years old, multiracial (black, white, and Native American)

  Amina—17 years old, East African

  Cassandra—18 years old, biracial (black and white)

  Anna—18 years old, Mexican-American

  Inara—17 years old, Mexican-American

  Michelle—18 years old, biracial (black and white)

  Ten were male:

  Javier—18 years old, Mexican

  Sergio—18 years old, Mexican-American

  Identical twins Miguel and Marcus—14 years old, undocumented Mexican immigrants

  Kyle—18 years old, white

  Michael—18 years old, black

  Antonio—17 years old, Mexican-American

  Diego—16 years old, Mexican-American

  Alberto—18 years old, Mexican-American

  Jack—17 years old, white

  We also worked with an alumnus of Freeway High who served as a mentor in the after-school clubs, Devan (19 years old, black). We conducted interviews with the principal and other teachers, but worked most closely with Mr. Lopez (the Tech Apps teacher and head of the Digital Media Club and the Cinematic Arts Project) and Mr. Warren (the Video Game Production teacher).

  Interviews

  Participants were matched with a member of the research team on the basis of common interests and similar demographics. For example, we typically matched female students with female researchers and when possible paired researchers and participants of similar ethnic identities and sexualities. Participants met one-on-one with a member from the research team on a weekly basis. The weekly meetings lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Meetings usually took place in a classroom, a hallway, or a lab after school. However, some weeks it was more convenient for students to meet at a coffee shop, in someone’s home, or at a restaurant. Because of the trans­portation and time constraints some students faced, we were willing to meet them in a space that was accessible and comfortable for them. The weekly meetings were conducted from mid October 2011 through early May 2012. A few follow
-up interviews via email were conducted a year or more after the completion of the project. One female participant (Selena) dropped out of the study in the spring, and one male participant (Michael) joined the study during the spring semester. However, all other participants met with their respective team members weekly over the entire course of the project. This allowed us time to build trust and a rapport with students.

  Interviews provide personal accounts of media interactions, routines, and perspectives, which allow for individuals to discuss media within the broader context of their lives. Quality interviews privilege participants first as individuals within particular social structures and roles (families, workers, friends, parents, etc.), and audiences or users as a secondary role always already intersecting with other social positions (Yin 2009; Livingstone 2003). The project employed both semi-structured and unstructured styles of interviewing in order to analyze how teens, teachers, mentors, and parents/guardians thought about identity, family, school, media, technology, learning, and risk. These topics brought up many intersectionalities, such as race, gender, and class, which we also addressed accordingly. Individual members of the research team met one-on-one with respective students approximately once a week for about an hour at a time. I also casually hung out with participants who participated in the after-school clubs regularly (in addition to individual meetings).

  For consistency and comparative purposes the team developed semi-structured, open-ended interview protocols, which were developed around particular topics (e.g., friends, family, school, social network sites, mobile phones, future plans, and so on). Alongside semi-structured, open-ended interviews, the study also designed time for unstructured interviews based on participants’ personal interests, hobbies, activities, and passions. The semi-structured protocols provided a starting point for conversations with participants (and ensured the team was gathering similar information about participants), but conversations often deviated from the protocols in order to further discuss topics and interests that were uniquely related to respective participants. Unstructured interviews, on the other hand, were planned or spontaneous interviews that focused on a topic or theme related to respective participants. They did not follow a set of questions, nor were they applicable to all participants. Instead, they were as a way to further discuss or follow-up on particular topics that had come up in earlier interviews or observations.

  For ethnography, data collection is an iterative process in which researchers constantly refine a hypothesis and “must go back and collect more cultural data, analyze it, formulate new hypotheses, and then repeat these stages over and over again” (Spradley 1979, p. 94). Thus, in both the semi-structured and the unstructured interviews the team used different question strategies to gather information and to clarify understandings of participants’ responses. Drawing from Spradley (1979), different question strategies were employed, such as: descriptive questions (e.g., “Tell me about your after-school routine” or “What do you like about Tumblr?”), structural questions (i.e., asking participants to explain answers, asking the same question in different ways, and providing participants with context to get a more in-depth response), as well as contrast (and contrast clarifying) questions (e.g., “What is the difference between sending a text message and a Facebook message?” or “You seem to have implied your band friends are different from your film friends, if so, can you explain the differences to me?”). Because most interviews lasted about an hour, there was time to ask follow-up questions and visit topics that organically came up (these were in addition to questions from the semi-structured interview protocols we developed). The unstructured interviews occurred spontaneously, such as while walking to the interviewing room, but also emerged during semi-structured interviews. Often they were based on themes or topics which emerged between individual members of the research team and participants over the course of the study.

