connection connected learning

Connection, Unpredictability, Serendiptity, EDTECH developer MOODLE

The initial objection raised here (against identity theory) seems to be similar to one that Smart considered in Monday's reading, the idea that you cannot ascribe the same property to a brain state that you can to an experience. Instead of relying on the distinction between language and metaphysics that Smart used, Lewis provides a new argument about the fact that experiences have the particular property of being unlocated is not "analytically necessary."

Smart closes by re-iterating that the argument in favor of identity theory is essentially an abductive one, and that it is not coverage of the data, but rather other theoretical virtues which explain why it is preferable to epiphenomenalism.

Here Smart's distinction between identity theory as a metaphysical and as a semantic claim pays off. This means that I can talk about sensations even if our best theories for what brain processes are identical to them are wrong.

Once again stating his thesis: sensations just are brain states. This connects to his earlier remark about how sensations and brain states are not correlated - since they are the same thing, they cannot be correlated with each other.

This links back to the Descartes passages we looked at on the first day. He wants to avoid an "irreducibly psychical something," or, some sort of mind-stuff that is non-physical.

This looks like a behaviorist way of analyzing the remark. In this reading, I am not saying anything about any experience or mental state; rather, I am treating the remark as indicating a tendency to say things.

It appear to me that as of 2018, Jacobs is ahead of this curve; to me, this curve has passed in teacher education. In terms of technology and new course material, I know we have had music education lectures and courses in the past on iPad ensembles, basic guitar performance, body percussion, and the pedagogy of pop music. In some other courses, we have networks of electric keyboards the instructor can listen to from their seat, and the Department of Bands has taken advantage of projectors and movies just like some major symphonies do.

I'd say that this misconception can be falsified by simply stepping into a real teacher's classroom. I believe that there is a difference between pedagogy and execution, or an idea and its reality. I have had several of my own teachers fail to attempt this misguided approach with the students just more confused after the teacher prompts them. In all these cases, the instructor meant well and obviously intended for us to reach a certain conclusion, but nobody was able to get there on their own without direct instruction.

The importance of a teacher searching for incomplete understandings is to mature the student, not to brainwash them by replacing the students' understanding with their OWN incomplete understanding. How often does this happen via informal learning outlets (social media, for example) in today's society, and how does a teacher avoid this? More importantly, how do teachers teach their students to avoid misinformation via informal outlets on their own?

This seems very similar to the concept of 'mindfulness' researched and taught by Dr. Frank Diaz. In what ways is active learning different from this? Is 'mindfulness' simply an application of active learning unto oneself?

This is startlingly similar to the point Descartes makes in his "Second Meditation"

The visual mode might be the most universal form of communication. Psychology and biology studies have proven that humans are hard-wired to react in certain ways depending on visuals. For example, the color red instinctively draws a human's attention since it is a sign of danger. That is why stop signs and traffic lights are red, they cause drivers to instantly be alert in order to avoid accidents. I think that because the visual mode is so universal, it could be used to solve the problem presented by James Conca in his article "Talking to the Future -- Hey, There's Nuclear Waste Buried Here!". Initially I considered a red sign with the classic skull and crossbones to signify a deadly threat. However the truth is that within human history the symbolism for death has been very different for each culture. For example, the Ancient Greeks never portrayed Death as a menacing or evil character, since they knew death was inevitable and sometimes even considered it the path to an honorable sacrifice or a peaceful end of suffering. Since we do not know if future generations will use a dark hooded figure, or a dirty old woman, or a skeleton wielding a scythe as their symbol for Death, we should probably stick to simpler design. I think red should be a main color (since it will evoke the human instinct for danger) along with black (since it has proved to be a basic color to represent evil in most cultures throughout time). Perhaps the simplest solution would be a depiction that would use the human empathy to communicate the hazard of nuclear waste, such as an exaggerated illustration of a suffering human.

