British Journal of Educational Technology doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01352.

Vol 43 No 5 2012

770782

Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited
Guy Merchant
Guy Merchant is Professor of Literacy in Education in the Faculty of Development & Society at Shefeld Hallam University. Address for correspondence: Prof Guy Merchant, Shefeld Hallam University, Faculty of Development and Society, Shefeld Hallam University, 122 Charles Street, Shefeld S1 2NE. S41 9QW, UK. Email: g.h.merchant@shu.ac.uk

Abstract Mobile phones have rapidly been absorbed into the fabric of our day-to-day lives. They are now a key consumer item, a symbol of social capital and they connect their users to a mobile web with multiple applications. As ownership and access to smartphones has spread into the teenage years, their place in institutions of formal education has been marked by contention. The dominant view that mobiles have no place in the classroom has recently been contested by educators, such as Parry, who suggest that mobile learning, and the literacies involved, should play an important role in education. This paper argues for a more nuanced view of mobile technology, one that focuses on everyday social practices as a way of understanding the relationship between mobiles and learning. Using practice theory as a starting point, I suggest a way of mapping everyday mobile practices on to educational activity to illustrate potential areas for innovation and evaluation. I conclude by returning to the debate about mobiles in education, noting that familiar arguments about popular digital technology and schooling are once again being rehearsed. If ways of accessing, sharing and building knowledge are changing then a more principled consideration of how educational institutions relate to these changes is needed.

Introduction Early images of computing depict lab-coated scientistsusually white malesin room-sized environments surrounded by large cabinets, spools of tape and coils of wire. In less than 50 years we have seen the development of powerful and affordable pocket-sized devices, such as smartphones and MP3 players. Development and diffusion has been remarkably rapid. Moreover, it is apparent that mobile practices have evolved as rapidly as the technology itself. In urban environments, the air is lled with the half conversations of passers-by, the corner cafes with individuals checking their messages. Couples share digital photo albums, as others move around them cocooned in an audio world tethered by their earbuds to hidden devices. And so the idea of the computer, a machine that processes huge databanks of information, housed in a room, has given way to the seemingly straightforward everyday social and portable uses of technology. Technology is on the move; it moves with us now. It is as mobile as we are. If we are to learn from this rapid development and diversication of digital technologyor even if we are to learn with this new technologyit may well help us to stand back, for a moment, to examine some of its key characteristics. It has been argued that educators would benet from a stronger focus on students everyday use and learning with Web 2.0 technologies in and outside of classrooms (Greenhow,
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Mobile practices in everyday life

771

Practitioner Notes What is already known about this topic There is growing interest in the use of mobiles in educational settings. Practitioners are beginning to look at the advantages and disadvantages of mobile learning. Increased ownership of smartphones and other mobile devices amongst the youth population is well documented. What this paper adds Social practice theory offers a useful perspective for looking at the use of mobiles in different contexts. Comparisons and contrasts between the uses of mobile technology in everyday life and in school settings can help in evaluating its potential. A consideration of ownership and access, and how this may reproduce social inequalities, are important to innovations in technology and education. Implications for practice and/or policy There is a need to move beyond debates about prohibiting or encouraging the use of mobiles to look at more specic examples of their advantages (and disadvantages). Policy and implementation should be informed by a ner-grained analysis of mobile practices in everyday and educational settings. Mobile devices are highly desirable consumer items. Schools and other educational establishments have a responsibility to adopt a critical approach to ownership and use.

Robelia & Hughes, 2010, p. 255), and this argument could well be expanded to include the use of mobile devices. But I want to stand even further back, by looking rst at everyday mobile practices, bracketing, at least for the moment, the thorny issues associated with mobile learning (see Pachler, Bachmair & Cook, 2010), in order to grapple with some fundamental issues about popular uses of technology and online social networking. First of all, a little about everyday mobile practices and what I mean by that phrase. Here my focus is on how portable devices, and particularly those with some level of connectivity, are being used in peoples day-to-day livesin informal spaces and in those boundary spaces that are only loosely controlled by institutions, employers and so on. This focus is informed by two propositions. The rst, borrowed from postphenomenology (Verbeek, 2005), argues that people and the material things they use are inextricably bound together. Looking at them in isolation does not really work. This is the point that Ihde (1993, p. 34) makes when he suggests that, Were technologies merely objects totally divorced from human praxis, they would be so much junk lying about. Once taken into praxis one can speak not of technologies in themselves, but as the active relational pair, human-technology. In other words, although we might prot from examining the semiotic affordances of a smartphone (Adami & Kress, 2010), the key negotiations that take place are through interactions between people and technology. From this perspective, as Pachler et al, (2010) suggest, the things in use, the incorporation of these devices into social life, become a central concern. The relationship between users and mobiles does not take place in a social vacuum; it is situated in a larger context, constituted by both discourses and practices (Caron & Caronia, 2007; Caronia, 2005).
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

