Educational Digital Media Tools to Reformulate Activity and Object in Indigenous Science and Environmental Education
This paper examines the functioning of and underlying assumptions about digital media in collaborative curriculum design processes in public science and environmental education, and community-designed action research learning programs. The article discusses teaching practices in US rural Northeast Wisconsin among Native Youth learning processes, from the complementation and articulation of formal and informal education to meaningful engagement and participation in science. The focus on the transformative use of digital media in science community education is intended to serve two interrelated purposes: First, it helps to address cultural-historical relations around the production of knowledge and relevant curriculums and pedagogies for rural tribal youth. Second, it intersects with the opportunities for the transferability of activity systems and action research centered around the production of mediational artifacts designed for the collective negotiation between First Nations Tribal communities and western modeled schools, institutions, workplaces, and societal roles. The transferability of this model envisions the incorporation of local actors and institutions in a deep artifact-based dialogue around epistemologies of self-determination and sustainability for Peoples who are fighting for their survival. These propositions take a new level when the transformative power of digital media shifts representations of power in historically marginalized communities, serving a larger activity of reorganizing ecologies of learning in education for culturally distinctive communities of practice.
Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative health research, 10(3), 378-395.
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Engeström, Y. (1991). Non-scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and instruction, 1(3), 243-259.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed books.
Bang, M., Medin, D., Washinawatok, K., & Chapman, S. (2010). Innovations in culturally based science education through partnerships and community. In M. S. Khine, & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning (pp. 569-592). New York: Springer.
Bang, M., Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2007). Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(35), 13868-13874.
Wilson (Waziyatawin), W. A., & Yellowbird, M., (Eds.). (2007). For indigenous eyes only: A decolonization handbook. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
LaFrance, J., & Nichols, R. (2009). Indigenous evaluation framework: Telling our story in our place and time. Alexandria, VA: American Indian Higher Education Consortium & National Science Foundation.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a school community learn to manage its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells &G. Claxton (eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 211-224). London: Blackwell.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R-. Punamäki (eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engestrom, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974.
Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 11-21.
Engeström, Y., & Hasu, M. (2000). Measurement in action: an activity-theoretical perspective on producer–user interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(1), 61-89.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The human adaptation for culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 509-529.
Gutiérrez, K., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew”: Documenting and designing for equity and transformation through social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 100-117.
Ladson-Billings, G. (Ed.). (2003). Critical race theory perspectives on the social studies: The profession, policies, and curriculum. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Aquellos autores/as que publiquen con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán los derechos morales sobre la obra y cederán a la revista los derechos comerciales.
- Transcurridos 2 años desde su publicación, la versión del editor pasará a estar en acceso abierto en la web de la editorial, pero la revista mantendrá el copyright de la obra.
- En el caso de que los autores deseen asignar una licencia abierta Creative Commons (CC), podrán solicitarla escribiendo a email@example.com.