Sources: Conca, James. "Talking to the Future -- Hey, There's Nuclear Waste Buried Here!" Forbes, 17 Apr. 2015, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/04/17/talking-to-the-future-hey-theres-nuclear-waste-buried-here. Accessed 2 October 2017.

This connects to the very core value of philosophy, as we must always question what we take for truth, just as Descartes and Plato did.

As an English teacher, I know that pretty much anything can be looked at as a narrative--a story

As this text mentions, John Maguire also believes that approaching writing with a more physical aspect in minf can lead to the "discrete, distinguishable, and con-structed" point-of-view that Prowian Analysis aims to teach the student. He mentions that adding physical objects in their reasoning leads to the inclusion of examples, and that eventually the student's "thinking on paper is clearer" .

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-secret-to-good-writing-its-about-objects-not-ideas/263113/

In the article "The Secret to Good Writing: It's About Objects, Not Ideas", John Maguire also mentions the simplicity of dealing with objects. His advice for becoming more specific was to simply "put physical objects in" essays. Additionally, much like the "deceptively straightforward" style is mentioned here, Maquire states that the concept of including physical object in written works is "hard to get the idea across" since it disobeys the modern writing conventions.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-secret-to-good-writing-its-about-objects-not-ideas/263113/

Objects can have "significant meaning" in different ways depending on the individual's point of view, their historical context, and their current everyday use. For example, in the article "What Is a Machete, Anyway?", John Cline outlines the variations in the interpretation of a machete. A child views it as a weapon, "a real sword", the authorities view it as a dangerous weapon, and the Illinois farmers view it as a "corn knife" tool. The object can even have political and cultural significance. It was a symbol for the Cuban rebels who used machetes in sugar plantation and the mistreated workers of the banana industry in Jamaica who used it for harvesting fruit.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-is-a-machete-anyway/280705/

Providing proof to support claims is an important aspect of writing well. According to John Maguire, many of today's students are missing "the skill of giving specific concrete examples in an essay.' He also argues that being specific can be achieved by writing "with physical objects" since "abstract ideas derive from objects."

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-secret-to-good-writing-its-about-objects-not-ideas/263113/

I think Nathaniel would agree with this, as he says that many individuals who claim to engage rhetoric so as to persuade others do not actually want to persuade them, because then they would not have anyone with whom to argue, and would not feel like they were affecting change concerning a certain situation.

I could just be putting words in his mouth, though.

Again references the idea of language and identity, suggesting that one's language influences one's perception of who they are as individuals.

For Make a Difference Day my sophomore year, part of our service brought us to a primarily African American church, I am not sure what denomination. I was struck by the communal aspect of rhetoric in the church. The audience was involved and invested in the rhetoric of the speaker and offered an openly supportive environment. Now that I am thinking back on this, the support and involvement of the audience completely changed my experience of the speaker's rhetoric and stressed the importance of community. As mentioned earlier, language and culture cannot be separated, and the rhetoric of African Americans reflects the value placed upon community and depending upon others as a result of the discrimination and challenges they have faced in a predominantly white culture.

colleagues connection collaboration

nature ecosystem

Colleagues. connection. mutualisation.

Personal learning network. Overlapping communities/networks

Network colleagues

If he is an architect he is not really an outsider but he can be an outsider within a group - a possible point of connection to other groups....

Or from outside context - for better or for worse.

What one introduces from the outside is always risky...

personal research local

difficulty of frame - of readability - of length

time people connection

connection storyteller witness youtube

Storyteller connection

meaningful connection

constraint meaningless

WHY

KEY

https://vimeo.com/195637079

meaningful connection

translation respect of context finding common ground difficulty

vulnerability open improvisation emotion

attachment connection

community offline online hybridity

Amputation. Birth Connection

What connects us? What is the story?

Reimagining connection.

Attachment Friendship

This space which allows distant people to connect.

This space which is in between liminal

Question. What enables people to be able to be at ease in these spaces?

