The theme of agency is consistent in writings about engaging students, particularly children and youth. There is power in the word, perhaps because it refers to one’s inner potential, action and self-realization. In my first academic seminar in undergrad, the teaching assistant asked our small group if we knew what the word agency meant. (I legitimately did not). She explained its meaning to us slowly, with deliberate inflection to bestow it with a sense of importance that I eventually came to believe was deserved.
In high school my own agency fluctuated. It came and went without my awareness or understanding. In university it began to solidify, ultimately leading me to adulthood and eventually into being a participating and opinionated member of society.
In their 2015 article, Ito, Soep, Kliger-VIlenchik, Shresthove, Gamber-Thompson and Zimmerman explore how current and emerging technologies, as well as social lifestyles and civic awareness amongst youth can influence and encourage a highly connected, informed social culture, that can work together to allow for a “connected civics…a way to describe the learning that takes place at the intersection of three realms of activity: young people’s agency within peer cultures and public spheres; their deeply felt identifies, interest and affinities; and civic engagement and opportunity” (p. 15).
There is an excitement and idealism to this integrated learning framework, as it reflects on and incorporates the real lived experience of youth. In a study by Russell & Haney (1997) they assert that “assessments should be based on the responses students generate for open-ended “real world” tasks…” (p. 2) this simple statement has stuck with me, and I regularly question, not only in assessment scenarios, but in all teaching situations – does this activity reflect the learner’s reality? Ito et al.’s concept of connected civics does exactly that, it uses the learner’s reality as a facilitator of participatory and engaged learning, and when learning in connection with one’s social world, a sense of agency can be fostered, “in contrast to more fleeting or institutionally driven forms of learning, connected learning experiences are tied to deeply felt interests, bonds, passions and affinities and are as a consequence both highly engaging and personally transformative” (Ito et al, 2015, p. 14).
Ito et al. made it clear how radically different daily life is for youth in comparison to my own experience. Notable changes in society have occurred even from its published date of 2015 to now, and I can only assume that the speed of change and transformation in technologies and youth participatory culture will continue to accelerate. Although I am mostly educating adults, I still often wonder, how do I stay technologically and socially relevant? My currently role is technologically focused – will I be able to continue to keep up to date as tools inevitably evolve, or will I eventually lose track? What will fuel my future sense of agency? I’m curious how others reflect on these aspects of their future.
References:
Ito, M., Soep, E., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L., & Zimmerman, A. (2015). Learning connected civics: Narratives, practices, infrastructures. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(1), 10-29. doi:10.1080/03626784.2014.995063
Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers. Education policy analysis archives, 5, 3.
Skip to content
