aha

I'm curious what impact this has on identity. Did they do any research on that?

I'm also thinking about the diversity of the community on campus I work with and our value of pluralism. What do we do when certain practices within the CoP differ but pluralism is really important to achieve? Could we analyze that using this framework?

how do they measure this?

I haven't read all the way through yet but I wonder if this will touch on how this plays out in school settings (even though it seems like the focus of this particular article will be on outside the classroom learning). I imagine that privilege and marginalization come up a lot in school settings and that privileged students have far more learning opportunities outside the classroom than marginalized students. How does that play out?

I guess we'll see!

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.

The individual learning experience here (the "site") is repurposed by the student, to suit his interests. The idea, though, is that repurposing happens so that the student can mold that experience in a way where it then becomes useful to him/her in other situations, or with other communities

The image of a complicated, multi-dimensional web comes to mind. Rather than just the focus on different sites, it seems to me that part of the argument here is that there are several different "situated events" that make up part of a learning path. These would be like nodes in a graph. Individuals learning trajectory, then, traces a path connecting these nodes. Each of these nodes represent a very specific context (time, place, etc.). Therefore, one way to think about learning is thinking about the connections that a learner makes between these situated events -- in other words, you can think about the web that he "creates" bringing all of these events together.

the multi-sited framework seemed mostly concern with how the different sites would contribute differently or help paint a more robust picture of the learner's development. It seems that here we are taking that basic idea and adding more dimensions to it, such as a temporal component. At any given time, then, a learner is inhabiting a specific space, but he is also sharing it with others. These practices have"complex temporal rhythms", and so at any given time the nature of the practice - even if in the same place and with the same people - may change.

interesting to see how learning differs for people in the same context. I would think that the meaning people would create in connected different sites of knowledge as being different, but not what is actually being learned.

Apologizing for my rant I think this is what is missing from schools, the ability to take the knowledge they are learning in the classroom and apply it across settings. Which would make someone support LPP, but really learning in the classroom is just as useful as learning outside the classroom. I just think the connection needs to be made between the two. Which also references Vossoughi & Gutiérrez ideas about multisited learning.

I like this because it is highlight all the learning that exists across an individual's life. Similar to Vossoughi & Gutiérrez idea of multisited.

Very similar to Vossoughi & Gutiérrez's "multi-sited perspectives contribute to this discussion by urging us to pay equal attention to the practices and forms of human ingenuity that emerge in and through the connections/tensions/contradictions within and across various social spaces and activity systems—particularly for non-dominant youth"

They both focus on the connections between activity and practice across space. They may differ in the sense of time of these connections last?

This is a really loaded sentence for me. First of all, it connects to the earliest discussed ideas of "schools as a lousy place to learn" by Becker and issues of access (ex. butchers) by L&W. Second, institutional could mean the physical place, or the less physical but more important power/control relationships (probably both). Next, "inviting or prohibiting opportunities" points at he impact these institutions (not just individuals like teachers or master butchers) have on who gets to be a part of a community. Finally, this sentence in the midst of the author's description of situated events as a constellation is really reminding me of the multisited paper in that there is overlap between systems (or communities of practice) for a person and that often what happens in one is not only connected to the happenings in another, but might literally overflow into and impact the other.

This is similar to the multisited article in that it acknowledges that learning happens both within multiple setting and across them (and time). It also has me wondering something new that I didn't think of when I read the other paper and that is, how much of this "figuring out" is necessarily conscious? In what ways are we (in every setting) applying/adapting/repurposing knowledge from other settings (CoPs/islands of expertise) in order to be successful in the new setting (and thus to create new knowledge)?

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 makes me think of our #posing reading and our reading on museum visitors. These places are shaped for specific visitor experiences- though the interpretations vary.

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.

pathways extends the multi-sited ethnography by acknowledging the shifting stances of the learner based on events that unfold depending on the context.

pathways situates learning in the setting with strong concentration on the learner and their understanding of the dynamics at play. This is a more complex view of learning as it considers the person, politics, setting and culture.

Where #multisited focuses on contexts, #pathways focuses on multi-cultural. It's not just how people learn from setting to setting, but what they learn from setting to setting and how sometimes there is support for that learning and other times it's devalued.

This is similar to #multisited, learning in a variety of contexts, in and out of the classroom, and using that knowledge to transform in each context.