1. Researching everyday learning in digital contexts: Children’s ‘carbon literacy practices’ Candice Satchwell Lancaster University LiDU Seminar, 15 th October 2010

2. Paper-based methods to research digital practices – often overlooked by participants Literacies for Learning in FE Project

3. ‘Greenhouse gases are bad by heating up and burning things, that makes the sun get bigger and then animals die and then eventually the things you need die out and then the world will blow up.’ (Daniel, age 11) ‘Vehicles and fumes – and the world gets hotter, and that’s climate change.’ (Jenny age 10) ‘If you didn’t do all the compost it’d be like like the people, if you didn’t actually act on it, it would be like the world would smell of diesel and stuff because we didn’t care and then eventually we’d get so hot.’ (Andrew age 9) Interviews and focus groups to get at construction of meaning ‘It’s where the ice melts and the water goes into the sea and the sea goes into the land and could drown everyone.’ (Fred age 11) Carbon literacy practices project

4. Web-based resources

5. School-based literacy practices: “95% pen and paper, we reckon...”

6. Eco-school texts

7. Communication between children and researchers

8. Digital literacy practices to access everyday practices

10. to understand knowledge exchange... or not

11. Children’s photos to accompany Twitter conversations

13. Melted frisbee...

16. Knowledge exchange... and changing practices... ? Ellie: “We just store it in our brains, and keep it there. We know it, but it just stays in there. We don’t do anything about it. We forget about it until our next science lesson. “

17. MethodDescriptionStrengthsWeaknesses Twitter – closed network Use of mobile phones to communicate in controlled groups via twitter Prompts can be sent from researcher to group. Immediate response means ongoing thoughts are recorded. Can construct ‘joint narratives’. Can indicate sources of information. Photos and videos can accompany tweets. Exciting for children. Requires texting dexterity. 140 character limit. Precise identification of source texts is difficult. Need interviews/focus groups to supplement - only partial methodological solution. Not exciting for adults?