My suspicion is that there really isn't one

And extreme amounts of stress, many times to the point of getting in the way of learning

Truer words have never been said

With the modern university environment, I find this to be, for lack of a better word, rubbish

While having a well landscaped campus is always a nice thing to have, I'm not sure I agree that it is essential to a good learning environment

the real challenge will be expanding the educational program while maintaining quality of education

the expenses of books alone at universities is significant

while adapting to new generations is always something that needs to happen, I'm personally not so sure the twenty-first century digital age is entirely conducive to learning

The qualifications for merit based scholarships that are state funded are becoming steeper, e.g., The Zell Miller Scholarship. This makes it difficult for students to receive scholarships that were once readily available.

This is shocking to me that the shift from classical learning to a more science based learning happened so early in history. I began to research classical learning in America and this article makes it seem as if the 19th century was still heavily practicing classical learning. Therefore, this paragraph is misleading.

This is the historical goal when planning and building campuses. Interesting to read while being a student at Georgia State University, a school placed in the middle of a busy city. The every day distractions brought about by being in the city may be hurting us more than most think. Also, the term "unlimited time" is particularly captivating. I cannot think of any person who devotes "unlimited time" to college and learning, which is quite sad!

The point of the article is to explain ways to "conceptualize future campus planning" remember this quote when writing summary

With the growing popularity of online learning, it is reasonable to conclude that the amount of time spent outside of the classroom will continue to increase. Thus increasing the importance of other campus space.

What makes a college campus effective? I would operationally define "effective" in this article as: a campus that facilitates learning and student social and academic engagement.

The campus landscapes of the future should have some type of student input in my opinion because we have to spend the majority of our time in there and we know what would allow for the best learning in the digital era.

I believe that if some classes were outdoors it would help with the students mental fatigue especially with the lighting of the classrooms. i remember last year i had a couple classes outside on the roof of urban life and it was just refreshing to get into a new space.

This category is exactly how GSU is built but i believe the university is making strides to have a little bit more green spaces for us on campus.

the term involuntary attention is one that strikes me as being funny because i can see this happening in my astrology class something interesting will be going on in plaza and i just stare out her window.

who is to say that a student learns better on a traditional campus than an urban one? i for one feel like its a better space to see the things i learn about in action which helps me retain the knowledge better .

It is a problem to try and define nature because most people view nature as grass and trees but nature can in fact be the buildings that surround a person in the city.

Like University of Georgia (UGA). It's all the way in Athens in a very quite, not fully developed city. It can feel lonely there. Its a completely enclosed campus. Its just like a miniature city.

Nature dominant campuses I feel like can really exclude students from the outside world. Being surrounded by nature can really be challenging because that is not what they will get it in the real world. Unless you decide to live up in the mountains then that it a different case.

I agree with this statement completely. In open campuses you get more career and job opportunities and you can easily find connections being in the same vicinity as other business buildings and such. This is yet another example that ties greatly with GSU.

in todays generation, nature is anything green.

maybe its just me but I disagree with this completely. I think natural scenery is nice and all but it gets boring after a while. There is not much you can do other than just look at it and take pictures. what he describes sounds like a nice getaway but in real life no one wants to be around trees all the time. City life can be refreshing as well. It gives you a real life experience and its nice to be around a lot of people.

enclosed campuses with open spaces is a great advantage of secluded college campuses. It gives students opportunities to do activities or do experiments that are otherwise not possible in open campuses like GSU.

example: Georgia State University and Georgia Tech. These two are great examples of an amorphous campus, spread out with no designated enclosed space.

Having colleges being excluded can be a good and bad thing. Good thing because obviously students can pay attention more and focus only on school. It can be a bad thing because it narrows it down to a certain few who can afford to go that college because it forces you to pay for housing and food rather than having the option to commute and living in the comfort of your own house.

This is very true not only for Americans but for foreigners as well. They expect all college campuses to look like Harvard or Princeton, but these are just stereotypes. For example Georgia State University is not your average college campus. Its in the heart of Downtown with buildings and classes scattered all over.

