188 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. are not only denied labels, such as mathematics doers, tinkerers, knowers, and legitimate observers, but inherit labels of academic disidentification

      to perpetuate the official script of who can/is a math/science (or just plain successful) student, others must fall victim to stereotype framing. In schools today Ahmed and the girls stand in the way of preserving a white, male, and Fictional narrative around who is/can do math/science.

  2. Oct 2016
    1. he field is in a state of perturbation, with prospects of a new equilibrium not yet in sight.

      I wonder if she uses "perturbation" and "equilibrium" in a sarcastic way? She self-identifies with Wittgenstein and Vygotsky...

  3. Jul 2016
    1. "schoolin' 'fore school.

      An interesting phrase. What might be the importance she saw in he grandson going to nursery school? Getting ahead even earlier? Getting out of Trackton?

    2. The link between mother and son lasts the longest and is the strongest. Young men often father and support children who remain with their natural mothers;

      A matriarchal center in the families. Heath adds in the endnotes that this pattern is common in black communities and important to understanding Trackton, but rarely mentioned in past literature

    3. He's twelve years old, 'n we're very proud of him, that he's turnin' out to be a good boy, an excellent student.

      Age old "goodness" tied to academic success

    4. Roadville people most appreciate recreation and entertainment which lets the observer in on how to be a participant. If it is not something to do, Roadville residents-young and old-are not interested.

      This is really interesting to me. Heath makes a strong distinction between entertainment in Roadville and later entertainment in Trackton (the Friday-Sunday "performance" of goodies and groceries). What might this distiction mean for language development?

    5. There is not enough work around to satisfy expectations that the young acquire the habit of hard work.

      There is a clear sense of "work ethic" in Roadville. Chores in place of "real work" to make sure children still learn what it means to do hard work. Additionally, efforts here to work hard are connected to money and having it to spend. (Later we see that a strong work ethic in Trackton also, but not the same spending habits).

    6. Within both perspectives is an appreciation of what the mill has done for the family.

      Regardless of which perspective a community member has, or whether or not they themselves work in the mill, there is a common respect for the milling industry's place in their family history.

      I am interested to see this connection to the past as a foundation explored more hopefully later on. What does this history mean to those who still work in the mill versus those who either live in the community but work elsewhere or have left altogether.

    Annotators

    1. Townspeople wanted to transmit their own values to the mill people, removing their "country" attitudes, unacceptable speech habits, and slovenly ways.

      "Reform" a.k.a. overwrite

    Annotators

    1. The Trackton blacks and Roadville whites described in this book have different ways of using language in worship, for social control, and in asserting their sense of identity. They do so, however, because they have had different historical forces shaping these ways.

      Race doesn't stand alone in their language development

    2. For my work on children learning language in the two com-munities, I focused primarily on the face-to-face network in which each child learns the ways of acting, believing, and valuing of those about him.

      Extremely local (individual) foci to get a sense of the "broader" community.

    3. To categorize children and their families on the basis of either socioeconomic class or race and then to link these categories to discrete language differences was to ignore the realities of the communicative patterns of the region.

      Regional way of life has to be taken into account (no hard lines can be drawn by way of race or economics alone).

    4. Both communities define their lives primarily in terms of their communities and their jobs, yet both are tied in countless ways to the commercial, political, and educational interests of the townspeople -mainstream blacks and whites of the region.

      Background on the social structures of each community, each tied to, but not defined by, what went on in the greater town area. (Thinking of ties to modern day neighborhoods and what that word means depending on where in the country you are). Does it have this sort of impact on how individuals define/see themselves today? Have the same kind of impact on development (language or otherwise)?

    Annotators

  4. Nov 2015
    1. he availability of Google Mapsand other similar servicesdecreases the demand for learning from users

      The way you wrote this sentence makes me think about Allen's concept of "immediate apprehendability" taking some of the cognitive burden off of museum visitors so they could focus on the more challenging things. I wonder if that concept might be helpful for you here? What other things were these relative newcomers able to focus on or able to learn because Google Maps made some of what they needed immediately apprehendable?

