Module 9
Miell & Littleton SSI
Name: Benjamin Houghton
Module 9 Summary, Synthesis, & Inquiry
Summary
In Chapter 9 of Miell and Littleton’s Collaborative Creativity (2003), the authors explore an emerging form of community primed for collaborative creativity and with great potential for influencing the future of education and creative industries: the online forum. These forums allow group memberships to form based on a rubric of taste defined by the group itself, according to Bourdieu’s 1984 concept of cultural capital. While the online forums give some researchers like Putnam (2000) pause due to a decline in physical interactions, other researchers like Turkle (1995) argue that virtual forms of social engagement are complementary and supplementary to face-to-face social interactions and not necessarily detractors. The authors reference Rheingold’s 2002 study that highlights the key complementary and supplementary features of online communities: anonymity, asynchronous chats, and different systems of validation, positing that “the very nature of social engagement is qualitatively different to real life” (114) . The article references one subject in particular: Tom, a teenage aspiring graphic designer who regularly participates in an online forum created by fans of “Interpol.” In contrast to the traditional academic classroom where students may be more concerned about negative feedback, Tom found the online forum considerably more conducive to creativity and collaboration due to the practical and direct advice that can be “acted upon and made use of straight away” (117). He found the forum to be a healthy climate for collaborative problem solving, offering users of all levels and availability the opportunity to provide feedback without fear of regulation or censorship. The researchers also observed a strong sense of ownership from the regular contributors to the forum, and noted that Tom did not refer to the forum as “work” or “education” (121) but that it was a part of leisure, social time. The researchers concluded that a “rich and necessary creative environment” (122) is one where members feel free to take risks, curate a sense of trust, and where “learning is collaboration and collaboration is learning” (124).
WC: 325
Synthesis
The online forum discussed by Miell and Littleton is a prime example of Allsup’s laboratory-in-close-proximity-to-museum approach to music education. The “laboratory” is represented by the youth who are rewriting and consuming mass culture that was created by the “marketplace” or “museum” of generations prior (Miell and Littleton, 114). With this research paper being completed almost 25 years ago, I am very curious about how research on the online forum’s effect on creative collaboration has progressed in that time. With almost all students today being digital native users, is the concept of the online forum even considered an “alternative” method of community building, or is it the standard? In my personal experience, classroom leaders using standard “museum” curriculum are not creating classrooms that feel like “laboratories” and valuing the cultural capital and innate nature of online communities and how they influence in-person learning and social interaction. Do students enter the classroom already at a social disadvantage because the in-person structure is so far removed from their everyday/primary social structures? In today’s world, the ability to hyper self-select social groups based on taste is almost infinite, and with the introduction of chatGPT, young people can have such unique tastes and exclusive membership circles that the members only consist of themselves and robots. On the flip side of this reliance of technology for collaborative community, which can appear as the ultimate democratization and freedom of expression, lies Adam Patrick Bell’s 2015 warnings of the various affordances when we are creating in digital environments created by designers who presume, privilege, protect, and prevent certain modes of expression. To me, the marriage and close proximity of Allsup’s laboratory and museum model seems like the most evergreen philosophical approach to an ever present technological presence in all of our lives. Whether relationships are all in-person or all digital, I believe it is never possible to create a truly democratized learning environment, only one where critical thinking towards constant push & pull between the relationship of museum and laboratory is encouraged.
WC: 334
Inquiry
In today’s world, what are the most effective online forum models for collaborative creativity in the classroom?
How might reliance on that forum model restrict collaborative creativity?
If students’ creativity and ability to collaborate can be hampered by the traditional classroom environment, how can you as a teacher create opportunities for students to engage in independent creative exploration outside of the classroom?
Reference Page
Miell and Littleton (2004). Collaborative creativity: Contemporary Perspectives. Chapter 9. Free Association Books.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of american community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Bell, Adam Patrick. Can we afford these affordances: GarageBand and the double-edged sword of the digital audio workstation. Action, Theory, and Criticism for Music Education, 2015
Allsup, Randall Everett. Remixing the Classroom: Toward an Open Philosophy of Music
Education. Indiana University Press, 2016.
