To give you a feel of what I'm talking about, below are summaries from two groups who discussed the characteristics of creativity and motivation and engagement written-up by the NML research assistants who facilitated them. These are two characteristics whose terms did not change after the conference feedback. Others, like the controversial term authenticity, subsequently did change to relevance - and learning ecosystem to connection ("connected learning" being a big theme at the conference) - although the jury is still out on the latter. For now, let's look at what people had to say about creativity and motivation and engagement.

Ioana Literat

The group that I had the pleasure to lead focused on creativity as a characteristic of participatory learning. We started off with a discussion of the concept of creativity, and the way that this notion fits into the context of formal education. Several of the group members provided definitions of creativity that were framed around the notion of "doing", so we had an interesting debate about the proper relationship between creativity and productivity: specifically, what should the end product of the creative process be? And is peripheral participation - ideating but not enacting - a different kind of creative input?

In the context of creative teaching and learning within the formal educational system, we discussed the role of creativity across a multitude of disciplines, and concluded that, while specific arts-related disciplines offer an easier way to integrate creativity into the learning process, it can in fact be encouraged across all fields via a more resourceful approach to the learning ecosystem and curriculum design. We also acknowledged the fact that students and teachers may hold differing views of what creativity is, and would therefore both benefit from an open and engaging dialogue on this topic, as an exercise in co-configured expertise.

An activity that the participants in my group enjoyed tremendously was the curriculum redesign. Taking the RFK-LA lesson on mapping and photography as a starting point for the discussion, we used our own collective creativity to redesign the lesson in order to bring out creativity as a characteristic of participatory learning in this context. In an effort to make the lesson appropriate for a wide range of grade levels and disciplines, we tried to make it as versatile as possible, allowing for a large degree of customization. We decided to stick with mapping as our principal topic, but instead of thinking of maps and physical space on a visual level - the way most of us are accustomed to - we chose the concept of "sound maps" as a creative reinterpretation of mapping. We therefore crafted our lesson plan around the objective of creating representations of movement and physical space - such as, for instance, the student's trip from home to school - via sound recordings, and integrating digital technologies like iPods and audio mixing software. Using the new media literacies of negotiation and collective intelligence, we managed to draft a thoughtful and original lesson plan that simultaneously highlighted our diverse perspectives and backgrounds while reaffirming certain values and opinions about participatory learning, which - as we've realized throughout the DML conference - really hold us together as a community of educators and researchers.

Laurel Felt

Our small group explored the participatory learning characteristic of motivation and engagement. Whereas many learning-oriented conferences are primarily attended by American public school teachers of primary and secondary grades, the composition of our small group reflected the diversity of DML Conference attendees. Nearly all of this small group's members concentrated on sites of international, informal, and/or non-traditional learning. These sites include, but are not limited to: Australian nurse training; Singaporean public schools; Italian public schools; Swedish as a second language programs; Indian philanthropic organizations; online communities across the web, related to particular hubs, and centered on a specific website; community theater; community development projects; and one-on-one-oriented charter schools.

Participants exchanged such provocations as:

How can we transcend barriers to trust within the context of computer-mediated communication and motivate individuals to help one another?

How can support adults' motivation and engagement and bridge digital/learning gaps?

How can motivate teachers to regard information and communication technology (ICT) as important and foster its classroom use and adoption by students?

How can we extend books via mobile applications?

How can we capture individuals' inherent motivation and engagement, as well as scaffold their connection to other interests/broader ranges of topics?

How can mobile applications function as a bridge to a new society?

How can we legitimize and translate peer-to-peer learning, build community, conduct valid assessment, and deliver meaningful accreditation?

How can we support the utilization of the Internet and new media literacies skills in the classroom?

How can we motivate and engage individuals by means of supporting self-efficacy?

How can we understand curiosity as a driver for underserved Indian children in out-of-school contexts, and what is its relationship with sustainability?

How can we still hope in community members in order to boost their motivation and engagement in broadband participation?

Before redesigning the lesson, members of this small group critiqued the lesson's shortcomings and questioned whether any pre-fabricated lesson could effectively foster motivation and engagement. In their view, a contextualized learning goal and array of helpful tools is all that a facilitator should bring to the table; the rest -- how to achieve that goal, with what, and for what purpose -- should be determined by the learner.

Like all enriching interactions, this experience generated more questions than it answered; in fact, it caused me to question the very soundness of our DML workshop design! I found myself wondering what would have happened if we had further opened our workshop to participants'  interests and passions? While we allowed attendees to choose which participatory learning-themed circle they wanted to sit in, the order of ceremonies was pre-ordained. Instead of dedicating 5-10 minutes to sticky note-writing and 35 minutes to curriculum redesign, what if we had given an hour to self-directed, deep investigation of attendees' own burning questions? Would such an approach have enabled our colleagues to realize their objectives, or would they have floundered in the vague space of "no rules"? How much structure is too much structure, and which constraints fruitfully nurture inspiration?

While several superb books on the subject of contemporary learning have recently entered the marketplace (A New Culture of Learning, Reality is Broken, Women and Gaming), a gap between theory and practice exists nonetheless. As we at Project New Media Literacies productively struggle to facilitate our after-school program with high school students at RFK Community Schools, construct a week-long professional development workshop for their teachers, and negotiate our own internal modus opperandi, this gap, at times, can loom large. Yet we share with our colleagues from DML and beyond a very deep sense that we're on the right track, and perhaps it is this perception, coupled with good company and moments of triumph, that motivates our continued engagement.

According to Thomas Alva Edison, "Genuis is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration." Here's to all of us working that 99 percent!"

To be continued...