    1. Privacy doesn’t just depend on agency; being able to achieve privacy is an expression of agency
    2. Through the act of sharing what appears to be everything, bloggers like Armstrong appear to be vul-nerable and open while still carving off a portion of their lives to keep truly private

      This has me thinking about identity creation in one of the ways the authors of "your second selves" talked about it in creating avatars in Whyville - the functionality of an avatar. Creating and using the online identity for a particular purpose.

    3. ocial steg-anography,” or hiding messages in plain sight by leveraging shared knowledge and cues embedded in particular social contexts

      How about when people post cryptic FB statuses that only people in their social group can interpret? Is that a form of social stenography?

    4. Public discourse around privacy often centers on hiding or opting out of public environments, whereas scholars and engineers often focus more on controlling the flow of information.

      These do seem like two very distinct ways of thinking about privacy. What is the implication then of a constituent voting for their representative (or other government official) to "protect their right to privacy" if they have such different ideas about what that means?

    5. Eti-quette and politeness operate as a social force that challenges what’s functionally possible.

      I am wondering about etiquette as a social force online. Does it get washed away in some regards? For example the prominent term "facebook stalking" to mean seems similar to the face-to-face version of staring or entering into a strangers conversation. Since there is no tracking available for the FB user to see who has been on their profile and how long, the force or pressure not to stalk is not there. I think it would change FB drastically if such statistics were available.

    1. Most teens aren’t addicted to social media; if anything, they’re addicted to each other

      This is a really interesting spin on the conversation that is new to me. I have to say it is a really intriguing way to look at it. I am also thinking that this addiction to each other could be positive or negative (or somewhere in between). I am thinking right now particularly about online bullying and how the existence of online sites perpetuate - or at least give the platform for - the bullies in school and the bullied in school continue their interactions

    2. Deep engagement does not seem to be a problem in and of itself, unless coupled with a practice that is socially unacceptable, physically dam-aging, or financially costly.

      If this is true, then why do users self-describe as addicted to social media? Especially when we live in an ever more online and technologically driven world.

    3. adult

      By adults, I am assuming the authors mean adults that grew up without the internet in their home and easily/readily accessible? (Which soon will include only those over 30)

    1. “horizon of observation”15andcould act as a peripheral participant to Johnny and Mikey’s pla

      This phrase definitely has me thinking about intent participation and also has me thinking back to Ma & Munter with the same connection. Like Maddy, skaters often sat in this "on deck" position waiting for the right opportunity to participate.

    1. One might imagine that with over 30,000 faceparts for avatars, there would be no lack of diversity, but even virtual worlds are notthe color-blind utopia, they have often been portrayed to be in early media reports.Racial issues also come to the forefront in Whyville, as our article ‘‘‘Blacks deservebodies too!’ Diversity and Race in a Virtual World’’ illustrates (Kafai et al., 2010).

      I wonder here about the motivations to choose a particular skin color. Whether players statistically choose the race they are in real life or one that is opposite.

    2. Playerscan also design their own homes in Myville, where land lots can be purchased andhouses can be built and furnished (see Figure 7). In 2002, we found over 8,000houses; their designs varied dramatically (Tynes & Kafai, 2003)

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

    3. Only the knowledge of an insider com-mand allows one to visit these more remote places (Fields & Kafai, 2009

      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)

    4. Face Parts in Akbar’s

      Something that is both bothering me about Whyville and interesting to me in terms of our other readings is the focus of the game on creating or changing the "faceparts" of the avatar. It bothers me for reasons Raquel mentioned earlier about "preparing them" (or i might say "figuring them into" a world that values beauty and perfection above a lot else. But it is also a really interesting take on Ma and Munter's idea of editing space. Maybe this is a stretch, but I am subbing out "spaces" in the sense of where we interact or "are" with the avatar - thus the player - who gets edited but also does the editing. Maybe it's too weird and doesn't work, but it seems like the player would be impacted and impacting their experience of the world at the same time.

    1. differ

      Differ how? I can think of at least a few ways of interest for our class: in their enacted identities, in how they participate, in how they use the space. I am wanting that in your question, but I like the division of week and weekend.