772

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 43 No 5 2012

The second proposition, which is closely related to the rst, is that the concept of social practice is a helpful way of thinking about the role that technology plays in our lives. Here I draw, in particular, on Schatzkis (2002) social practice theory. For Schatzki, practices are organized nexuses of activity that involve bodily doings, sayings and relatings. These doings, sayings and relatings take place in, and constitute, the human interactions that comprise social order (Schatzki, 2001, p. 56), as the following commentary explains:
A practice is a coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity in which characteristic arrangements of activities (doings) are comprehensible in terms of characteristic arrangements of relevant ideas in discourses (sayings), and when the people and objects involved are distributed in characteristic arrangements of relationships (relatings), and when this complex of sayings, doings and relatings hangs together. (Kemmis & Heikkinen, 2011, p. 5)

In an alternative formulation, Reckwitz helpfully denes practices as forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, things and their use (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 5). According to both sources, practices are rather like routines, in that they are carried and transmitted by human actors, but they are also susceptible to innovation and change, and will exhibit the characteristics of both synchronic and diachronic variation. Whilst recognising that routinisation offers ontological security (Giddens, 1984, p. 23, 50), contemporary practice theory also allows for the emergence of new routines. This helps us to account for the ways in which new technologies become integrated into existing social practices, in turn developing them, as they are taken up and absorbed into daily life. For example, institutional uses of email built on, extended and transformed the exchange of memos and letters. On the other hand, the social practices of mobile phone conversations developed from early telephonybut have, in a relatively short space of time, evolved into something rather different. In these sorts of ways, technologies can become part of the material arrangements that mesh with practices (Schatzki, 2005, p. 47). The practice theory position, then, offers an explanation of how practices may evolve, as new possibilities arise. In developing the idea of site ontologies, Schatzki (2005) also provides us with an account of how practices help to constitute organisations, such as schools. Here, he suggests that a mesh of practices and material arrangements (Ibid. 474) provide an established institutional order that is governed by chains of action and commonalities of purpose. But, importantly, the constituent practices are not staticthey evolve as circumstances change, opportunities and problems arise, personnel changes, new ideas arise and so on (Ibid. 476). However, Schatzki also suggests that most organisational change is piece-meal and gradual, with modications in some practices being accompanied by continuities in others. Radical change, such as that anticipated by some technologists (such as Leadbetter, 2009), is only likely to occur when conscious intervention (from the inside or outside) reworks goals, alters rules, and redesigns projects (Ibid. 476). In other words, organisational practices tend to be inherently more conservative than everyday practices, precisely because of the way they are enmeshed in chains of action and commonalities of purpose. In contrast, what I call everyday mobile practices can be seen in the observable ways that people interact with, or incorporate, portable digital devices into existing, or emerging, sets of actions the doings, sayings and relatings that constitute informal social practice. Whether or not we believe that the devices themselves are overpriced toys, fashion accessories, the next generation in convergence technology or a basic necessity for twenty-rst century living depends to a large part on how we conceive of their place in these ecologies of practice. In fact, the devices we use have a key role to play in many of our social interactions, they have a material signicance, but at the same time they are objects of desire in a consumer culture that places high value on new, and ever newer, technologies.
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

Mobile practices in everyday life

773

Selling and using mobiles If we think of what Ihde (1993) calls the active relational pairhuman-technologythe ways in which mobiles have become absorbed into social networking practices is an obvious starting point. The mobile phonewith Facebook, Twitter and YouTubeis heavily marketed by a range of providers. As an example, consider the way in which the new Blackberry Curve is promoted by the phone network Orange. Figure 1 shows the cover of the October 2011 issue of Oranges Explore magazine. The background image is a dense mesh of intersecting bres. Their ery yellows, oranges and reds criss-cross to form an image that calls to mind familiar diagrammatic representations of social networks. The device itselfthe Blackberry Curveappears to glow, as a live hub, in the centre of these interconnections. Orange promises that you will be always connected to your social networks, and you can be sure that the social networking icons of Facebook and Blackberry Messenger are displayed on the screen. They are, and what is more, the icons are tagged with the white star on a red circle that indicates that several new messages have arrived and await our attention and response. In this way, communicative interaction is constructed as compelling and immediate. In these and many other similar ways, social networkingor at least a particular, mediated version of itis sold to us by the makers of smartphones, as well as by the powerful companies that exert their control over our communication and connectivity. I have argued elsewhere (Merchant, 2011) that the boundary between online and ofine social networking is becoming increasingly porous. With 3G mobiles, phones can be both the symbol and the hub of an individuals portable and dispersed connections. Gergens idea of an invisible web (of networks) in the oating world is a powerful image for this:
We may imagine here that dwelling about us at all times are small communities that are unseen and unidentiable. However, as we stroll the thoroughfare or sip coffee in a caf their presence is made constantly known to us. Each mobile phone [. . .] is a sign of a signicant nucleus, stretching in all directions, amorphous and protean. (Gergen, 2003, p. 105)