The college experience I feel like is different for everyone mainly because we all have different backgrounds, goals, financial situations, work ethic, and time management skills. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. College experience for some people is partying and having a great time; for others is working hard to get an education and get a great job with great pay.

By having resources for students nearby makes it easier to get help and succeed.

Sometimes being indoor getting boring because there's no excitement in the room like colors or posters. I get sleepy by starring at blank walls.

meaning without a clearly defined shape or form.

Knowledge is power.

Why just "Americans"?

I support this statement. After class, I like to sit in the courtyard and relax. It gets me prepared for my next class, because the tension from my last class is gone. It also helps clear my mind.

This is somewhat true and not true. Technology has been helping me without losing my attention span. For example, I am doing annotations on my computer and looking up definitions to different things in the article on my phone. Sometimes I can get side tracked but it depends on the assignment I'm working on.

Earth Day is an annual event, celebrated on April 22, on which day events worldwide are held to demonstrate support for environmental protection. It was first celebrated in 1970, and is now coordinated globally by the Earth Day Network and celebrated in more than 193 countries each year. #BEGREEN

Aesthetic means concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty. So this quote means it goes beyond the beauty of the campus.

(something) again or in a new way

I find this statement somewhat true. Colleges or Universities do function like miniature cities. When I was visiting different college campuses, it felt as if I was visiting another life.

As I read the different descriptions, I noticed that Georgia State would fit in that category.It is mostly built.

I find this statement true. I came to Georgia State University because of the job opportunities.

This is telling why people has short attention span and how people start looking into something else and get distracted easily.

Where is the proof?

Or perhaps the students get back to class or studying and are still distracted by what was going on while they were outside. Maybe they are more focused on the game they were playing or what they will do during their next break.

Also known as Land-Grant College Act of 1862 provided grants of land to states to finance the establishment of colleges specializing in “agriculture and the mechanic arts.”

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=morrill+act+of+1862

If students wanted to attend a college surrounded by nature, they would do so. If they wanted to be at a school in the city, like Georgia State, then that is where they would be. I feel like it is all about personal preference. Also, students don't tend to choose schools based on if they are close to nature or not, but how good the school is, what majors they have, and those sorts of things.

Every college campus has their own design. The article states "...set apart from the community..". Some colleges is not close to nature nor is it set apart from a community. For example, East Georgia State College is located in Swainsboro, Ga. It is set apart from the community and surrounded by nature. Georgia State University is located in Atlanta, Ga. It is apart of a community, and it isn't full of nature. #DifferentColleges #DifferentEnvironments

Not all colleges have the space to proved open space, some only have a certain amount of land, which is often used for all the buildings the school requires.

Studies done about this would have been very informative in the part of the article, as here this is one of the few places that does not have citations. Have there been any studies done pertaining to this? Is there any evidence of this claim?

The authors seem to believe that this restoration is only achieve by being in nature though.

Who though, does nature help? Is it everyone, or a select group? Or does it perhaps differ from person to person?

Holistic education aims to call forth from people an intrinsic reverence for life and a passionate love of learning.” ( Ron Miller) Read more about Ron Miller. Holistic education is concerned with the development of a person's intellectual, emotional, social, physical, artistic, creative and spiritual potentials.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=holistic%20learning

They don't define nature fully in their own words, I feel like they use so many references that their meanings don't come through clearly.

Why is in class learning considered "passive or theoretical?" You can do interactive activities in many classes in an classroom setting.

Sure this pertains to students with these specific types of majors, many of whom would choose to attend an agricultural based college, but what about students with other degree programs in mind?

So universities had to evolve as the world evolved, if they hadn't imagine how hard going to college would be. I know there are some schools that don't allow freshman to have cars with them on campus, imagine how difficult that could make school if it were a campus set apart from the city.

It seems that the authors are in full support of classes that require such things as greenhouses and gardens and such, but what about classes that don'n need these things? What about math or government? I wonder what their opinions would be of classes that need only be inside.

