do we ever define what this means?

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"

and how might the cultural practices of the same diasporic community in different locations differ based on the context they find themselves in? For example, Irish Catholics in Boston v. Irish Catholics New York? etc

makes me think of LPP and the role of internships. actually seeing how persons are busy, active and making sense" physical proof

Which in the end is the point, right? TO understand the complexity of human activity. This is also referencing the fields of knowledge

Interesting way of combining and situating resources (objects), FoK (cultural meanings), and identities along with time-space.

Here I think of islands of expertise to which the role parents play in cultivating children's islands, however taking it further to say that participation and learning move across spaces.

This advice would have served Nasir and Cooks a little better. It is important to own and understand your particpation as observer to see patterns and contradictions in social phenomena. Taylor and Hall really heed this advice in their "counter mapping" study.

The point of this class is to push us out of this, and give us the theoretical lens to academically investigate it.

This seems a lot like Pickeing's need for temporal senses of agency in "the mangle." --- Opps sorry wrong class

As Sarah spoke about it above, Kelton's dissertation (chapters 5, 6 and 7) spoke to this quite a bit, as she investigated salience (and dis-junction) between schooling and the exhibit, over multiple spaces (in "real time").

Can the teacher become a student and the student become a teacher? Why is this idea so appalling to some?

I like this concept of the "third space" or what I've read as liminality in other pieces. I actually wrote in the margin of my notes for Lave & Wenger Ch 2 "liminality" so maybe my question before about if L&W would agree about this "horizontal" movement is answered here. No matter the situation, there is a period of liminality or existence in this "third space" as one learns to adapt to and become a member

I'm trying to determine if this is different to the AA examples in Lave & Wenger. There's a lot of discussion there about the movement from newcomer to old-timer, but do Lave & Wenger look at this movement as being vertical or are they more open to horizontal movement? I know in class we have discussed this horizontal movement (before we had a term for it) but I can't recall/find if Lave & Wenger discussed it in this way. I know they didn't use these terms, there are many times when the say something along the lines of "when the newcomer becomes an old-timer..."

This fluidity described here is reminiscent of Nasir's hurdlers. I find some similarities here between Nasir's idea that learning and identity are related, but still independent, and that the self is constantly changing due to interactions with "teachers" and through the process of learning.

This has me thinking of the youth activism piece on intent participation. Using this lens I think would have helped add to the study in ways I was hoping even when I read it - what did participation in the youth activist groups mean in terms of the rest of those youth's daily lives? And what aspects of those lives were they bringing into the activist setting that went hidden without this kind of lens?

This seems to be part of the perspective of the Kelton piece from last week in that she followed kids across settings. Her focus was in embodied learning, we might think of other phenomenons she might of look at as well.

This is interesting. How does 'disciplined subjectivity' work?

This makes me think of FoK. Moll et al talked about students using their previous knowledge about wars to bring to the classroom discussion or about the students who have to deal with paperwork for their immigrant parents. This idea of outside school lives being a deficit is essential to thinking about why equity is not possible in the classroom. Also focussing on expertise as a strength speaks to the islands of expertise reading. If students master topics, then they are able to use that knowledge or the skills they gained to apply to new situations and understanding- this should be recognized as a strength!

This reminds me of Ball & Heath dance piece where students devised a new report script of a school report. They use a hybrid language (American standard and AAV) and everyday experiences (shootings) to construct their identity.

This reminds me of Becker's paper on the problems with school and how students are removed from curriculum & classroom planning. However, Becker didn't address students' 'histories of participation' as a lens for best practice learning ecologies.

This 'shift' in participation is very closely tied yo LPP (Lave & Wenger). They describe learning as a 'movement' understanding the mobility in one's participation within these practices, but also leave the possibility of a reinvention, or a new interest. `

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.

This seems to be a crucial piece of multi-sited work. I think this could apply to the case of the non-drinking alcoholics, because there is so much to this identity and the community of practice that occurs as activity systems outside of their "safe space" in AA meetings. Although maybe not as visible as the activity in AA meetings, daily activities, interactions, motivations are all linked to and inform the identity practice of being a non-drinking alcoholic

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.

I think this is a lot of the ethos that has permeated many of our readings - I think especially evident with the skatepark reading. They go on to say that this research would help "challenge the 'fallacy that school-like learning tasks necessarily require greater capacity for higher order thinking than do everyday tasks."

I thought it was interesting how they feel the argument needs to be challenged, rather than the premise itself: It seems like we take it as fact that school tasks and everyday tasks are different things.