This view places the mobile device at the very centre, and helps us to imagine the connectivity of the networked individual (Wellman, 2002). But, if this sounds a little techno-centric, a practice theory perspective brings us back to a consideration of how the technology is embedded in, and continuous with, everyday social spaces. It turns out that most mobile social networking prac-

Figure 1: Orange promotes social networking

2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

774

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 43 No 5 2012

tices are more concerned with thickening existing social ties than forging new ones (Ellison, Steineld & Lampe, 2007). And, as Sheller (2004, p. 48) observes, they enable their users to hold multiple connections and identities in play at any one time. In this way, social networks have become more densely layered with the advance of new communicative tools (Merchant, 2011). Although the general association of mobiles with social networking is important to acknowledge, we need a more ne-grained analysis to better understand emerging mobile practices. What are the sayings, doings and relatings that might describe these practices, and how does portable technology become part of the fabric of everyday life? A more detailed analysis of this area is required. Such an analysis would need to look at the specics of how devices are worn and held, where they are placed and shown, how they are referred to and, of course, how and in what ways they are used in acts of representation and communication. We might imagine how such accounts, informed by practice theory, would follow practitioners across a variety of sociotechnical settings (online, mobile or co-present) and across different timescales (see Postill, 2010). Simply on the basis of observation and experience, though, it is apparent that mobiles are regularly used for a range of purpose. They are used in maintaining lightweight contact with friends and family membersthose short inconsequential interactions that maintain social connections (Ito, 2004); casual entertainment (watching and sharing short movies, photo albums and playlists); arranging both formal and informal meetings, navigation and micro-coordinationsuch as negotiating and renegotiating the time and place of informal meetings (Ling & Yttri, 2002); capturing objects and events (usually as still images); and accessing web-based information as need arises and just in time. Emerging research into everyday practices provides some evidence of the spread of such practices (Caronia, 2005; Carroll, Howard, Peck & Murphy, 2002; Ito, Okabe & Matsuda, 2005; Tamminen, Oulasvirta, Toiskallio & Kankainen, 2004; Thulin & Vilhelmson, 2007; Wilska, 2003). The list, of course, is by no means exhaustive, but it points the way to a better understanding of how the mobile phone is subtly insinuating itself into the capillaries of everyday life (Gergen, 2003, p. 103). Looking at this list through the eyes of an educator, as we shall see, may help to identify some matches and mismatches between everyday practices and educational practices as they are currently dened and enacted. But rst of all, as it has already been acknowledged that mobile devices are key products in the global market place and that they are part of the desireacquiredispose circuit that underpins our consumer-oriented economy (Bauman, 2005), it is worth considering the local patterning of mobile use and ownership amongst the young. Survey data can provide us with some useful insights into this. It is beyond the scope of this paper to look at international comparisons, so I will concentrate on the key messages that emerge from the recent Ofcom survey in the UK (Ofcom, 2011). Those interested in comparisons might, for instance, consult the Pew Internet Studies for the USA (Lenhart, Ling & Campbell, 2010), or EU Kids Online for the European picture (Livingstone, Haddon, Gorzig & Olaffson 2011). Broadly speaking, though, it is safe to assume that mobile practices, whilst similar across these regions, are always shaped by local circumstances. According to the Ofcom survey, 47% of UK teenagers (12- to 15-year-olds) now own a smartphone, and this is a clearly a big growth area in the mobile phone market. Furthermore, teenagers report that their use of mobiles is taking over from their use of older media. Sixty-ve per cent of those with smartphones reported that they use their phone for social networking. In addition to this, the data suggest high levels of mobile texting, music and gaming amongst teens (Ofcom, 2011). These headline statistics alone point to a rise in the availability and use of mobiles in the youth population, and certainly support claims that teenagers may be passionately engaged in mobile practices (indeed some of those surveyed describe this engagement in terms of addiction). But what a survey like this can not, of course, capture, are the practices and aspirations of the 53% who do not have smartphones, yet we may guess that patterns of ownership are likely to
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

