The first striking thing about the way the book (by Belinha S. de Abreu with Vitor Tomé) framed up its argument was defining the digital age as one characterised by performativity (“knowledge appreciated for its relation with power instead of truth”) and speed (xv). It positions this idea in the changing education landscape which needs to reform to ensure devices are instructional tools, not a babysitters – “the disconnect between what is assumed to be learning and engagement versus passive usage” (xxvi).
This led to the deconstruction of myths like the assumption that digital natives will be digital savvy and a task that uses a device does not necessarily have any pedagogical value. It made a clear argument that the placement of digital literacy is not exclusive to any subject and should sit in a cross-curricula space that is dynamic and responsive (I feel like that was a direct challenge to schools that are handling the 21st century by rolling out the same 4 week unit on digital citizenship annually since 2012). It also argues for online learning to be integrated in order to enables the four dimensions of learning 2.0: content, creation, connection and collaboration (144).
The second half of the book tracked through some expansive research undertaken in Portugal. The data was provocative, largely reinforcing the main themes of the book. It made a familiar call for widening our understanding of literacy to be inclusive of digital literacy. It called for the integration of online social networks to develop a participatory culture of global connectiveness: “We cannot continue preparing individuals to solve problems individually, because it is no longer what society asks citizens” (146).
The book asked questions about the privacy of data and the ethics of using mobile learning with students. If the only way to keep students safe is to keep them off the grid – which is unrealistic – then how do we ensure that digital citizenship and media literacy is taught to adequately protect students? NZ resource Netsafe is one place, but the authors quote a lot from cyberwise which looks worth spending more time with.
An overall point I understood from the book was the way that learning through mobile technology is not an automatic process. When we deconstruct the factors we realise that a lot of assumptions need to have significant thought and scaffolding to ensure positive learning outcomes for students. Take the digital divide for instance (or as Henry Jenkins calls it the “participation gap” ), which is often referred to in terms of who has the internet and who does not. Even in classrooms where everyone has internet access at home the divide still exists and can be broken down by the speed of their internet, the type of device used, the skills they have in navigating it etc. The authors drew on Yildiz to suggest that the way forward is providing students with multiple means of representation, expression and engagement (49). The solutions to digital literacy and inclusive learning might look very similar if both were explored through Universal Design for Learning.
In conclusion the book clearly places itself as an advocate for a positive position on mobile learning. It laments the fear mongering and negative media that hampers effort to move forward to digital integration. It finishes with this passionate call to arms:
“Mobile tools are here to stay and the underpinning of growing knowledge and understanding is best served through digital media literacy as the greater context and overarching inquiry” (174).
Belinha S. de Abreu w Vitor Tomé (2017) Mobile Learning Through Digital Media Literacy. Peter Lang: New York.