The document discusses the importance of equitable access to cultural resources in education, emphasizing the role of mobile technology and social networks in fostering social capital and broadening access for diverse learners. It critiques the traditional concept of cultural resources, advocating for a reconceptualization that includes a wider range of resources for all, including health information and employment opportunities. The authors highlight the potential of digital media to bridge gaps in access and the need for further exploration of how these resources can be fairly distributed and appropriated in educational contexts.

1. John In 5 minutes @ #arvcrisis :
It is a democratic right to have equity of access
to cultural resources
 The purpose of the position paper/chapter is to reclaim the notion of
„cultural resources‟ for educational discourse as it seems powerful to us
in the context of discussions about social mobility and fairness of
access.
 Not just “cultural heritage” and “high culture”
 Avoid „Two Cultures‟ debate
 Why take a wide ranging theoretical approach to reconceptualising
„cultural resources‟?
 We don‟t want to be instrumental
 We want to encourage divergent thinking first, and following debate,
we can move to more convergent thinking.

2. “Is real life a new social network? How do I join?”
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1788.html, downloaded26-01-2013

3. Argument and caveats
 Real life (I include digital social media) has the potential to involve people in different types social
networks
 Social network sites (SNS) and mobile technology have the potential for bridging what we call ‘social
capital‟
 Membership in a group provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively-owned
capital (Bourdieu 1986)
 Putnam (2001), and along seemingly similar lines to Bourdieu, sees social capital as the creation
of social networks between socially heterogeneous groups; face-to-face examples are choirs and
bowling clubs, online examples include the SNSs (e.g. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk)
 We emphasise the informational benefits of a heterogeneous network of weak ties
 But note that the „concept of a social network reduces the social human actor to a point – not
even a point of view – but a point that connects in various ways to other points‟‟ (Merchant, 2011)
 We view
 the technologies themselves (artefacts such as mobile devices and SNSs)
 and the processes/practices attendant to them (knowledge, skills and understandings that
underpin an analytical engagement)
 as cultural resources for learning

5. What do we mean by cultural resources?
 We believe in access for all to such cultural resources as:
 learning resources,
 health information,
 cultural events,
 employment opportunities, etc.
 BUT just as important access to the practices (e.g.
mumsnet)
 We also believe that digital media can mediate this access.
 However, the process, practices and artifacts surrounding
such an undertaking needs further thought and debate.

6. Relevance to theme 3
 It is the growing significance of mobile devices in learners‟ everyday lives as well as their
increasing use for engaging with, and making sense of the world that motivates our
interest in them.
 However, although there is great ownership of mobile devices, not all citizens have equity
of access to cultural resources
 We believe our reconceptualization of „cultural resources‟ will
 allow us to describe how cultural resources are distributed and
 provide an assessment of whether that distribution is „fair‟.
 Some evidence that new digital media and devices enable at-risk learners and those not
in education, employment or training (NEETs) to gain access to cultural resources (for
example, see: Learning and Skills Network, 2009; Spies and Tredop, 2006).
 Some research (Steinfield et al., 2008) suggests that in HE Facebook, for example,
provides affordances that can help reduce barriers that students with lower self-esteem
might experience in forming the kinds of large, heterogeneous networks that are sources
of social capital. „Trust‟ (process and practice) is a key issue in this respect.
 Thus, there appears to be considerable potential but the reports show mixed results.

7. STOP here for debate

8. Using Social Network Sites and Mobile Technology to Scaffold Equity
of Access to Cultural Resources
JOHN COOK
University of the West of England, United Kingdom
NORBERT PACHLER
Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
BEN BACHMAIR
Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
Part of #arvcrisis
Theme 3: http://arv13crisisforum.wordpress.com/draft-programme/crisis-
theme-3/
download position paper from: http://www.slideshare.net/johnnigelcook/proposal-cook-
16112641
Full book chapter: http://www.academia.edu/attachments/30402434/download_file

9. Real life (I include digital social media) has the potential
to involve people in different social networks
 Social capital is an elastic construct used to describe the benefits one
receives from one‟s relationships with other people
 Bridging social capital (Putnam) is a term that emphasises the
informational benefits of a heterogeneous network of weak ties
whereas bonding social capital emphasises emotional benefits from
strong ties to close friends and family (Steinfield et al., 2008: 435).
 This notion of weak ties provides a slight variation on the definition of
social capital provided by Bourdieu in that if we allow weak ties, „mutual
acquaintance‟ in a network is not (necessarily) required.
 Furthermore, a key problem is one of creating and sustaining a spiral of
social capital; such an endeavour may require scaffolding as a bridging
activity (particularly for NEETs and at-risk learners).
 A key question is therefore: how can we enable formal and informal
learning activities of individuals and groups to become linked together
through scaffolding as a bridging activity mediated by network and
mobile technology?