Mobile practices in everyday life

775

map on to particular social groups and, as with earlier technologies, socio-economic status may play a signicant part in access (see Facer & Furlong, 2001, for example). Whilst we might predict differences between countries, there are also important differences within countries, and unevenness of ownership and access may well reect other inequities. Despite all this, it can still be argued that mobile computing is a signicant trend, and is certainly one that has begun to impinge on the discourses of technology and education. Mobiles in schools In many formal educational contexts, mobile use is heavily restricted, more often than not, simply banned. Mobiles, like other technologies, can easily disturb what I have called the fragile ecology of classroom life (Merchant, 2009). Partly this is because new digital practices can have a destabilising effect, in that they begin to open up the possibilities for different kinds of learning relationship, different kinds of interaction and different genres and communicative purposes. From a practice perspective, the world of the classroom is a social site composed of a bundle of practices and material arrangements (Schatzki, 2005, p. 474). It is a social site patterned by established relationships, mediated by sets of accepted school practices and instructional routines. This bundle of practices is, of course, powerfully shaped by curriculum discourses (Crook, 2012). Practice theory implies that organisational change is a complex undertaking and that routines and continuities are part of the fabric of institutional life. Working against the dominant perception that mobile practices are disruptive in formal educational settings can be seen as a key challenge, particularly when professional scepticism combines with moral panic. For example, in 2009, when Notre Dame High School in Shefeld adopted a policy of allowing mobile use in classrooms, reports of the initiative were quickly seized upon by the national press, with claims that parents and unions criticised the move. The Daily Mail wrapped up its coverage of the story with a quotation from a little-known research report: technology obsession hinders spelling skills, implicitly encourages plagiarism, and disrupts classroom learning (Daily Mail, 14/10/09). It seems from this, then, that mobiles sit at the more contentious end of the continuum of opinion about technology in education. Despite this, the school in question continues to promote the use of mobiles for a variety of purposes including: making visual notes; producing portfolio content; searching for information; accessing material on the virtual learning environment (VLE); and for scheduling homework, hand-in and exam dates (Haigh, 2011). A rather different trajectory has shaped practice at Campsmount Technology College, also in the South Yorkshire region of England. This school, located in a former mining village near Doncaster, was burnt down in December 2009. The re was thought to be the result of an electrical fault. All school records were obliteratedthere were no longer any student contact numbers and addresses, no coursework, no VLEno servers. The re raged through the early hours of a wintry Sunday morning, but by the following Monday, the schools newly created Facebook group had 1500 members, and the head teachers press release on YouTube had attracted 3000 views. A Wordpress blog, Twitter feed and Facebook group were quickly set up by staff who saw that social media could reach and mobilise the community, the parents and the students in ways that traditional media could not. The school was reinvented, almost overnight, with classes in youth centres, the town hall, vacant premises on an industrial estate and in a former primary school. Timetables and travel arrangements were made available on Google docs, sixth-formers were back at work within a day and the rest of the students only lost 1 week. Although the reinvention of the school was built on the strength of the community, this was galvanized by the creative use of new media (ap Hari, 2010). Here we are presented with a rather different conception of what mobile might mean. Although some students and staff were using portable devices at the time, the nature of the events that
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

776

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 43 No 5 2012

unfolded had less to do with the technology itself, and more to do with the uid movement of a relatively large number of individuals. This uidity was made manageable through the possibilities of navigation and micro-coordination that are characteristic of everyday social media practices (Ling & Yttri, 2002). Although more concerned with the logistics of creating a school without a xed location, the Campsmount experience introduces a different set of considerations. This is an instance in which the use of technology is not tethered to a particular site, and mobility describes the coordinated movement of learners and teachers. In some ways, the experience is closer to everyday practice than it is to any emerging conceptions of mobile learning (Pachler et al, 2010; Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula, 2005). Out of the ashes of the former infrastructure at Campsmount, a newer vision of technology has arisen, and it is one that is cloud-based, wireless and portable. Only time will tell if this vision will transform the learning and the attainment of students, because when all is said and done, the students follow the same curriculum and sit the same examinations as students elsewhere, and the school and its staff are subject to the same mechanisms of accountability that keep the education system as a whole in check. Yet, if we believe that our future will be mediated and stitched together by the mobile web (Parry, 2011, p. 16), what Campsmount school learned through difcult circumstances may have lessons for all of us. We may, then, be tempted to agree with Parry that teachers need to show students:
. . . how to use these technologies effectively to ensure they end up on the right side of the digital divide: the side that knows how to use social media. . . (Parry, 2011, p. 2)

In developing a rationale for what he calls mobile literacy, Parry identies three areas of focus. These are (1) understanding information access, 2) understanding hyperconnectivity and (3) understanding the new sense of space. The rst is about encouraging students to use mobile devices to search for (and presumably evaluate) informationand to appreciate the differences and similarities between this and desktop searches. The second, hyperconnectivity, relates specically to developing new types of learning relationships, and is about using social media to connect learners with those outside the immediate classroom context in advantageous ways (selective use of Twitter is offered as an example). The third and nal of focusthe new sense of spaceis about developing an appreciation of how mobiles can be used to mediate ones experience of the material/physical world through so-called augmented reality applications and the whole gamut of data-enriched geolocation. Framing the use of mobiles in this way is helpful. The three areas clearly build on everyday practices, but at the same time they suggest how these can be incorporated into the practices associated with formal learning. A few cautions, though, before proceeding. First of all, as with all technologies, it may be useful to ask the familiar question: is the fact that we can do these things sufcient justication for actually doing them in an educational contextand what specic advantages do we envisage? Parry argues that we are ethically obliged to embrace mobile technology so that students know how to use social media to band together (Parry, 2011, p. 2), yet this moral imperative argument may not, in fact, be strong enough. It might be better to look at educational contexts in which mobile searching is useful, ways in which hyperconnectivity can help to build understandings, and how deeper knowledge of locations can actually be built by learners. In short, we could turn our focus to learning and to the social practices in which it is embedded. Teachers will want to be convinced of the practicality of Parrys suggestions, they will want to know how they could manage the potential levels of distraction, and how they might exercise their own necessary (and imagined) control over learners and learning. It may also be useful to look at a wider range of possibilities for the use of mobiles in educational settings. There is a growing body of literature in this area, from explorations of mobile gaming (Facer et al, 2004) to the use of context-aware technology on school eld trips and museum visits (Sharples, 2006).
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