The location of the thesis and its premises is similar to the style I was taught in grade school.

In addition to that fact that students are forced to take pointless classes that have no relation to their major, students are always influenced to get involved in many different activities on campus, and it can be really wearing on one's attention. Planning and time management are some of the most crucial skills needed in college which most students come o college without.

I'd be hard pressed to view GSU as a "holistic learning space" over its entire expanse. However, some do believe every environment can be and aid to learning. I just don't see how an open campus in the middle of a city with so many different people and so many different things happening daily isn't sometimes a detriment to learning.

I am not sure how they was a university secluded but open. It feels like a contradiction to me. Take Spartanburg's women's college Converse College for example. It is in a nice sized city, but not within walking distance of most places in the city because it is placed on the outskirts, so it is essentially secluded. To add to that, the school is surrounded by brick walls and elaborate fences. I have been there quite a few times, and I do not see how it is open to the community. This is unlike Georgia State, which is integrated into the city, making many things easily accessible for students and professors alike.

As a GSU student experiencing the indoor and outdoor environment is what makes GSU that much greater

I feel as though the key word here is "early." Though this may have been true for universities years ago, it does not reflect many universities today. Universities are so much more than just dorms, dining halls, and rec centers now.

I think that this statement has two sides, and this article is only demonstrating the negative. Technology can be very distracting, that is true. It can also be so helpful. If one just says "I am going to do this work I have to do until I am done" and sticks to it, without browsing things unrelated to the work at hand, doing work is much easier than not having the availability that technology provides. To say technology only hinders is not accurate.

Meaning it goes beyond than just adversing the beauty and the structure of the campus.

I can't disagree with this more. If i were to sit in my room our outside and attempt to study I would still get distracted by things around me. I can't imagine how hard studying is for someone who has ADHD. Technology can be distracting if it is not being used for the purpose of learning, but so can anything else surrounding one in the outside world. Not to mention most classes, even at the middle school level, require the use of technology in many day to day activities.

While it is true that learning does not take place only indoors, as some students do study outside, a majority of students study and do work inside and save the outdoors for recreational activities. Also, students tend to have access to such a wide variety of study spaces that them being indoors does not pose a problem.

Universities around the country each have a level of opportunities. For example, GSU is surrounded by big corporations, which makes it easier to find a job in your field of study rather than a school located in the middle of nowhere.

Sure, students expect university's to differ from your average high school, but not necessarily in the way this article describes university's campuses. This article talks about a campus set apart from the community, something close to nature. How, in being set apart from the community, does this demonstrate "its role as a citizen of the community in which it is located?"

This is the thesis of the article, it can also be found in the conclusion.

Since GSU is in downtown Atlanta, space is highly limited. They use every possible space to create something new for the school.

In the Schindler piece, the article has a list of credentials beside the authors name to help establish credibility, but here it does not. Though the are both professors, they do not provide any sort of ethos. Compare to Sarah Schindler, “Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination And Segregation Through Physical Design Of The Built Environment,” in Yale Law Journal.

Nature can be a calm place, and a place where you can get a lot done while listening to the different sounds surrounding them. This can play as a positive learning environment for students.

I never really thought about it in this way. A sense of community is very important in todays society.

This is was maybe produced for agriculture majors. They have different learning environments for different majors. Or they have different areas and classroom depending on your major.

I think this was because it was a more space in order to have all of these things in one area close together. Nowadays on campuses today you have to walk about three blocks to get to the nearest dining hall, if you are coming from a far place.

holistic landscape: is an approach to design that considers the thing being designed as an interconnected whole which is also part of something larger.

This is very accurate. If only examining one place, you may night find what supports the student's overall learning experience.

The college experience, is supposed to be different than every other learning environment you have ever been in. It is fun, but your responsibility, and focus is highly tested.