    2. Icomparedthetwotoseewhatwassimilarandwhatwasdifferentandwasabletoseedifferences

      Were there themes or kinds of people or usages of the space as particular kinds of settings during the week that weren't present on the weekend? (And vice versa). Were there different kinds of learning or learning processes that you could tell?

    3. NexttomeforaboutanhourwasamanwhowasworkingonpresentationinwhatseemedtobeChinese,alsodressedinworkclothes(dresspants,andbuttondownshirt)

      You do a nice job of drawing up images of the people you observed. I can really visualize them.

    4. Theparentandchildwouldthensitdownatatableandwouldtalkabouttheirweekend.

      Again I am thinking of Ma and Munter here and the editing of spaces.

    5. Itwasinterestingtoobservethechangeincrowdovertheweekendincomparisontoduringtheworkweek.

      Did you see the setting change during the weekend versus your observations during the week? (I am using setting in the way Ma and Munter do to invoke the idea of who is in/using the space changing its purpose).

      Might be an interesting lens that supports working on your RQ as you outline it in the FR.

    6. somethingtoeatandleaving

      I am interested in your expectations - I started to think about how I might use that space on the weekend as opposed to the weekday and I think I would be in more of a rush M-F and might spend more time there on the weekend. (This comment is more of a side anecdote/different point of view than anything else)

    7. theonlyperspectivethatIhaveformyobservationsisthatspecifictimepoint

      I think this was a really important noticing on your part as a researcher. Observing at the same time of day/same days of the week might have a purpose if you were studying or looking for one kind of starbucks user, but since your questions have thus far (FR5) been about the broader use of starbucks these other observations are important.

      Have you thought at all about going to other starbucks? Or are the particular interests for you at this particular starbucks?

    8. FieldReport7

      (I didn't know where to put this comment so I stuck it at the top, but it applies throughout the report.) I was missing an idea of what theories/conceptual ideas you were using as your observational lens. I went back to you FR5 and saw that there you used LPP and ideas of formation of "starbucks identities" through language development and learning by observation of others. Is that still the lens you are using or have other readings taken hold as more pertinent to your study?

      If you are on the fence, the idea of intent participation might add some insight into the questions you asked in that report.

    1. n this way, the institutional constraints of places [Drei-er, 2009] have the power to invite or prohibit opportunities for action [Lefebvre, 1991], and therefore the power to position actors within places as having certain rights and duties.

      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.

    2. Learners need to figure out how to adapt their abilities, interests, and identities across a diverse set of locations on a routine basis as they attempt to accomplish their goals or respond to the interests of other social ac-tors. When they are successful, this allows learners, sometimes in collaboration with other social actors in the setting, to create connected and thereby extended learning pathways that learners can benefit from

      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)?

    1. young people forge new connections and forms of resistance, and partici-pate in the creation of hybrid environments and tools

      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?

    2. We draw from this definition a sense of the researcher as deliberately seek-ing out additional sites and lines of inquiry in the pursuit of a more com-plex and layered understanding of the phenomenon or cultural practice under study.

      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.

    3. multi-sited ethnography

      Following people and things (objects, cultural assumptions, etc) across different contexts to see "what takes hold"

    4. our work is organized around the prin-ciples that people are part of multiple activity systems, and that learning should be studied accordingly.

      This has me thinking about activity systems in a new way - as related to CoP (chosen over FW because of the agency factor in both). They are not the same cause an activity system produces some kind of object, but they do hint at a connection in that overlapping CoP and overlapping activity systems both produce new versions of each respectively.

  5. Oct 2015
    1. It is through this cycle of pose, comparison, focus, adjustment that meaning emerges. Posing isalso related to talk, and visitors are talking and posing as they interact with art and each other. Thatis, we may understand meaning making as the progression of this posing cycle in coordinationwith dialogical processes.

      Clearly stated argument about the "posing cycle" and how it outlines the meaning making progression.

    2. Episode 2

      Here we get a different example of posing, one that is explicitly asked for by the exhibition. This is contrasted by the first example where it seemed that posing emerged organically as a meaning making tool in conversation.

      Still, even in the explicit request of the exhibit for posing, learning is happening in their efforts to figure out what it is they have to change to correctly replicate the image.