Mobile practices in everyday life

777

Everyday practices capturing objects and events checking web-information casual entertainment (short movies, photoalbums etc) maintaining lightweight contact arranging meetings, navigation and micro-coordination

Educational practices photographing notes, experiments, activities mobile desk referencing video records of projects or products being tested video, voice, image responses to learning tasks organising learning (noting schedules, timelines etc)

Figure 2: Mapping everyday practices on to educational practices

In a useful review of European initiatives, Kukulska-Hulme, Sharples, Milrad, Arnedillo-Snchez and Vavoula (2009) report on a variety of projects that use mobile technologies to help connect learning across contexts and life transitions, and to form bridges between formal and informal learning (34). In the second section of this paper I referred to the fact that, in everyday practice, mobiles are regularly used for a range of purposes. I conclude this current section by looking for equivalents in educational contexts. Whilst recognising that there are a number of reasons why everyday practices may not be readily transferable to educational contexts (see Crook, 2012), it is still worth tracing the ways in which some practices may have the potential to cross over. In Figure 2, the practices referred to previously are listed against their possible equivalents in school settings. The rst thing that this list reveals is that everyday mobile practices tend to be driven by individual preference and need, rather than by the requirement to perform for othersin this case the requirement to be a student, by recording specic events, nding out about particular things and so on. In other words there is a signicant move from the casual or informal (everyday practices) to the formal (educational practices). This is nowhere more obvious than in the third and fourth items in each list, which have very weak correspondences. In the end, what remains begins to look rather thin. Mobiles can be used for still and moving image capture, for web searches and for scheduling, but then again, other devices, both portable and static, perform the same functions equally well. It could then be the case that the everyday practices associated with the mobile phone bear only a passing resemblance to school routinesroutines that are better suited to other portable devices such as the iPod touch, iPad or tablet PC. Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited Mapping everyday mobile practices on to school practices helps us to show how these technologies could be deployed in educational settings, but it falls short of presenting us with a coherent rationale. As we have seen, there is no doubt that mobiles are being rapidly absorbed into daily life, and the evidence currently available certainly suggests increasing uptake by the school-age populationparticularly in the teenage years. Yet to argue that their popularity alone makes them an attractive option for educators is a weak argument. It is weak in that it assumes ownershipremember that 53% of UK teenagers do not own a smartphone (Ofcom, 2011)and also familiarity (many mobile practices may be limited and repetitive). Arguments based upon the supposed widespread use of mobiles by teenagers are clearly awed, and at worst become yet another iteration of the idea of youth as digital natives. Bennet and Maton (2011, p. 171) provide
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