Attachment Connection Yearning Identification Friendship

Yearning to reach out and be really present with the people on line.

connection individual witness

Modeling reflective practice.

Narrative connected

Learning the power of open.

A more direct definition of "meaning," rather than the loosely applied, ambiguous idea that people apply to the word as referenced on page 1276.

There seems to be a correlation between Woolf's use of "experience" in Woman and Fiction and Professions of Women; in both instances, she states that it is impossible, or at the very least, extremely difficult, for women to gain experience professional experience due to the patriarchal structure of society and the limitations this structure placed on a woman in all aspects of her life.

Especially in regards to ambiguity, I read most of this article as stretching the ideas of Richards and Ogden further.

Would these two passages against "woman's public work for Christ" possibly be against it if read literally? Her point is that reading the bible literally is the incorrect way to read the bible, and it sounds like she is inferring this here. Willard just said a few passages before this that if men are to read the passage literally, then they: "should remember that this literalness of rendering makes it his personal duty, day by day, actually to 'eat his bread in the sweat of his face.' The argument is a two-edged sword, and cuts both ways" (1130).

Willard is saying that women are necessary to discover truth, and that a reason that truth has not been realized so far is because women have been excluded from interpreting the bible in their own way and instead are told what is said in the bible by men. Reflects her earlier statement, which states that men generally interpret the bible in their self-interest and to ensure they maintain power and minimize competition (1124).

Because these are descriptions not names

It seems like perhaps this distinction comes from the rhetorical dimension of each statement. They refer to the same "referent" (to use Frege's language) but "the author of Waverly" highlights a specific aspect or capacity of Scott the referent that isn't privileged above other capacities when he is referred to as "Scott."

Also, connecting to Chomsky, all culture groups have the capacity to learn language (innate linguistic ability), which is imperative for the ability to remember, think abstractly, reason logically, etc.

Sounds like his work was "reified"

This reminds me of a similar study on language with the Vai in Liberia (Scribner and Cole 1981) which suggests that formal literacy schooling in English does not give learners higher intelligence or better abstract reasoning skills, only the ability to talk about those skills in "contrived situations." So even though the numerical/literacy system one grows up with influences the way one thinks, it doesn't mean that one system can be prioritized over the other as "better" or "more intelligent."

vs. connection and creation as the center of learning. Of course, you deal with content as a teacher but it through the learner connections that we educe learning.

is this possible with a teaching curriculum?

I appreciate this awareness. Connects to Bell et al, too.

this reminds me of our video game readings particularly Stevens et al "in game, in room, in world"

Don't you miss any real, open-minded account of the learning in the field trips piece? I mean, a positive view on the 'ups' students could have learned, not just the 'downs'

Funds of Knowledge all over the place. I mean, you always look "carefully" to the ones around you...

This resonates to me as a missing piece of the Arizona border communities/FoK piece, as it was clearly stated that they changed jobs frequently but no indication of the learning and the transfer of information associated was made.

"LPP is the sea surrounding us" or something like that, citing Ma (2015, comment on the concept map developed last class)

This sounds almost as speaking to the mathmoves and the field trips pieces, the navigation of borders in terms of the norms (remember the enforced "ideal participants" in the field trips piece or the instruction to behave like already being in the exhibit in the matmoves piece?)

This is like music to me. Learning happens everyday, everywhere, and sometimes it is more pleasant, seems more useful, is easier to remember, or any other advantages. But understanding the learning beyond/without those dichotomies, mostly the academic/everyday, could be really helpful to understand in a deeper way pieces as the field trips, mathmoves, or the countermapping.