    3. She re-creates the pose, and only then begins to formulatethe question, suggesting that the pose begins as an attempt to make sense of the work for herself.Only then, seeming to seek a causal explanation, she asks the question. This question, though, isarticulated with both words and gesture.

      A nice example of attempts at meaning making through a coordination of gesture, gaze, talk and posing in an interaction between two people.

      The authors argue here that the pose helps formulate and externalize her question in an effort to interpret the artwork with her friend.

    4. Thus visitors posing with artwork are engaged in a reflexive process making meaningabout gesture itself. By performing a pose, visitors are implicitly assigning intentionality to theartist, and a pose may be understood as a “posed question” about the potential meanings of awork.

      Posing as a combination of social activity and conceptual work being done to make meaning about the artwork. If we are accepting this pose as a "posed question" do visitors ever get an "answer"? Do they know they are asking a question?

    5. Meaning is not presented by gesturebut develops, in part, through gestural interaction.

      I feel like maybe where this is going is that that the gestural act of posing is not a presentation of meaning but a participant in the act of meaning making (learning), let's see..

    6. In contrast with models of individual interpretive processes, this study is grounded in a socio-cultural perspective on meaning making. An individual’s meaning making processes are situatedin overlapping personal, physical, and sociocultural contexts

      Thus, the framework considers meaning making as occurring through and across interactions between people and context and material and time rather than it being something one does on their own.

    7. In this article, I attempt to extend current understandings of visitor meaning making processesin art museums by incorporating aspects of the physical experience. Specifically, I identify certainposing activities as embodied action related to particular forms of gesture. These poses medi-ate the intertwined processes of social interaction on the intermental plane and psychologicalprocesses on the intramental plane (Vygotsky,1978; Wertsch,1985,1998). I argue that theseprocesses may be understood as central to meaning making

      Main argument/aim of the article

    8. aform of participation with these places.

      This reminds me of Ma & Munter's argument about interaction in and with physical spaces as part of co-construction of the space as a certain kind of setting.

    1. It asks,and prompts its visitors to ask,“What counts as mathematics?”

      Really appreciating that this is where the "de-settling" argument ended up. That is not just another way to teach or to learn the same old mathematics that we've been doing, but that it shakes math to its core and asks what else is math? How might we know? How might we interact with it? And these are all questions about learning that might be best answered with our bodies, our experiences, etc. Awesome

    2. The desettling potential of the exhibition is further intimatedby how salient and surprising the exhibition’s embodied modalities and materialities were for the students.

      Evidence of the impact of Math Moves! on ideas about the learning of mathematics

    3. I have increasingly come to view Math Moves! as a practice of desettling tacit mind-body dualist assumptions that narrowly delimit mathematical sense-making

      I see Kelton's argument about bodies and learning to be two fold, first that embodied learning is a valid and important activity for the math classroom - and tied to that is that examples of embodied learning push on what she considers out of date and incorrect ideas about mathematics being something without culture and "bodiless"

    4. a fleshier epistemology of mathematical knowledge.

      I absolutely love this description!

    5. Motivated by the conjecture that even the most apparently abstract mathematical concepts are ultimately understood in terms of concrete body-based experience

      This is an important point, that it isn't just the things that are obviously appropriate for the body (E.g., measuring) that count for learning with embodied experience, but that even the seemingly most abstract ideas boil down to "body-based" experiences. (And Kelton says a little later on that not only can they be embodied, but they should be - to challenge the traditional disembodied notion of math).

    6. Math Moves!is not so muchan alternative way to the mountaintopas it is a proposal to re-envisionthe landscape itself. Through itsbody-based and materials-rich design,the exhibition stages a confrontation withlong-standing disembodied and immaterial philosophies of mathematics

      Math Moves! and embodied learning not as "just another path to the same destination" but a re-envisioning of the destination itself. It supports seeing learning math, and learning in general, as affected by the body if engaged.

    7. mapping each of these to a specific exhibit in Math Moves!.

      I think this points to one of Kelton's ideas about the connection of bodies and learning, that you can call on past shared experiences of bodily movement and exploration in meaningful ways after the experience is over and the students' physical location is different.

