8 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2015
    1. Yet, there is no denying thatbeing on Whyville was for us like being in a different world, whereas our afterschoolclub participants seamlessly joined the virtual community.

      Why is there a feeling of different access to participation? In what ways did they not have the ecology of action or the resources to participate (Heath, et al. 2002)? Because, unlike the case with Nasir and Cooks, there is not specific arbiter giviing the students more resources for participation in the community of practice.

  2. Sep 2015
    1. e it put the visitor in a very active role as learner:experimenting, hypothesizing, interpreting, and drawing conclusions

      Something they get very little of in the in-school context. The only time I can think of people participating in this type of exploration is during science lab experiments. Even though this knowledge at the museum is not specific to something it still encourages critical thinking.

    1. In particular, we wish toconsider the ways in which we can take ‘low-tech’, tangible objects andrefashion or augment them to engender interaction and co-participation

      Interested in doing this for what purpose? Is it to see how the viewer will change their participation? Is it to see the difference in participation among object that do not encompass this augmented fashion?

    2. the article isconcerned with the ways in which people, in interaction with each other, boththose they are with and others who happen to be in the same space, reflexivelyconstitute the sense and significance of objects and artefacts, how theengagement with the artefact emerges in different ways for differentparticipants, and the ways in which those material features, and the ecologyin which they lie, reflexively inform the production and intelligibility ofconduct and interaction

      The complexity of this, and what they are concerned with fascinates me. I think it is so interesting to explore this type of interaction. The interaction with an object and the viewer, and the subconscious participation of the viewer in the context that the object is being displayed in.

    3. It is surprising that the substantial body of research concerned withhow people discern and discover the functionality and affordances of objectsremains principally concerned with the cognitive abilities they bring to bearin perception rather than with the social circumstances in which objects andartefacts are seen and discovered.

      Similar from before. They are stressing here that we need to focus on the social interactions in conjunction with artifacts and objects to get a better picture of learning.

    4. The active spectator becomesengaged with a sequence of moments portrayed in asingle image.

      Important point. However, I wonder what denotes someone as an "active" spectator...

    5. We can see, for example, how through interactionparticipants discover and reflexively create the sense and significance of theinstallation and its various components, their playful actions and activitiesgiving a flavour or character to the piece and the surrounding artefacts.Indeed, as people enter the scene and see others exploring and playing withthe piece

      Interaction seems to facilitate more meaningful connections with the piece--I especially like the idea of interactions with strangers.

    6. ather, the very response may be designed to facilitateand engender particular forms of co-participation, and to enable others tosee and experience what you have seen in the ways that you saw it.

      Perhaps co-participation is a way to strengthen over-all participation.