778

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 43 No 5 2012

a searching critique of this position. They trace the way in which the notion of digital natives (from Prensky, 2001) continues to shape the way we think about new technologies in education. They argue that it is time to move away from this limiting perspective, and urge researchers to provide well-founded, transparent empirical research. . . rather than unsubstantiated or unclearly evidenced claims (Bennet & Maton, 2011, p. 182). If mobile learning, and the literacies involved, is to play an important role in education, it is now down to the advocates to provide robust evidence of the benets, to sit alongside the growing number of examples of use (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula & Sharples, 2004; Pachler et al, 2010). Furthermore, following the argument for a social practice approach, made earlier in this paper, it will also be helpful to know about how mobiles are used by young people, and how their everyday practices are differentiated, because if one thing is clear, they are not an homogenous population. Research that closely documents how mobile technologies are used, across a variety of socio-technical settings and over time, is now needed (Postill, 2010). The relationship between everyday practices and educational practices is as contentious in the area of technology as it is elsewhere (eg, in media studies, popular culture and new literacies). In general, schools and other educational institutions have tended to appropriate a small subset of everyday practices, recruiting them to perform adapted routines within existing curricular structures. This is as true for new technology use as it is for literacya eld in which this phenomenon is perhaps better documented (eg, Dyson, 2008; Heath, 1983). The result of these appropriations is that the seemingly arbitrary selections from everyday practices that are made tend to favour students from already advantaged sectors of society. This is perhaps unsurprising when we consider that the enterprise of education, although often egalitarian by intent, is organised, maintained and serviced by the same dominant groups that succeed in it. Yet, as we have seen, it has repeatedly been argued that if educators place a stronger focus on students everyday use and learning with Web 2.0 technologies in and outside of classrooms (Greenhow et al, 2010, p. 255), more appropriate, inclusive and advantageous approaches are possible. This may not be as straightforward as it seems, particularly when we consider the long and difcult history of attempts to include everyday practices in school. But if we believe that the mobile web changes what it means to be knowledgeable and educated in our culture (Parry, 2011, p. 16), it may be the time for serious reection on the future of our formal institutions of education. Ignoring new digital practices may reduce the capacity of educators to intervene in the uneven distribution of resources and access. The existing literature on popular digital technologies has plenty to say about schools as institutions. A signicant trend in this debate is to suggest that schools, as institutions, are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the lives of young people. As social structures strongly formed by modernist thought, they perpetuate a factory model of education, which attempts to prepare the young for a world that has long since disappeared. This argument is strongly made in the work of Gee (2004), who draws extensively on the contrasts between learning in school and learning through video-gaming. The position has been developed by Jenkins, Purushota, Clinton, Weigel and Robinson (2006), whose White Paper suggests ways in which schools should deliver the kinds of understandings and skills, or cultivate the habits of mind that will produce twenty-rst century citizens. Thus it is argued that a new vision of schooling is requiredone that incorporates the new literacies and is responsive to emerging patterns of social organisation. Yet, as we have seen educational practices can be resistant to change and are often concerned with the maintenance of practices over time through the successful inculcation of shared embodied know-how and continued performance (Schatzki, 2005, p. 480). From the previous argument, it becomes clear that discussion about the implications of the widespread use of mobile technology in compulsory schooling quickly begins to resemble early discussions on the role of popular culture (Marsh & Millard, 2000), the relevance of everyday
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

Mobile practices in everyday life

779

literacies (Dyson, 2006) or the incorporation of Web2.0 technologies into school settings (Crook, 2012; Davies & Merchant, 2009). Yet in these and other areas, signicant educational developments have followed from paying close attention to everyday practices. For example, the careful analysis of multimodality in social contexts provided by Kress (2003, 2010) has led to changes in both classroom practice and curriculum guidance. Paying similar attention to everyday mobile practices, to their sayings, doings and relatings will, I suggest, help to illuminate where educational practices could be reimagined, as well as to the necessary distinctiveness of these institutional settings and the formal learning that takes place within them. Conclusion Mobiles are remarkable for the fact that they have been so quickly and so seamlessly absorbed into the fabric of day-to-day life. This phenomenon could be attributable to a particular genealogy of practices: phones have been in circulation for several generations now and computers for a shorter length of time, but their convergence in the guise of sophisticated, portable and fashionable devices that appeal in terms of their perceived convenience and entertainment value, positions them as objects of desire that we often think we can not do without. Mobiles could be seen as state-of-the-art, well-designed technologies that work for us. Take, for example, the way in which Hollan and his colleagues in the eld of distributed cognition conceive of ideal humancomputer interfaces:
. . . just like a blind persons cane. . . so well-designed work materials become integrated into the way people think, see and control activities. (Hollan, Hutchins & Kirsh, 2000, p. 178)

When we observe everyday practices, such as those descriptions of contemporary urban life at the start of this piece, we may see that mobile use is approaching the state, famously described by Heidegger as the blind mans cane, in which a material object becomes the extension of the human being. Further to this, suggestions that new techno-social mobile practices are having a transformative effect on our social life are abundant. For example, it is claimed that mobile communications are:
. . . enabling a new kind of public-private, a kind of uid social space in which communication occurs which spans absence and presence, personal and impersonal, micro and macro, local and global (Sheller, 2004, p. 46).

Putting this together with the idea that ways of accessing, sharing and building knowledge are changing and that we are witnessing the emergence of new digital epistemologies (Bruns, 2008; Guedon, 2001; Lankshear & Knobel, 2010), points to some fundamental changes in the social landscape. How schools and other educational institutions relate to these changes is, however, far from simple. Based on the observations made in this paper, I want to suggest that there are two avenues of development that are worth exploring. The rst, and the one that has the most immediate currency, is to help students at all stages to develop a critical appreciation of the uses (and abuses) of mobile technology in everyday life. The second, and the more challenging, is to consider how educational experiences might be enhanced or transformed through the use of mobile technology. Critical appreciation, or critical digital literacy, has been discussed in a number of related contexts in recent work (see Burnett & Merchant, 2011; Dowdall, 2009; Merchant, 2007). Adopting a standpoint which examines the taken-for-grantedness of mobile technology, which evaluates the ecologies of practice associated with mobiles, as well as the inequities of access and use is important to understanding and participating in contemporary life and constitutes an important strand in this project. A critical perspective is key to interrogating the competing discourses that surround mobile technologiesthe positive stories of participation and empowerment on the one hand and the more negative associations with consumerism, exploitation and bullying on the other. A citizen of the twenty-rst century, it could be argued, needs to know how mobiles can
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