Space editing - constructing a space to be a particular setting for the player and they can take on a particular identity in it

This makes me think about Lave and Wenger's midwives who, through continued participation, became not only more valued as participants but (and this is the part that connects directly to the highlight) took on more and more roles. In other words, got to do more (or in Whyville, knew there were more opportunities to do things)

This is so fascinating to me. Could it be due to the lack of wanting to look through all 30,000 faces? Although I think not, this is interesting when I think about figured worlds. When thinking of Whyville, you would think of it as its own figured world, but it is interesting to see how the Whyville avatar is created by the person. This would be influenced, I would think, by the real-life figured world. They are both overlapped.

This is interesting. Reminds me of intent participation. The Whyvillians need to voluntarily sign up to work with basically strangers. Connecting it back with the earlier point about race, makes me wonder how Whyvillians determine if they want to sign up with a particular collaboration.

Would a research expect to same similar trends as they see in World of Warcraft? Is that why it is not explored. When i think of this in the light of LPP i would see it as the same field of mastery (online life), just a different setting. In the end though, the same skills are learned in each setting.

One thing I really like about Whyville is that while this space of course was originally produced by adults (I'm assuming anyway) the kids who use it are able to take control of it and make it their own. This is a lot different than Nespor's take on public spaces. Unlike with filed tirps or other visits to public spaces, the kids aat Whyville have much more fredom to intrepret the space as they please. It seems there are still rules, but the users themselves have much more control here.

Here is a very clear example of what it means to be an old-timer vs a new comer in this CoP. There is a language that comes with belonging. This importance of language has come up over and over again in our readings. It was important with AA, the hurdlers, the little leaguers, the skaters, and I'm sure more. I also really appreciate how the authors here refer to the children's language as "sophisticated". I think this opens up the possibility that children can teach adults, and maybe in other settings as well. Maybe even in a classroom??? I think it's really important for adults to give me respect and value to the knowledge that children have.

Access to resources are crucial to full successful participation. This relates back to my questions about privilege and access earlier in the semester in relation to LPP. I'm interested in this aspect of privilege in gaining access to resources for learning (both economic and cultural)

I see this as related to multi-sited work. If virtual spaces are a real piece of a person's experiences, learning, understanding, and development - it seems inappropriate to dismiss it as "not real." Especially then if you start to consider who has the authority to dismiss it.

This reminds me of Nespor's work on Field Trips. It seems that this argument is in alignment with Nespor's discussion of mediated experiences and spaces.

It is interesting here to see when Brandon followed and did not follow the suggestions given to him by Holly. He intently participated to her comments when he wanted to and ignored when he wanted to. Interesting dynamic here.

This straight up, 100% reminds me of lpp and the concept of apprenticeship. Rachel is becoming a part of a community, but using the expertise of her brother to also become an expert in the game. I wonder if she began being exposed to the video game by just observing her brother?

Ok, pretty solid example of intent participation. Maddy remains in the periphery until she is ready to participate. She is observing and assessing what is going on before she decides to play. The existence of a third controller for Maddy shows that her brothers were anticipating that she would join the game at some point, but allow for her to begin at her own pace. (Why it is kept all the way int he basement is another question.)

interesting.

Almost the definition of multisited ethnography

I like thinking of this game play as "tangled up with other cultural practices." I see this as multisited work, and actually helps me understand the interconnectedness of multisited work better.

Sounds like some of the readings we've had

It happened! Multisited ethnography providing evidence for multisited learning! Good for the promotoras, adding on top of the aforementioned grant!

This was the opportunity for a real multi-sited learning as the different practices accros cultures are to be shared, but then the researchers leave the place. Missed opportunity, sure.

This is just schooling with a tangible/narrow goal. One of the downsides of the learning in action is the situation-specific content and learning (Resnick), and this is now being attached to schooling. And they are also being trained to run equipment that, according to the description, is extremely expensive and delicate and is probably beyond the economic capital of most of the members of the community, even if grouped. Not that much social justice to me

again I'm prompted to raise the question about tourism and authenticity even though this isn't the question we're supposed to be pondering...reminds me of Nespor's piece

This is more about "art and identity", but for sure the argument of bodies-(1)->arts-(2)->identity-(3)->learning can be made. I mean, for the mentioned forms of art (1) is kind of obvious, (2) is their argument, and (3) came strong in previous readings.