Yes, a learning environment or learning community can have an impact on a student's life academically, and physically.

encompasses: surround and have or hold within

All college campuses have their own special design, it is not based on location or the academic lifestyle of a student.

This is true. I think this applied to every university. The resource on campus are to accomodate the students.

This has been a question for centuries. In my opinion, traditional notions shouldn't determine the university spaces and how they are designed. Some may be effective, and others may not.

Higher education institutions, such as what? Harvard? Yale? or Princeton? The bigger competitive schools in the country

School I feel is stressful depending on how good your time management is, your financial situation, and your work ethic.

So what is the difference in behavior of students in the urban universities opposed to schools with a lot more nature?

This is a perfect example of 'Guns and Butter". During the war not many people were involved in school, but after the war the government puts its focus into education.

Meaning to re think the whole process over again.

I would not be able to focus in an outdoor learning experience their would way to much going on around me.

I feel this is one of the hardest things for me to do I get so side tracked when i start working on something.

why would nature change a student learning enviormenrt?

This reminds me of how GSU uses every inch in the city to make a new building.

Meaning all of the buildings and landscape come together as one unit.

For example on campus our library is so close to most of our classes that we are more influenced to go there to study.

The meaning that all parts of something must interconnect.

This doesn't apply to many urban campuses now, At gsu we rarely even see trees.

My previous college had to go through reconstruction because of this.

Nature is plants, animals, and landscape all together. I see it as the original form of the world. Nothing man made or altered by anything unnaturally.

I tend to learn better by experience or from other people which usually happens outside of class or even school as a whole. Also reading or doing problems on my own is better than sitting in class and having a teacher tell me what to do. Sometimes separating the classroom from education helps the information become more easier to understand. Maybe because there is less pressure or because there is more freedom to learn in your own way.

This is true; however I dont believe its needed, people can also go to community colleges and thrive.

This is explaining why lots of people have short attention spans and what not. This tells me one someone fines something more interesting then what they are currently doing they get distracted.

I chose to attend georgia state university; just so I wouldnt have to deal with the traditional campus styled environment. I like the location of this school; and the style; however I do know most of my friends dislike its not a closed campus.

Majority of people in the 21st century don't believe they need a college education to live a healthy and successful life. To each his own.

This number I think, its completely irrelevant to the number of students that returned after first year and or later began to graduate.

This is the topic of discussion; which is quite interesting. However; I personally don't think adapting to the 21st century learning style will be quite easy.

Here, the author is implying that campuses as they were in the 1770's were more effective as a learning environment than most campuses are today. Does anyone know if this is backed up by factual evidence? I see a lot of articles about how school was more rigorous back then (mostly due to corporal punishment), but I haven't found any studies about whether or not students' grades were improved by the wooded fields surrounding the colleges.

While I do love GSU's huge campus and city setting, one of the really regrettable things about it is all the light pollution at night-time. I'm not sure if the writers of this article would really consider the night sky a part of "nature," but I have found that looking up into the vast expanse of space is a rather calming experience.

The authors finish by stating that the point of incorporating nature into the campus is not to create a pretty landscape that appeals to potential students but to create an environment solely focused on furthering academics. How does one differentiate between a landscape developed to aesthetically appeal and an landscape developed to aid students?

The GSU courtyard is a good example of a enclosed space surrounded by tall buildings. The courtyard is a space where many students hangout and travel from one part of campus to another.

These types of affordances are not available to many universities such as Georgia State which are located in the heart of cities. Does the lack of access to nature affect the GSU student body in terms of academics? How would we quantitatively prove that more access to nature equals better results? How is nature quantified?

The author seems to be implying here that the only things that can be considered "inherently intriguing" must be objects from nature, but I think that ignores plenty of man-made things that I find to be "inherently intriguing." For example, you could look at a pocketwatch and be facsinated by the internal mechanics, or look at graffiti and wonder who created it. What I'm saying is: basically anything can be "intruiging" if you look at it from a perspective of wonder, not just "green" things.