    8. Ms. Collins has urgedthem to forgo standard measurement toolsin favor of using their bodies alone to hunt downtheobjects.

      I really like this idea of putting aside "standard" tools and using bodies instead. Using what they have naturally supports reasoning about the space around them in a new way and it validates their embodied experiences as legitimate tools for understanding and reasoning.

    9. The exhibition’s emphasis on somatic experience and whole-body movement layers incongruously over the classroomenvironment,built for quite a different suite of activities.

      The teacher's effort to bring the museum into the classroom highlights ways in which the classroom is not designed for embodied learning.

    10. Players can vary the game by alternating whether Whole or Half takes the lead, or experimenting with different fractions. Another version of the game played during the North Lake preparation activities involves whole-body ambulation; as Whole walks some trajectory through the classroom, Half responds by walking that same path at half the speed. Again, this version of the game can be modifiedto include different speed relationships and variations in leadership

      The "whole half" game makes the students' bodies part of the effort of understanding ratio relationships. Not only are their bodies involved, but the coordination of more than one body is necessary to correctly exhibit what the whole and what the half is. Learning is happening with whole bodies, actions by bodies, and coordination of bodies.

    11. The classroom’s peripheries and in-between nooks are newly in demand because they accommodate the kinds of free-range physical movement entailed by the game.

      The students are getting ready to "pretend they are at the museum" and to play "whole half". It isn't stated, but it seems they might have played this game before as they get right up and begin moving around.

    12. At both North Lake and Maple, these social-grouping rearrangements ramified all the way into the classroom spaces during the days surrounding the trip, with students temporarily re-assigned to different desks basedon their field-trip pairings

      The "typical organization" of students in the classroom was physically disrupted not only at the museum, but in the days leading up to and after the trip (based on trip pairings). Based on the descriptions of sorts of pairings from above, this seems to have worked out to the approval of some students, but maybe not all.

      Kelton hasn't made any arguments yet about learning in this chapter, but I could see one coming out of this "disruption". Supporting student interdependence by giving them a chance to have an experience together and then bring that back into the classroom.

    1. We thought of these activities as a form of ground truthing,5asking youth tocompare their on-the-ground experience with what was shown on a map, and encouragingthem to consider how changes to the map could better support their needs or interests.

      I see learning developing through this coordination of the mobile experience and looking at the map, where both are methods or tools for exploring the same space with very different (but not contrasting) affordances.

    2. . Second, spatial literacy is an important component of civic engagementsince many democratic processes of urban development rely on representations of spaceand residents’ sustained reflection on experiences within lived spaces. Third, and criticalfor more inclusive civic participation, youth are typically not viewed as participatory‘‘stakeholders’’ in processes of urban development

      This screams Nespor's issues with field trips to certain "container" locations.

    1. Iexaminetransformationsinthenatureofpublicspacesforchildren,andtheschool’sroleinproducingthosespaces.Spaceistreatedasaproductofsocialpractice,notsimplyaframeforit.Icontendthat,asyoungchildrenareincreasinglyimmobilizedinurbanlandscapes,school®eldtripsbecomecriticaloccasionsforintroducingthemto,andframingtheirparticipa-tionin,publicspaces

      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.

    2. itconnectedschoolspacetothereconstructeddowntown,andinarticulatingthisconnectionproducedaperformanceofthepublicrealmandchildren’splacewithinit.

      I don't know exactly where I sit with this article. On the one hand I appreciate this sentiment of field trips as a having potential to open new worlds or spaces to children and allow them to begin to see themselves in it. But on the other hand, they are only allowed to explore that world in controlled ways, thus only supporting identity creation that matches the space developers image of what students should do/be in the space and that feels both constrained in the immediate interaction and potentially politically/socially limiting for them down the road when they might have a chance to be in the space as adults or teenagers.

    3. kidscouldbemovedaboutinorderly,controlledgroups,coordinatedintofestiveactivities(e.g.Halloweenparties),and,thus,transformedintoelementsofthenewaestheticlandscape.

      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.

    4. apublicspace(andnotalwaysabenignone)

      So this kind of "familiarized locale" is a kind of public space and has "ways of being" - which seems different that "ways of being produced"?