There is a lot going on in these two sentences. Public spaced is produced through activity (like M&M) but here it is produced for students by teachers (contrasting M&M where space was produced by the primary users). So this brings up ideas of guided participation for me "occasions for introducing them to and framing their participation in"

Post read edit: I still would comment as I did, but with the hindsight afforded by the full read I can see "framing participation in" leads more to limitation in participation than guided participation or in other words, the authors argue that field trips, and field trip spaces "guide" students to "participate" in only particular ways.

This reminds me of some analysis of picture-taking at the Whitney Museum one of you (Felipe?) did.

FoK!

Colin and Raquel have both pointed this out already, but I think this line is worth adding to the conversation. The idea of transforming kids so they become "elements of the new aesthetic landscape". I want to make a direct (and maybe uncomfortable) reference here to schools. I think in a very similar way, schools work to mold students so they might become "elements of the school aesthetic". This not only edits some students out who they can't get to conform, but takes agency away from all students in deciding how school might best work for them.

In terms of Ma & Munter (2014), is this to provide the arena and to try for people to create the expected setting?

Welcome back LPP

Is the word 'settings' here used for what Ma & Munter (2014) call 'arena' and not 'setting'?

does this help form islands of expertise amongst some students?

The "public spaces" visited by students on field trips seem a bit different from public spaces like a skate park because students are not only told how to move through the spaces but they are not given a choice about which spaces to visit. Students may have elected to visit other public spaces but they are taken on field trips to public spaces selected by a teacher or other administrator whereas people elect to go to skate parks.

Can we compare to "arena v. setting" as in the Ma/Munter piece?

what if we included this idea as part of our understanding of "true public spaces"

making connections between lived experiences and representations of activity reminds me of field trips and skate parks but I feel like the countermapping allows the youth to participate in a more legitimate way in public spaces.

the participants, much like skaters at a skatepark, learn by doing much more than from being told how to do something.

do we consider little league a #communityofpractice?

more evidence of valuable skills learned as result of "everyday activities"

the discussion about language and tone reminds me of what we read in #littleleague. The coach uses conversation to influence his players in particular ways, teach them certain skills, behaviors, attitudes, values.

similar to Azevedo's "lines of practice?"

This sounds a lot like Bourdieu's "habitus."

Learning is defined by lines of practice. This sounds a lot like LPP. Although, in some ways it provides nuance because it conceptualizes a possibility of boundary crossing and embraces difference in LPP for different contexts and different people in the same CoP.

Interesting that "preference" or "long term goal" of developing the identity of amatuer astronomer dialectically influences his other goals and preferences, which influence his practice, which help him achieve that goal.

This is interesting to me because note taking works to do two distinct things. First, it is a resource for the person to go back to and learn more about astronomy as a practice after the night of star gazing. But more interestingly, it is "a requirement for receiving awards." Thus, the participate has to do a particular activity to be recognized as a participant and move towards becoming a fuller participant in the CoP. In that way, having a "sense of a future" is crucial - otherwise, why take the notes?

So would Nasir say this is an example of ideational identity resources? Mitchell has set a goal for himself, as well as established what he believes is worthy to be learned (what he will hone and apply).

would be interesting to research how this happens in adult educational institutions as well, ie, a university department (academic or not) -- I'm thinking about onboarding and training new employees, teaching new employees how to interact/collaborative with students, etc. how much is instructional and how much is on-the-job? how much is "intent participation" or apprenticeship?

I imagine intent participation happens here, though, and might be effective.

thinking about apprenticeship again it seems. excited to see where this goes.