This reminded me of the midwives examples in L&W, where I think the distinction between the "everyday" and the "learning environment" were naturally very, very blurred.

I really like this emphasis on power dynamics in movement. I think this comes into play in the Counter-Mapping article, which I understand to be actively and intentionally redistributing privilege for the young people. they are given the opportunity for movement and meaning-making which is historically relegated to dominant groups in power

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.

This notion certainly maps well to the example of the extended families that we see when we discussed Funds of Knowledge. The emphasis here on physical places could help us broaden our view of funds of knowledge, perhaps thinking that different physical spaces could themselves offer access to different funds of knowledge.

Is FoK an example of this or are they the same?

This reminds me of field trips to "downtown," a downtown that was sterilized and produced. How the space was created sets boundaries for particular participants. Downtown becomes reshaped as a gentrified neighborhood, losing the characteristics that made it uniquely downtown.

Is Rogoff the only author that challenged the "culture of poverty?" Most authors challenged context of learning but not the student doing the learning. Is that correct?

This makes me think of the culture of skateparks. From the skaters I spoke to, the habits and work ethic developed by skaters carried over to other areas of their life. They identified as skaters even if they weren't still avid skaters and they felt it was a sign of integrity. They were transformed through this learning.

As seen through Rogoff's families in the Arizona borderlands, they have FoKs and rely on each other as resources to make their transition to the states. Their resourcefulness cannot be discounted.

This idea reminds me of Azevedo's lines of practice. Subjects come to a hobby with varying degrees interest and motivations. It feels like the authors want us to consider what students come to learning with, what interests, motivations, backgrounds that inform and enhance their learning.

I was thinking of L&W tailors when I read this. The taiolors' reading was very specific about their learning in that situation but did not offer anything in the way of what the apprentice brought to the workshop, their culture, their customs, that necessitated this arrangement.

[note that I couldn't create an annotation when I highlighted across two pages - I intended this to be commenting up until the end of the paragraph on the next page]

This helps a bit to answer my question from above - but I think it also relates to our conversations this week about desettling disciplines vs. desettling learning in general. Desettling can (and should) happen both outside and inside school, but it's also important to remember that definitional boundaries do exist for a reason, and practitioners should use caution and not just desettle for desettling's sake.

Here the authors are saying that understanding how cultural context affects learning across sites is critical to understanding how learning is happening.

This connects with Nespor's (multisited) research on field trips, where the docents did not take any sort of context into account - they just gave over their script the same way they would have for any other group. Nespor described how this was especially problematic for a mostly African American group visiting Monticello, since they completely obfuscated any historical references to slavery.

Using the kind of framework that Vossoughi & Gutiérrez are advocating for only further underlines Nespor's point that educators need to take into account an understanding of the whole person - including their cultural perspective - otherwise they'll lose interest before walking in the door.

Utilizing the theoreitical underpinning of later Latour, the Bell, et al., are arguing for a theoretical framework that aims to interpret the reproduction of larger structures of inequity and heirarchy by examining the "social and material conditions" that surround interactions in everyday life. The focus on social-material is somewhat similar to the "multisited" theoretical lens described in the other piece. There they clamor for frames and tools to help with: "Understanding the ways material/intellectual borders function to shape and constrain young people’s experiences and developmental trajectories is also essential to recognizing the spaces available for generative transgression and remediation (Cole & Griffin, 1983; Gutiérrez, 2008)." (p.625 Vossoughi, S., & Gutiérrez, K. D., 2014)

Both theoretical lens focus on how social-material contexts "shape and constrain" student identity and identity formation. However, Vossoughi and Gutierrez believe that this can be better understood by seeing similar groups in different contexts, and contrasting the phenomena that occur. While Bell, et al., and their cultural pathways, theorize stretching the specific phenomena across different spaces and time scales in order to get a better understanding of the different ways learner identity is shapes, can be shaped, and can shape contexts.

Here we see that while Vossoughi & Gutiérrez focus on research methods on what to evaluate, here the author suggests that the student's perception of themselves plays a role. The previous article discussed how to think of students in these situations as not having deficits, but it seemed like a unilateral viewpoint, whereas this author evaluates learning from both standpoints.

This is similar to multi-sited learning, but at the same time there are varying characteristics. Pathways focusses more on the socio-cultural situations that students inhibit, whereas multi-sited focussed more on their settings of learning.

This is very similar to the multi-sited learning article. However, this is interesting because it puts the emphasis on the learner needing to adapt these skills, whereas the other article was focussing on the lens in which the learner is assessed.