“The doubled context is this: First, there is the involvement of the artifact within its immediate use-context. It ‘is’ what it is in relation to that context. Insofar as such contexts, particularly at the simplest levels, may be widespread with respect to cultures, a transfer is a relatively simple matter (steel axes and knives for stone ones). … But second, there is also the juxtaposition of the larger cultural contexts, which may not at all overlap. And the artifact ‘is’ what it is also in relation to this cultural field. There is thus a sense in which the ‘windmill’ as windmill was not transferred. The mere technical aspects of the prayer wheel do not become a windmill until reconstituted within the new cultural context.”


The full dimensions of our subject Matter in MITTEN include tools, the contexts in which their use makes sense, and the professional and personal ‘selves’ we find ourselves shaping in our efforts to use our tools successfully and wisely. A significant part of what the MITTEN program accomplishes is to help in ‘scripting’ the use of new technologies in educational settings, especially the classroom.
Ihde’s comments on the ‘doubled context’ of technology use should draw attention to a narrow and a broader sense in which technological and teaching scripts are seen to operate. The narrow sense is largely instrumental, or functional, having to do with conveying what can be considered as standard assembly and operating instructions for the machines in question. MITTEN’s approach here is exhaustively thorough: Every possible source of instrumental instructions is tapped, and authoritative procedures and expert commentary are combined with rules of thumb, anecdotes, and friendly encouragement to improve instrumental control.
The second context Ihde cites receives less direct attention in MITTEN, making this an area of concern that has considerable potential for expansion and improvement. Somewhat in the spirit of liberal economic theory, MITTEN provides for individual participants and teams to make their own decisions about how broader organizational and social contexts affect technology use. Participants report back, and the usual response seems to be encouragement to hang in there and to continue making the case for resources and support. More can be done to consider broader contextual issues in a systematic manner that can improve the understanding of all MITTEN participants.
My own modest effort in this direction so far is to initiate an analysis and comparison of the MITTEN program with the Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable (TLTR) sponsored by the Association for Advancement of Higher Education (AAHE), both of which I have participated in at UMD. These programs have similar missions and strategies – which center on developing core groups of technology users and advocates to implement a broad-based expansion and improvement of technology use in education.
I have begun with a communication analysis of documentation relevant to these programs, including mission statements, working materials, and other sorts of messages and communications. I intend to proceed towards a more general institutional analysis that examines implementation and participation, as well as an assessment of outcomes. The notion of a doubled context – an instrumental or user’s context and a broader organizational context in which the instrumental usages are situated – provides a guiding framework for data-gathering, analysis, and theorizing.