conflict, and self-harm. In addition, our research subjects tend toward the central and successful members of these networks, who are most likely to experience connected learning. We have little understanding of those who are excluded, drop out, or participate casually. This results from our focus on connected learners, as well as the fact that we observed and recruited within the affinity networks themselves, rather than recruiting a more representative sample of youth through community organizations or schools. These blind spots were unavoidable outcomes of the aim of this study, which was targeted toward surfacing how features of online affinity networks could guide design and positive social change. While many of the dynamics that we describe are common across varied online affinity networks, we signal throughout the text the uniqueness of the examples in this book and when the dynamics are likely more specific to the positive examples we sought out. We also point out when we do have visibility into negative dynamics such as exclusion and conflict. For example, chapter 3 examines status dynamics and hierarchies in the affinity networks we studied. We suggest that readers look to other studies to understand the realities of young people who are less connected to the types of online affinity networks that are the subject of our study.3
What our cases offer is a window into common characteristics of online affinity networks that do support connected learning. These include strongly shared culture and practices, varied ways of contributing, high standards, and effective ways of providing feedback and help. Unlike much of the learning that young people encounter in school, affinity networks provide opportunities that are self-selected and intentional, and that are also tied to contributions to social communities and authentic recognition in these communities. This can involve being a community organizer, publishing work online, competing in a public tournament, and providing feedback and expertise for others. Young people have historically had these kinds of opportunities for learning, contribution, and recognition in adult-sponsored athletics and the arts; the online world can make these kinds of opportunities more varied, accessible, and youth driven.
How Affinity Networks Connect Interests to Learning
The learning sciences have increasingly recognized the role of culture, social relationships, and shared practice in the discovery of interests and persistence in pursuing them.4 Research on the development of interests has documented how familial support (Crowley et al. 2015; Crowley and Jacobs 2002), the availability of shared activities (Azevedo 2011, 2013), and rapport with teachers and mentors (Maltese and Tai 2010) play a more significant role than formal instruction in the development of scientific interests. Our research on young people and affinity networks reinforces these views of interest development. We draw from Azevedo’s view that interests are an interaction between individual preferences and “lines of practice”—the ways in which interests are sustained over time through joint activities. We see an ongoing and dynamic interaction between individual inclinations and the network of relationships, affinities, and activities that are available in a young person’s social world. Even when young people have a strong personal passion for a particular interest area, involvement waxes and wanes depending on whether they feel a sense of belonging, if they have friends, family members, and mentors who share the interest, and on access to activities that sustain their involvement. We describe young people’s personal predilection for an interest as an “affinity” in order to highlight its relational and culturally situated nature. A young person’s demonstration of interest is grounded in personal preference as well as whether he or she can relate to the culture, people, and practices that embody the interest. Whether it is math, surfing, or knitting, an interest cannot be separated from its culture, people, and places. These contextual features are fundamental drivers of young people’s attraction to the area of interest.
We see our work on sociocultural contexts for interest development as complementary to psychological research that investigates how interest is triggered, sustained, and deepened (e.g., Renninger and Hidi 2016). We see deepening interest as both “internally” developmental and as an “external” process of building connections that are relational, cultural, and practical in nature. In other words, robust interest is not a process of “internalization” and is characterized by growth in situational ties; the focus of our investigation has been the development of these sociocultural ties and networks. In this we draw from a long tradition in sociocultural learning theory that recognizes how learning is part of belonging in situated practices (e.g., Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989; Cole 1996; Lave and Wenger 1991). Unlike the seminal case studies of situated learning in professional “communities of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991; Orr 1990; Wenger 1998), however, our cases center on networks of affinity and interests that are only loosely institutionalized. We draw broadly on sociocultural approaches in the learning sciences, but we focus specifically on the unique forms of social learning that thrive in technology-enabled affinity networks.
Growing out of sociocultural research traditions, connected learning also draws from learner-centered and socially situated approaches to educational practice. At least since John Dewey (1916) articulated a vision for progressive educational practice that connects school and community, educators have sought to support meaningful, hands-on learning that connects young people to the wider world. The connected learning model draws from this progressive tradition, situating it within today’s challenges of equity, inclusion, and a changing media environment. Connected learning sees common cause with hands-on and experiential approaches such as project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and constructionism (Papert 1993), in addition to affinities with culturally relevant approaches (e.g., González, Moll, and Amanti 2005; Gutiérrez and Rogoff 2003) and critical pedagogy (Freire [1970] 2000). Connected learning is not limited, however, to a particular pedagogical approach. Instead, the focus is on building relational, practical, and conceptual connections across settings and experiences, centered on learning interests and affinities (see figures 1.2a and 1.2b). Often a project-centered and culturally relevant approach is the best way to build these connections.
If we return to the story of Amy that introduced this chapter, we can see that her process of developing interests and expertise relied on a growing network of relational supports, activities, and opportunities to share. Her online affinity network in Hogwarts at Ravelry helped fill gaps in knowledge, as well as in her social and cultural supports, so that she could sustain her learning and interest in a unique specialization. Unlike an interest such as chess or basketball, which is often supported within schools and other community-based institutions, a specialization in knitting and pattern making would have been difficult to sustain without her online supports.
Figure 1.2a. Learning and interest development as a pipeline or progression.
Image by Nat Soti.
Figure 1.2b. Learning and interest development as a process of network building.
Image by Nat Soti.
The fundamental drivers of specialized, expert learning are the same as what we see in more traditional professional groups—learning in situ, sustained engagement with peers with related expertise, and productive social and cultural contributions. What differs is how Amy’s interests are supported through an online, affinity-centered infrastructure that is only loosely institutionalized. Online affinity networks are more accessible than a formal professional community or a community-based organization such as a sports team. This also means, however, that they have fewer ties to the local communities and contexts of participants. In Amy’s case, her supportive family provided these connections, thus enabling a connected learning experience that linked her online and face-to-face settings. Our case studies of online affinity networks and connected learners such as Amy enable us to understand these unique affordances