780

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 43 No 5 2012

be used to advantage, when they are disruptive and how they are framed by the desireacquire dispose discourse of consumerism, and this, I suggest, is a tting task for public education in a digital age. The question of how education might be enhanced or transformed by mobile technology is harder to envisage at this point in time. There are early indications that some mobile devices are more readily absorbed into school life than othersiPods and iPads are the obvious candidatesand this may be because their affordances sit more comfortably in the site ontologies of educational settings (Schatzki, 2005). But beyond this, we are left with some intriguing questions. If many everyday practices involve mobile subjects in multiple connections, engaged in lightweight contact, in navigating, reporting and coordinating their movements, what bearing might this have upon an education that has traditionally been conceived as location-based and predominantly sedentary? When an educational setting becomes more dispersed, as in the Campsmount example, and when contexts for learning are seen as multiple and diverse, might these everyday practices become more relevant to formal learning? Locating information in the eld, in so-called augmented reality applications and using audio-visual capture as an alternative mode of recording offer interesting possibilitiespossibilities that we are just beginning to imagine and experiment with. Yet these, with the support of policy changes may, to paraphrase Schatzki (2005), lead to the reworking of educational goals and projects. Much remains uncertain in the relationship between mobile technologies and education, but I have argued that practice theory provides a useful methodology for further exploration. Following the line of argument in this paper, a number of considerations emerge, and these provide some important areas for further research and development. I have argued that: 1. A more detailed analysis of mobile practices in everyday life is needed. It is suggested that practice theory offers some useful frameworks for exploring the day-to-day use of mobiles. 2. A better understanding of how technologies become absorbed into existing and evolving practices would be useful. 3. How schools accommodate and adapt everyday mobile practices so that they mesh with the structures of formal learning is an important topic for further investigation. Finally, I want to underline that a consideration of the social embedding of mobile technology can not avoid the interrelated issues of cost, patterns of ownership and use. Mobile phones are powerful symbols of social capital, and they are also a highly desirable commodity in the global marketplace. Particularly amongst the youth population, there are signicant issues of ownership at stakewhich students have devices that are sufciently nimble to access the mobile web, who owns them and who pays for them, are issues that can not be avoided. In the marketisation of social networking, there are likely to be winners as well as losers. Adopting a critical approach (Burnett & Merchant, 2011) may be a fruitful way of laying bare some of the contradictions that lie beneath the rhetoric of hyperconnectivitythe promise that we will be always connected to our social networks. References
Adami, E. & Kress, G. (2010). A social semiotic analysis of mobile devices: interactions of technology and social habitus. In N. Pachler, B. Bachmair & J. Cook (Eds), Mobile learning: structures, agencies, practices (pp. 185204). London: Springer. ap Hari, G. (2010). The school they couldnt kill. Retrieved December 22, 2011, from http://www. agent4change.net/events/bett-2010/534-the-school-they-couldnt-kill-we-are-campsmount.html Bauman, Z. (2005). Education in liquid modernity. The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 27, 303317. Bennet, S. & Maton, K. (2011). Intellectual eld or faith-based religion: moving on from the idea of digital natives. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives: young people, technology and the new literacies (pp. 169185). New York: Routledge.
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

