This made me think of the skatepark discussion as well. It seems that the concept that they are discussing, the idea that "work novices do to enter a practice" is "also the work of reinventing that practice" can be tied to the idea of "editing" spaces that we saw in the skateparks reading.

The very smart authors of this article are arguing that not only does the physical configuration of a skatepark (or really anywhere) influence the skater's learning, but the skaters also use (or edit) the physical environment for their own learning ends.

Seems similar to a structure in inquiry based learning in the classroom. A teaching (who is more experienced) sits back and watches as the novice performers practice towards their goals, and exchanges wisdom or information on their performance.

Highlights the importance of skating as an art form.

This is learning in its most simplest form. Just by conversing with one another they are able to learn different skate tricks

I think this can also be seen as a point of learning to observe because you can figure out why each of the skaters come to the skate park, i.e. what it does for them psychologically. How it helps them.

For the early skaters, their context of learning also included surfing and the ocean.

The context of learning includes not only their skateboard, but the spatial production and the integration of all the people around them.

I have a feeling that if Tony Hawk or Bob Burnquist went in and did the exact same thing there'd be awe at first, perhaps some considerations of how "innovative" that use of the park was, leading to many attempting to do the same thing later on.

What Zack seemed to lack was a legitimacy to do this sort of thing. By using the park that way, as the authors write, [he edited the park] in ways that did not aling with the setting as they conceived of it." But if we accept that the riders' own conception of what is and isn't appropriate was itself created by these sorts of "edits" in the past, then you have to wonder what makes an edit accepted and not.

It seems here that the edit conflicted with the established conception of how it was to be used. One has to wonder, then, how bigger, more fundamental "edits" to spaces can occur once norms begin to take firmer root. How would a paradigm shift occur in this kind of space?

I think this is key when thinking about context and learning. The key "feature" of the space, it seems, isn't so much that it is designed with a particular "learning goal" in mind or anything of the sort. Rather, it allows each individual participant/learner to "co-opt it", so to speak - to relate to it in his own way, and to construct meaning that way. Given the same context, the expert or the novice will relate to the space differently - and it is exactly that "flexibility" of the space that makes it such a rich learning environment. Novices, experts, young, and old can be legitimate participants in this shared environment.

So when we have to consider "context" in relationship to learning, it is insufficient to think about how the physical layout of the skatepark does or does not promote learning opportunities. We must instead consider how that physical space, COMBINED with the norms and practices that emerge from the interactions of skaters with it, come together to promote learning

So then part of the relationship between the "bits" (being learning and context) is activity - both in order to create learning opportunities (editing) and as a result of participation (learning)

So skateboarders (here we don't know yet if it is all skateboarders or particular skateboarders) have rights/access and capabilities to alter the space for their purposes.

I think we can begin to see where the argument is going in terms the relationship between context and learning (or opportunities to learn) - they are mutual accomplished, or mutually enacted, influencing one another throughout (temporally) activity.

This is the type of analysis this theoretical lens can give! "together they produced a setting..."

A space socially constructed

Focusing on the events that skaters define as learning through identification and positioning (social and embodied).

This is important. Opportunities emerge from the the social production of space and the way that space is edited or disciplined.

Interesting. So Ma and Munter are pointing out that it is important to study the difference in produced setting from individuals and embrace the conflict/congruence.

Therefore, this article interrogates the social/interaction data obtained by different means.

This is a very important part, and is the driving "why" to study spaces like skateparks and other non-school places to better understand how learning can take place in school.

Same arena, different setting. The context in play changing the interaction with the surrounding space

Turning the arena into a setting for the trick. Context?

Artificial settings mimicking previously used structures. That is intended placement of the contextual environment I think

Edit: ... that is creating an arena to elicit reproduction of context

I like the discussion and consideration of Context as a dialectical relationship between setting and activity (both social interactions and isolated activity), but then adding in the factors of spatial arena and that there are many participants in the space, each with a specific and particular understanding. This is key in the relationship between context and learning that takes place within that context.

This really stood out to me throughout the reading. Talking (much like lecturing) is not necessary for learning to occur. Behavior and actions work as teaching tools instead.

Wow. Kind of harsh. Who gets to decide how this space is used? Just a paragraph up it says "the arena was, in fact, amenable to carving." So even though the space MAY be used for that, someone and some point established the rules against carving in that space. So is that the right of the old-timer? To set and enforce rules?

So different than a classroom. Here learning is so much dependent on observation and trial and error.

Definitely seems different than intent participation, more like guided participation. There is observation but participation is almost immediate. In this context, this seems the most valuable/effective way to learn a trip.

This is really interesting to me. While I think in general the best way to learn is by doing, this "rule" doesn't allow for different learning styles. There seems to be a sense of exclusivity in this community that I imagine can be really terrifying to new-comers.

The interplay between activity and setting allows for learning through participation in practices.

This is how Ma and Hunter define context.

how is this similar to/different from a figured world?

learning and teaching by doing/participating.

when is learning separate from participation in the CoP? Why would it be?

saw examples of all of these (except discipline) in my own observation

learning opportunities through positioning

Zack was limited in his ability to access the space or gain acceptance into the CoP and eventually left since his behavior didn't align with the values/goals of the CoP.

Here we see an instance where the oldtimers' perceived the design intention of the space to be in conflict with a newcomer's perception of what the space could/should be used for (I'm calling Zack a newcomer because he is described as a "novice skater"). But how would Zack know it isn't supposed to be used that way? What resources does he have to tell him that? How are newcomers acclimated to the space, given access, granted legitimate participation? Poor Zack :(

Following up on my initial comment about Laura explicitly naming that she is learning...None of the male skaters studied (or named in this article) explicitly acknowledge that what they're doing is engaging in a process of learning and teaching, even though all of them are. I would be interested to see if there is a connection to gender here.

interesting to me that this skater (Laura) explicitly states that she likes to use the mini ramp as a place for learning.

editing space, emergence of learning opportunities.

clarifying definition of learning and framing opportunities to learn as access to participation. "Opportunities to make contributions to the shared goals of the community" helps me better understand these concepts and ideas.

does this mean that skatepark skating is inauthentic or less credible/authentic than skating on the street? what if a skater has only ever skated in a skatepark? what are the differences in opportunities for learning in a skatepark versus on the street?

expanding on the difference between arena and setting. helpful.

wondering if skateparks are arenas or settings?

I feel like the word "colonize" has a negative connotation in most contexts and think it's interesting to think about when talking about skaters and how the public views them. Skaters tried (still try?) to use public spaces to practice skating but are redirected to skate parks or other arenas made just for skating to keep them "off the street" so to speak (not allowed to colonize spaces outside of these parks). There are a lot of stereotypes associated with skaters, many of them negative, but I think they'd hate to be seen as colonizers.

A space, is produced when/where people come together in informal, unstructured encounters of social diversity. This lens would see the skateparks of Ma and Minter as places where such spaces can be constructed

The city created an arena, teachers are providing setting and activity yet little, if any, learning is happening. What is the missing ingredient that skate parks have that field trips don't?

Is this similar to treatment of skaters and the creation of their "world in a box?" Although skaters edited the socially produced space, did creation of skateparks edit the neighborhood by creating boundaries for skaters?