The authors have spent the last four paragraphs using academic jargon to say "plant green stuff". I'm sure there is more nuance to their position but most of their conclusions are not proven through data. They are inferring a relationship through a small sample size of data.

I searched Gulwadi's background through this link: http://www.uni.edu/csbs/sahs/interior-design/faculty-directory/gowri-betrabet-gulwadi

She is credible in regards to the topic of this article because she has a Doctorate degree in Environment-Behavior studies.

I searched Scholl's background: on the following link:

http://www.uni.edu/coe/departments/school-health-physical-education-leisure-services/faculty-staff/kathleen-g-scholl

" teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Outdoor Recreation Management, Outdoor Education, Research and Evaluation, Philosophical Foundations, and Social Psychology of Leisure. Dr. Scholl integrates practical experiences for her students to apply current best practices to outdoor recreation planning and programming. "

She appears to be credible since she teaches graduate courses on the subject of "Outdoor Recreation Management" and "Outdoor Education".

Isn't Georgia State a set of "closely clustered buildings"? I think the author meant to say closed compound. Although Georgia State fits the description, its location in the middle of downtown Atlanta actually thrusts the students right into the face of the real world. Rather it could be argued that spread out campuses like UGA seclude the student from the outside world.

I'm sure most of us can agree that the available technology hinders our ability to pay attention. One minute I might be typing notes and the next minute I might drift off into Reddit. At this point we have to ask ourselves; is the good derived from the available technology outweighing the negative effects?

Holistic is define as:"characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole."

So holistic learning spaces refer to the cohesiveness of the learning experience provided by all areas of the campus (in my understanding).

The idea that college campuses should be "attentional learning" resources, appears to be the main idea of the article. What does the author mean by "attentional learning"?

By which they mean not only visual but also spatial interactions which distract form directed learning.

Or cities themselves. I'm looking at you GSU!

Perfect description of the Langdale quad.

I would like to see the sources for this claim as it proposes an interesting idea.They are saying our minds literally switch gears subconsciously, and allow "gears" (by which I assume the authors mean either neural pathways or regions of the brain associated with studying) to cool off. Research does show that different area of the brain react differently to certain stimuli, and I would have liked to know which portion nature effects.

AKA Stress. In this regard its not only students, but most humans who need to interact with "nature" once in a while to cool off.

Some times I wish GSU had this plan, it would sure make going from Sparks to Aderhold a lot easier!

Now i'm confused on what context he is stating that "scarce resource", which to me means that he doesn't want people to use too much of it and that he desires others to not use it excessively. On the contrary, open space should be the main focus with consistent use and rapid production of such. Open space is not a scarce resource, but should be used by any and all who desire to. What do y'all think? Am I taking this out of context or...?

During post- World War 2, the G.I Bill was created in order to aid in veterans to return to colleges, universities, and trade schools. The education and training provisions only lasted until around 1956 where it was then ended. It is just something to think about to place people into the context of the time. It was not just a sudden rapid increase of students, but was from veterans returning home and attend school.

S:http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/gi-bill

Could the sheltering of the students within these close-knit buildings be a form of restriction that we have been learning about? I mean they say that colleges desired to promote freedom among students, but in contrast decide to keep them enclosed from the "lures" of the outside world. Are we at Georgia State restricted by the space in which we live in and could we not even be aware of it. Think of the courtyard and compare it to the description given.

Honestly I think that at this point he is stating the obvious. He is saying that quiet places are where students have the ability to refresh themselves and that public areas can give the opportunity to create a community. These are things that one can learn just on the playground in building ties with others. We all know it subconciously, even when we don't realize it. Also, does this really need to be done near park trails and high ecological areas? Could it be done on a campus like Georgia State without these resources? Does this mean that students at Georgia State are not living up to their full potential because of the city atmosphere?

There is a set way of learning and it is only now that we are starting to improve our methods. There are new tactics of learning, new website that can help, and visual aids that can make learning more fun. I believe that society is straying away from the traditional form of lecturing, even though it is still common, to something a bit better and easily obtainable to students.What do y'all think, are there new teaching methods being set into place and do you all think that it is working?