  As an example, while reviewing field notes from semi-structured interviews related to home, school, and her friends, I noted that Jada often referenced an interest in fashion. In separate interviews she told me she enjoyed watching E! because of the fashion trends, she told me how her grandmother taught her how to sew, and how she joined the Business Club because of an interest in fashion merchandising. Thus, after reviewing my field notes related to Jada I discovered the importance of fashion in her life. In following semi-structured interview protocols I always tried to incorporate questions about fashion in order to understand how her interest in fashion was or was not related to other topics such as, her mobile phone and social media use, career goals, and peer relationships. Jada is just one example; for other participants I also found ways to incorporate questions related to their personal interests or experiences. According to Spradley (1979), this mode of research is consistent with ethnographic studies. He contends that it is only after the researcher has gathered cultural data that she can begin to formulate a hypothesis (e.g., fashion was part of Jada’s identity).

  While the broader research questions driving the study focus on media, technology, and modes of learning and engagement, the interviews were structured in such a way as to get to know participants as students, sons/daughters, friends, and peers (rather than merely as media producers/consumers). That is, the first few protocols and meetings with participants focused on their school life, home life, friends, hobbies, general media use, and interests (i.e., not just media interests but also their participation with band or sports or their interest in fashion, cooking, etc.). Of course digital media were a part of these initial interviews, but mostly to the extent to which participants discussed media in relation to other aspects of their lives. Having established rapport and relationships with participants, later protocols more explicitly focused on (digital) media such as social network sites, video games, film production, and mobile technologies. In the course of eight months the team conducted more than 250 individual interviews with teen participants. Additionally, we also conducted several ad hoc spontaneous focus groups with groups of friends and two formal focus groups (one focused on their favorite media and media in the home and the other was only with senior participants as a way to discuss post-graduation plans).

  Home Visits

  The team conducted eighteen in-home interviews with at least one parent or guardian of the participants. The participants chose which parent or guardian they wanted us to interview, in some cases more than one parent or guardian was present. To the degree that parents/guardians were comfortable the interviews were conducted in English. However, three of the parent interviews were conducted in Spanish by a research team member who was a native Spanish speaker. The interviews helped gain a broader and deeper understanding of the participants’ home life—socioeconomic status, living situation, parent/child interactions—as well as an opportunity to observe media in the home. To the degree to which participants’ parents/guardians were comfortable, individual team members also got tours of participants’ homes and bedrooms, which allowed opportunities to further observe media (e.g. books, magazines) and technology in the home (e.g., placement, up-to-date equipment, number of computers/TVs, etc.). The interviews with parents or guardians lasted from about ninety minutes to two hours and focused on the parent or guardian’s use of technology at home and work (when applicable) and attitudes about their child’s use of technology at home and for school. We also asked questions about their thoughts on education in general, and Freeway High specifically, household regulation of technology, and the importance of media and technology to their child’s future goals and plans.

  School and After-School Observations

  During the fall semester of 2011 the Digital Media Club met at least three times a week; at least one member of the research team observed the space almost every time the club met. During the fall semester I personally observed the club on a weekly basis, often just hanging out with members before or after I met up with participants for individual interviews. During the spring semester the club met more sporadically because of
the film project. Nonetheless, I was on the Freeway campus at least once a week to observe the after-school space regardless if there were official meetings or not. This provided me with contextual information about how the spaces functioned, what the students were working on, and allowed me to more informally hang out with participants who were in the space. As a team, we attended a home football game on a Friday night. This was a way to understand the culture of the school (football is very important to high school life in Texas) and to observe several participants in the band, on the dance, team, and on the field. Some members of the team also attended a pep rally and film screening.

  By being at the school regularly, I also had the chance to get to know some of the participants’ friends who were also in the clubs, which provided me with contextual information about participants’ peer groups and affiliations. Lastly, in order to contextualize what students told me during interviews, as well as to gain a more in-depth perspective of how digital media functioned at Freeway, I also observed Mr. Lopez’s technology application class five times during the fall 2011 semester. This provided more insight into how the class was structured as well as allowed me to observe participants working on projects in a more formal learning environment. Throughout the book I draw from my personal fields notes in order to inform my analysis. At times, I also draw from the insights and field notes written up by other members of the Digital Edge team. Members of the team met regularly to compare notes, work on interview protocols, and discuss findings and queries. The frequent meetings and group interpretations were an integral aspect of the iterative nature of ethnography and have contributed to my analyses in this book.