10. Example
 An example of access to cultural resources is given in the book chapter based on a case
study.
 The cultural resources on the Internet are images, written texts for a Rap lyric or the
mobile photo app for the teacher‟s portfolio.
 Images, text, photo app etc. are becoming personal resources by being internalized
and externalised (or represented) within the school context.
 We combine the dynamic of internalization and externalization with the term
appropriation.
 Appropriation has three dynamic components:
 firstly, bringing cultural resources into a person‟s inner horizon of preferences,
values, arguments or feeling etc.,
 secondly, processing e.g. the images of the Internet and,
 thirdly, bringing out the results by expressions within the context of the school.

11. Theoretical background
 The philosophical traditions of Idealism take account of
cultural resources, for example in the work of Humboldt
(1792/2002).
 integrated the notion of the appropriation of cultural
products within cultural forms and the resulting
development into an education model, which sees
appropriation embedded in the creative shaping of the
world.
 creative shaping and forming is mainly a transformation of
a personally experienced, unstructured, overwhelming
world into a holistic, coherent rich unity = „life-world‟
 Creation of „life-world‟ is a formative task for people; and, it
is a risky task with high complexity.

12. Theoretical background
 theoretical field of Cultural Studies inter alia contains a view
of mass communication as a cultural form,
 based on objectified cultural products and their
appropriation,
 e.g. by way of modes of reading (Hall 1980, p. 136). Hall,
S. (1980) „Encoding/Decoding‟.
 The old mass communicative push system is an expression
of producing media in the centralised form of industry; this
is a process of encoding.
 Appropriation is decoding with different modes of reading
(Hall 1980).

13. Theoretical background
 But there is the obvious risk of getting lost in the
overwhelming world of mobile, individualized consumption
and mass communication.
 With reference to Vygotsky (1978/ 1930, p. 84) and his
concept of „zones of proximal development‟ we argue that
development needs sensitive and responsive contexts to
enable reflective appropriation/analytical engagement, for
the provision of which education and the school are
responsible.
 Scaffolding extends the socio-cultural approach of
Vygotsky, although he never used this term – it was coined
by (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).

15. Theoretical background
 Social class differences in the relevance of language to
socialization (Bernstein & Henderson, 1973; Bernstein,
1987) are important to us.
 Are cultural resources accessed, in terms of their
educational function, by being appropriated?
 Other key concepts could be explored in the ARV Crisis
Forum using the above key question as a lens: cultural
capital (Bourdieu, 1986), social capital (Bourdieu, 1986;
Putnam, 2001),

16. Related questions for stimulating debate at
ARV Crisis Forum
 Is our reconceptualization of cultural resources helpful? Could it help us articulate a
research agenda?
 Are cultural resources accessed, in terms of their education function, by being
appropriated?
 How are cultural resources distributed? Is this a fair distribution? Is there a crisis?
 What potential does Social Network Sites and mobile technology offer as a genuine
bridge for people with few other social/cultural resources (e.g. NEETs) into informal
learning with high value cultural resources?
 What potential do digital media offer for sustainability and scalability in the integration of
informal and formal institutional dimensions of learning?
 Where is the evidence? The suspicion must be that despite the widespread adoption of
digital media, their use to access life-changing learning opportunities will remain unevenly
distributed. Perhaps this kind of informal learning will be even MORE unevenly
distributed. Will access to further and higher education, being more dependent on
resources in the home and immediate environs and less subject to socially centralised
efforts (if there are any) to democratise educational opportunity? What is the evidence
that „digital‟ is a route not just to greater access but also to greater educational and
cultural opportunity?
 How can we inform educational and political/strategic actions for responding to the crises