This might be true for student attention. What the author is trying to say is that students can get side tracked very easily. Speaking from personal experience, I believe this may be somewhat true, I am doing three other things right now other than this. Procrastination is not a new thing though, its just more apparent in our generation.

Georgia state encompasses this and more into the campus. There is a water feature found in the courtyard, there are trees down avenues and in common spaces, there are spaces between buildings that add to a more open appeal. The cool thing is that unlike some cities, Georgia State has several parks and green spaces everywhere so that students can find some escape from the hustle and bustle. Our campus, for being an urban school in downtown Atlanta, has got this base covered.

To flesh this theory out, ART is the idea that one can repair mental fatigue by looking at or being in nature. This can be done by going to the park or just seeing some grass and flowers. Nature requires less brain function, thereby allowing the brain to rest and repair itself. It kind of hard to do this in Atlanta but I did Centennial Olympic Park for my site for unit one and that place has all of these elements so if you need a break, its literally like a 10min walk away.

S:http://www.ecehh.org/research-projects/attention-restoration-theory-a-systematic-review/

These ingredients are what make happiness. I have learned from reading Eckhart Tolle that someone can be given all they want in the world but that their ego will get in the way of happiness. You can give a student more computers, fancier water fountains, larger screens, but in order to create student well being and health, social connections need to be made. green spaces are a space in which this can be done and results in a lot of success. I love Eckhart Tolle and he has books and many more lessons so I recommend checking him out.

S:https://youtu.be/S4OOnlMmTKU

This day was started in reference to the Santa Barbara, California oil spill in 1969. The movement was started by Gaylord Nelson in order to teach people about air pollution, water pollution, and to just raise awareness of the issue.The date of April 22 was meant to be the day between spring break and final exams. on that day over 20 million people rallied to streets and businesses and ever since it has been an annual occurrence.

S:http://www.earthday.org/about/the-history-of-earth-day/

Its very interesting that the author would bring this up. Colleges, or at least some, are attempting to become more "green" on campus because of the vastness of space and people. Georgia State, although not doing a crazy amount, is making attempts to do as such. For instance, there is a program in the panther dining where people can volunteer time to collect excess food and donate that to local homeless shelters. Although this reduces food waste, it requires volunteers which can be difficult to find sometimes. If a community wants change, then change will happen (a concept that works for everything btw).

This is interesting as people socialize, learn, and spend more time on campus, they feel more part of the community. I guess that this is the same as someone who brings their children to the park everyday feels connected to the others who do the same. They feel unified in their shared spaces and apart of something more than themselves.

This is definitely true! Think about how different the Georgia State campus would be without hurt park, the fountains, the student center benches. There would be a lack of socializing and outside of the classroom learning. Personally, I sit out near the student center during mornings to talk to friends and socialize, that would all change without a dynamic open space.

This is not what Felsten claims!!!! Check it out yourself just in the abstract of the article! (below) The study asked students essentially about what they were attracted to. To jump to the conclusion from this study that their "attention" was "restored" by the nature they "liked" perceiving is silly!

["In the present study, college students, instructed to imagine themselves cognitively fatigued, rated the perceived restorativeness of indoor campus settings that varied by view of nature: some had no views of nature, some had window views of nature with built structures present, and some had views of simulated nature depicted as large nature murals. Students rated settings with views of dramatic nature murals, especially those with water, more restorative than settings with window views of real, but mundane nature with built structures present. Students rated settings that lacked views of real or simulated nature least restorative. The findings suggest that large nature murals in indoor settings used for study breaks may provide attentionally fatigued students with opportunities for restoration when views of nature are unavailable or limited in restorative potential."]

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494408000996)

A whole paragraph of a thesis!

But what happens to them when they don't get to hand the homeless guy who stands at the intersection of Decatur and Peachtree a mocha because it's a cold cold day and you have an extra 3 bucks? Maybe that's a different kind of deficit...?

