The Digital Edge. S. Craig WatkinsЧитать онлайн книгу.
and stuff, like, sometimes I’m curious, so I get on my phone and like, look, whatever up, you know.” She added, “And I talk on the phone forever and I listen to music, mainly so … I do practically everything on it.” Jada chose the words “beneficial,” “convenient,” and “interesting” to describe her phone.
Amina drew her iPod Touch, “because it’s the only thing I use, pretty much.” She uses the iPod to text, go on Facebook, listen to music, and take pictures. Her phone was broke, which forced her to rely heavily on the iPod for social connections and media consumption. Referring to the broken phone she said, “I have to get a new one, but I probably won’t.” At the time of our focus group she did not have enough money to purchase a new phone. Amina described her iPod as “useful, entertaining, and pretty.” Her last adjective, “pretty,” reflects the degree to which the social identities of teens are heavily wrapped in the mobile devices they own—that is, mobile phones as a source of status, personal expression, and identity construction.1
Sergio produced a picture of his computer because he uses it for everything. “Like, mainly music, because I have some music software on there and I can record my guitar, … or I can make different beats, kind of like GarageBand, but better.” His aunt purchased the digital music production software for him. The computer, according to Sergio, had been in the family a long time. “My sister got it from her boyfriend.” He described the computer as slow. “It’s the family computer, so, all these files are bringing it down,” he explained. Sergio selected the words “slow,” “crap,” and “green” (the color of the computer) to describe the laptop.
Cassandra sketched a meticulous picture of her phone.
“Because I use it a lot … all the time. It’s my only, like, electronic device that’s mine,” adding, “I use it for texting, calling, my calendar, my notepad, music.” She claimed that this must have been her thirteenth phone. “Sometimes they break, and sometimes I break them.”
“How would you describe your phone?” an interviewer asked.
“Handy, and slow, and … let me think … what’s a word to describe a good phone that lasts a long time?” she asked. “Dependable,” she uttered.
Antonio told the group that his iPod was his favorite device. “I listen to music while playing video games,” Antonio said. “I don’t play on a computer, because I don’t really use it at home, because it’s just always being used and I never really get a chance.” He explained that the touch screen function was broken on his iPod, “so I can’t lock it, or listen to music with it, so I just chose my top five hundred songs of mine and I put them on this [an older iPod Nano]. And now I just listen to those.” The three words Antonio chose to describe his iPod were “creative, life, and relaxing.”
The pictures that students drew and the stories that accompanied them were a revealing window into the world that we had entered. We strongly suspected that the use of mobile technologies by students, while active, was likely to be structured by complex social, financial, and familial circumstances. The focus group provided some early clues that this hypothesis was not only viable but quite likely in the world that students made at Freeway. While it was clear that the students in our sample used a variety of mobile technologies, it was also clear that the contexts and circumstances—familial flux, economic constraints, and rundown devices—in which they adopted mobile technologies greatly influenced their practices.
Over the course of the year we discovered that mobile media matter in the lives of young people at Freeway in ways that are both obvious and not so obvious. For instance, it was not surprising to learn that mobile devices were the principal gateway to connecting with peers through texting, Facebook, and Twitter. Popular apps like Instagram and Snapchat emerged during the fieldwork and analysis phase of our research. Both Instagram and Snapchat were predicated on the stories that surfaced in the icebreaker exercise described above: teens’ interactions with peers and pop culture occur primarily through smartphones. But we also learned that among some students mobile is a crucial node in the informal learning ecologies that they designed and the creative practices that they pursued. In addition to being a lifeline to friends, mobile was a lifeline to learning and creating media.
Teens and Mobile Phone Adoption
One of the major social and technological shifts since the mid-2000s has been the growing number of young children and teens who own their own mobile devices including iPods, tablets, and, of course, smartphones.2 To gain a fuller view of the central role of mobile in the lives of children and teens, consider the teen mobile adoption studies conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life project.
In 2004, according to Pew, 45 percent of twelve- to seventeen-year-olds owned a mobile phone.3 By 2015 roughly three in four teens, or 73 percent, owned a smartphone.4 The mobile phone, in a relatively short period of time, emerged as the central hub of teen life, serving variously as the center for peer interaction and communication, identity work, and media consumption.5 Moreover, the racial, ethnic, and class dimensions associated with mobile adoption are noteworthy. While young people in general have migrated to mobile devices, black and Latino youths’ engagement is especially active compared with that of their white counterparts.
As our fieldwork unfolded, the mobile landscape was shifting. For example, Pew explained that even though teens from higher-income households were slightly more likely to own a mobile phone, “parent income levels do not map as neatly with smartphone ownership among teens.”6 Teens living in the lowest-earning households (under $30,000 per year) were about as likely as teens living in the highest-earning households ($75,000 or more) to own smartphones (39 percent vs. 43 percent).7 Smartphone ownership among Latino and black teens was higher than that of their white counterparts. Whereas 43 percent and 40 percent, respectively, of Latino and black teens owned a smartphone, only 35 percent of white teens did.8 The adoption of mobile devices among Latino and African Americans transformed their engagement with the digital world and rewrote the digital divide narrative.
Teens have been a prominent and persistent thread in the study of mobile phones.9 The implications of mobile platforms for learning, living, connectivity, and opportunity are striking. In this chapter we focus on five themes that emerged from our initial deep dive into the data that we collected related to the mobile lives and practices of Freeway students. The first two themes map some of the broader trends that shape the mobile lives of black and Latino teens. The final three themes offer specific accounts of the mobile practices that we observed during our fieldwork.
First, we consider the mobile paradox, a reference to the ironies associated with black and Latino youth adoption of mobile technologies.10 The mobile media ecologies and practices that we discovered embody the hallmark features of both early adoption and late adoption, a fact that animates the degree to which the use of mobile devices in resource-constrained communities is contradictory and complex. The next section considers the influence of mobile technologies in the rising rates of teen media consumption, most notably among African American and Latino youth. The chapter then addresses the role of mobile in the classroom. Even though the school district adopted strict policies against the use of personal mobile devices in the classroom, the everyday reality at Freeway was that students remained tethered to their handhelds even when they were in class.
In the next section we explore the mobile “learning and creative” ecologies that students established. Even though the school district banned mobile as part of the learning environment, a few students in our study adopted mobile as a key node in their informal learning and creative pursuits. Finally, precarious familial and economic circumstances render access to mobile technologies tenuous for many youth in lower-income households. Financial barriers to handheld devices