Mobile practices in everyday life

781

Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, wikipedia, second life, and beyond: from production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang. Burnett, C. & Merchant, G. (2011). Is there a space for critical literacy in the context of new media? English, Practice and Critique, 10, 1, 4157. Caron, A. H. & Caronia, L. (2007). Moving cultures: mobile communication in everyday life. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press. Caronia, L. (2005). Mobile culture: an ethnography of cellular phone uses in teenagers everyday life. Convergence, 11, 3, 96103). Carroll, J., Howard, S., Peck, J. & Murphy, J. (2002). A eld study of perceptions and use of mobile telephones by 16 to 22 year olds. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4, 2, 4961. Crook, C. (2012). The digital native in context: tensions associated with importing Web 2.0 practices into school contexts. Oxford Review of Education, 38, 1, 6380. Davies, J. & Merchant, G. (2009). Web 2.0 for schools: learning and social participation. New York: Peter Lang. Dowdall, C. (2009). Impressions, improvisations and compositions: reframing childrens text production in social networking sites. Literacy, 43, 2, 9199. Dyson, A. H. (2006). Why popular literacies matter. In J. Marsh & E. Millard (Eds), Popular literacies, childhood and schooling (pp. xviixxii). London: Routledge. Dyson, A. H. (2008). Staying in the (curricular) lines: practice constraints and possibilities in childhood writing. Written Communication, 25, 119159. Ellison, N., Steineld, C. & Lampe, C. (2007). The benets of facebook friends: social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 11431168. Facer, K. & Furlong, R. (2001). Beyond the myth of the cyberkid: young people at the margins of the information revolution. Journal of Youth Studies, 4, 451469. Facer, K., Joiner, R., Stanton, D., Reid, J., Hull, R. & Kirk, D. (2004). Savannah: mobile gaming and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 399409. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge. Gergen, K. (2003). Self and community in the new oating worlds. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), Mobile democracy, essays on society, self and politics (pp. 103114). Vienna: Passagen. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B. & Hughes, J. E. (2010). Learning, teaching and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38, 4, 246259. Guedon, J.-C. (2001). In Oldenburgs long shadow: librarians, research, publishers and the control of scientic publishing. Washington DC: ARL. Haigh, P. (2011). The New Technologies Handbook for Schools: maximising the impact of ICT to transform learning. London: Optimus Education. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E. & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for humancomputer interaction research. ACM: Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 2, 141173. Ihde, D. (1993). Postphenomenology: essays in the postmodern context. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Ito, M. (2004). Personal portable pedestrian: lessons from Japanese mobile phone use. Paper presented at the International Conference on Mobile Communication, Seoul, Korea, October 1819, 2004. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from http://www.itosher.com/mito/archives/ito.ppp.pdf Ito, M., Okabe, D. & Matsuda, M. (2005). Personal, portable, pedestrian: mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushota, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved July 11 2012, from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9CE807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF Kemmis, S. & Heikkinen, H. (2011). Understanding professional development of teachers within the theory of practice architectures. Paper presented in European Conference of Educational Research ECER2011, Berlin, Germany, September 14, 2011. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Snchez, I. & Vavoula, G. (2009). Innovation in mobile learning: a European perspective. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1, 1, 1335.
2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

782

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 43 No 5 2012

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2010). New literacies: everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Leadbetter, C. (2009). We-think: mass innovation not mass production. London: Prole Books. Lenhart, A., Ling, R. & Campbell, S. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved December 21, 2011, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/ Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx Ling, R. & Yttri, B. (2002). Hyper-coordination via mobiles in Norway. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds), Perpetual contact (pp. 139169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig, A. & Olaffson, K. (2011). EU Kids Online London: LSE. Retrieved December 21, 2011, from http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx Marsh, J. & Millard, E. (2000). Literacy and popular culture: using childrens culture in the classroom. London: Paul Chapman. Merchant, G. (2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41, 3, 119128. Merchant, G. (2009). Literacy in virtual worlds. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 1, 3856. Merchant, G. (2011). Unravelling the social network: theory and research. Learning, Media and Technology, 37, 1, 419. Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. Retrieved July 11 2012, from http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/ Mobile_Review.pdf Ofcom (2011). Communications market report: UK (August 4th, 2011). Retrieved December 21, 2011, from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/ cmr11/uk/ Pachler, N., Bachmair, B. & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile learning: structures, agency, practices. London: Springer. Parry, D. (2011). Mobile perspectives: on teaching mobile literacy. Educause Review March/April, 2011. Retrieved November 16, 2011, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1120.pdf (pp. 13). Postill, J. (2010). Introduction: theorising media and practice. In B. Bruchler & J. Postill (Eds), Theorising media and practice (pp. 134). New York: Berghahan. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 5, 16. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Towards a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 2, 243263. Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. R. Shatzki, K. K. Cetina & E. V. Savigny (Eds), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 5063). London: Routledge. Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: a philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Schatzki, T. R. (2005). Peripheral vision: the sites of organizations. Organization Studies, 26, 3, 465484. Sharples, M. (2006). Big issues in mobile learning. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/02/54/PDF/Sharples_Big_Issues. pdf Sharples, M., Taylor, J. & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Proceedings of mLearn 2005. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Sharples%20Theory%20of%20Mobile.pdf Sheller, M. (2004). Mobile publics: beyond the network perspective. Environment & Planning D: Society & Space, 22, 3952. Tamminen, S., Oulasvirta, A., Toiskallio, K. & Kankainen, A. (2004). Understanding mobile contexts. Personand Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 135143. Thulin, E. & Vilhelmson, B. (2007). Mobiles everywhere: youth, the mobile phone, and changes in everyday practice. Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 15, 3, 235253. Verbeek, P. (2005). What things do: philosophical reections on technology, agency and design. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Wellman, B. (2002). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. In M. Tanabe, P. Besselaar & T. Ishida (Eds), Digital cities II: computational and sociological approaches (pp. 1025). Berlin: Springer. Wilska, T.-A. (2003). Mobile phone use as part of young peoples consumption styles. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 4, 441463.

2012 The Author. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012 BERA.

Copyright of British Journal of Educational Technology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.