How does this resonate (or dissonate) with the discussion of attention in chapter 8 of FYG?

It's important to define key terms. Without doing that here, anyone who has a problem with the discussion as it's been unfolding (like, maybe, me) would have trouble reading on. Now that I know how they define "nature" I can read to see if their argument holds in the context of how they define the terms.

Oh Good... Those redwoods in the quad... "nature"? Can the quad be said to be "natural space"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_deficit_disorder

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4665933

Some recent conversations surrounding this idea...

So being an "integrated community"-- a designed space that mingles students, faculty, homeless people, doctors, businessmen, city police, campus police, and others--isn't valuable as a "learning experience"? Hmmmm.... This seems strange to me.

I would hardly think that being smack dab in the center of the city itself, without the "green space" walls that define typical B&M universities, feels like a "lure."

Ah... exigency. This is the "gap in the research" these authors aim to address.

An American architect known for building well-known parks in America. For Example;Central Park in New York

http://www.olmsted.org/the-olmsted-legacy/frederick-law-olmsted-sr

Also known as Land-Grant College Act of 1862

Georgia State University is so far from that. I wish GSU was secluded and away from the city life and crime and maybe a lot of people would be able to focus and stay on track.

I completely disagree with this. I feel that technology has improved students learning. We get do research without having to go to the library, interact with our professors easier and had done away with some textbooks and easier organization. For Example All my classes are based on technology. From the class discussions, to homework and even quizzes.

The intended audience of this article is today's universities landscapers, students, educators/professors of education.

I never really thought about it, but I guess subconsciously it was true, before applying for college, my vision of what a college would look like was Hogwarts, from Harry Potter, not really sure why though.

Not sure what this meant, quick google search lead me to this article. Completely irrelevant, but seems to have something to do with the acquisition of language through modeling. Is that wat attentioninal learning means?

This is an appeal to logos for her argument, which they have yet to clearly state. The statistic itself is also interesting; has there been an increase in demand for education, or is it simply a result of the population increase? This article explores a similar topic in regards to demand for education.

This seems to be the main claim that she will try to resolve in this article. The sentence itself is really long, with a lot of moodifiers

interesting. I think this is certainly an individualist way of looking at it, looking at each member of the community as a free-thinking organism. I don't think Marx or communitarians would necessarily agree.

Quote

Definition of a rhizome

Food for thought

Beautiful

I think these are Spinoza's terms

YES! Stop looking for meaning!

Well, continental philosophy certainly. Analytic?

cf Wittgenstein

Exactly

There is no such as thing as what it really means"

http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/163980/presence-by-peter-senge-c-otto-scharmer-joseph-jaworski-betty-sue-flowers/9780385516303/

"multiplicities or aggregates of intensities." ATP p15

A map is not a tracing? "The rhizome is altogether different, a map and not a tracing" ATP p12 http://projectlamar.com/media/A-Thousand-Plateaus.pdf

Interesting

(human) existence. Heidegger rejected "being there" as an interpretation

This is, according to Heidegger, part of the "proof for the 'Dasein of things outside of me'"

I'm not convinced that the authors understand what these mean. Something which is "present-at-hand" is like a broken hammer - it comes to my attention because I can't use it. A hammer which is "ready-to-hand" is one I can pick up and use without paying attention to it.

Applying it, not necessarily being faithful to the original

3 types of rhizo thought

In Freirean terms, we need an alternative to the banking model of learning

this is relevant to rhizo learning. We see knowledge as something we construct, not something that we are given by experts.

We need a concept of the subject that's not grounded in positivism

The philosopher, says Deleuze, creates concepts.

Don't try to understand it (e.g.D&G), If it does not speak to you, try something else.

D has a different view of the subject from trad education

Thisness

D&G as a response to scientism

In Freirean terms, we need an alternative to the banking model of learning

this is relevant to rhizo learning. We see knowledge as something we construct, not something that we are given by experts.

YES!

Review of biography of D&G