Again, here is a connection to retaliation identity. For student to be connected with the CoP, and function within it, it is necessary for the leaders to be a relational resource in order to "sustain participation in different learning situations"

This somewhat arbitrary cutoff is interesting to me in relation to identity (of course 18 is an arbitrary cutoff all over the country for various reasons). It makes me think of Holland and the idea of there being different roles and positions with in figured worlds, but in this kind of situation, all one needs to do is turn 18 (and probably graduate high school) to move up and acquire a different position. 18 and 24 is not a big age difference,, so what IS different between the youth and an adult? How does their identity vary that allows one to receive a higher /more prestigious role? Ans why are leaders typically close in age I think it has something to do with the fact that relational resources are stronger when the age gap is closer, especially in the opinion of youth.

The move from student who organizes to organizer, as I spoke of in a comment above

This could be seen as asking students to describe their view of the figured world of the group.

This could be seen as asking students to describe their view of the figured world of the group.

Earlier he states that the adults still give structures, and release them as students become larger leaders.

interesting to me that we still perceive schooling in America to prepare students for the "real" world. As we've seen in many of our readings, it is vital to learn so that we can exist productively within the real world and also I feel like we have also acknowledged that conventional schooling does not necessarily prepare us for that.

Aha, this whole section speaks to American children and their lack of learning by intent participation.

Recalling LPP Chapter 4 conversation about Lainey, Heidi, and I were having about observation.

Rogoff is already defining a specific kind of observation, one that is focused on what is going on, active in listening and watching, and that leads to participation at some point. To me this is in contrast to passive observing which might not lead to any kind of action/participation. I think LW would be using Rogoff's kind of observation in their discussion of its involvement with LPP

I wonder was this a consequence of his design or did these learning theories underpin what he put together?

similar to Moll and Allen

Connections here to other literature we have read: Moll et al., Lave and Wegner, and more

Sounds very much like FW and LPP here.

Looking to both study and define what being an "active and engaged spectator." The participation across time of the artist/curator and spectators in interesting. It is a different way of seeing learning from an LPP perspective; the community of practice is shaped by the creator and the spectators across different times.

using curiosity as a strategy to keep learners hooked is interesting - don't we see this outside of museum settings, too? I feel like we saw this in the Moll piece as well -- students were encouraged to pursue projects based on their own interests.

again, relevance plays a role. We aren't learning for learning's sake, necessarily

like we saw in the Moll piece -- teachers can use tact to steer students even if students have a lot of direction and independence

Overall finding here. Effective learning can be a loaded term. What other pieces of the FoK are missing here?

I really like this quotation. It highlights for me a big part of the issue with schooling - the focus on skills, tools, tricks, and information as "objects" to be obtained. No where in there does there seem to be thoughtfulness about the student as a person, just as some empty vessel to be filled.

Coach J is the gate keeper, the mentor, who needs to provide the resources for a student to engage in building the identity of a track athlete. Therefore, he is the identity gate keeper. Why, therefore, examine this through the lens of resources instead of merely habitus or "cultural toolkit?"

This article, as I understand it, provides arguments that identity and learning are intimately related, but not that they are distinct processes. While I agree with this statement that I highlighted, I wonder in what ways we can look to studies like this one to provide the nuance Nasir and Cook are looking for and claiming. It seems that Holland et al.'s description fits more with an understanding that identity and learning are not distinct processes.

Reminds me of the AA example. One cannot identity as a member of AA if the other members do not accept that person as a member. Similarly the track identity here is dependent on the coach.

This connection is important. Figured worlds can also be viewed as produced by structural systems of power and privilege. Could this a view of figured worlds be grounded in Critical Theory as well as Marxist theory?

(Highlight should continue to the end of the paragraph)

Happenings, for Holland, are ways the figured world is reproduced, through the participants actions (such as learning to tell their story). In this too is LW idea that the same process of learning to tell your story is part of LPP and becoming a member in a CoP. These two uses of story telling highlight the interactive nature of the formation of both the CoP/Figured world and the participant's place in it as a member.

Importance of context. meaning only comes through connection