    1. Laura finally successfully executed the part of the trick that she initially asked about (“Howdo you get up there?” [2.07]), and Austin acknowledged her success [2.13–2.17]. He offeredher another turn, sitting down in a chair in the corner of the platform [2.19]. After they eachtook a few more turns, Austin gave her some advice about her back truck. Laura acknowledgedhis suggestion, tried it, then asked for some clarification. Austin responded by dropping in anddemonstrating [2.23–2.25].

      These two participants show a nice example of how guided participation can flow seamlessly from intent participation, to apprenticeship, to joint work, and back again in one interaction.

    2. Opportunities to participate in the practices of thesetwo parks emerged as skaters, in activity, engaged the spaces around them in different ways.

      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)

    3. collective activity of skateboarders throughout history hasmotivated the iterations of the designed arena of the skatepark

      go students for getting this up above! :)

    4. by examining how skaters“edit” spaces

      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.

    5. spaces of learning as more complex than simply prefabricated containersand as passive background to activity. We consider how material arrangements in the built envi-ronment of skateparks are recruited by and simultaneously influence skateboarders’ learning

      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.

    1. Inoticedhowvisitorswereinteractingwiththemanycomputershere

      What were some of the ways? You mentioned how they weren't interacting (at least not directly) below when you talk about the "humans" at the desk as one. Where there people that seemed to know what they were doing at the computers? People trying to use them alone? People obviously frustrated or having trouble using them?

      Also, did you notice other ways that they tried to "tap into them" as part of the FoK? Like asking a fellow visitor or trying to figure them out themselves?

    2. Thesocialenvironmentdoesnottakeaneutralviewtowardstheacquisitionofknowledgeandskill,butisinsteadhighlyinterested,andoftendirective,controllingorevendenyingaccesstoinformation

      I know we talked on Slack about how to really take advantage of Moll et. al and the concept of FoK. I think it would be helpful to see if what you observe lines up (or how it compares/contrasts) with what they wrote on (the households and classrooms).

      Their argument in terms of the material resources is that they play an active role in the mediation/negotiation of learning in the social environment.

      So, for example, they talk about how people in the household develop strategies to obtain and use material resources through the social relationships in the home. That sounds like something that could be mapped onto the library setting (I'm thinking of visitors have strategies - such as maybe going to the information table - to get access to the computers, just as an example).

    3. Mollet.al.

      I think this is a good fit theoretically for your observation. Although I haven't been to the Brooklyn Library, from your description above, it is pretty reliant on material resources - but they aren't always used to best support the users (the visitors).

    4. resourcesarebeingpositionedtotapintothefundsofknowledge

      I know we talked about this over chat in Slack as well, but I want to pull that conversation over here and also expand on it. I asked you: Are you interested in how the resources are positioned so that people can tap into FoK or the actual resources can? Or are you considering the resources as participants in interactions that have agency like humans? - you replied that you were interested in how the resources tap in in order to leverage the Foks of the diverse heterogenous users.

      After thinking on it more (and rereading Moll), understand your interest to be something along the lines of: You want to look at the computers and how they support/constrain library visitors tapping into the FoK and how they mediate learning in the social environment?

    5. Theinformationdeskstaffwereconstantlyoutoftheirseatsteachingpeoplehowtousethecomputerstoaccomplishtheirgoals

      So you might say the staff were key resources in positioning the computers as part of the visitors' potential FoK? Or, that the staff mediated interactions between visitors and computers?

    6. thehumanmannedinformationdeskwasconstantlybusy

      So there were things the computers couldn't help the visitors accomplish (or they didn't know they could). The computers have potential to be a significant factor in learning getting accomplished but something(s) are limiting this.

      You mentioned lack of signage, maybe there is user error too - E.g., the visitors just don't know what the computers do; the visitors are new to the library; the visitors don't want to use a computer/find it easier to talk to another human? Maybe things to investigate/be open to during observations

    7. Therewasacomputerkioskformakingpayments,forlatefeesorcomputerprinting.Therewerecomputersforlocatingbooks,andacomputerforreservingtimeononeofthe12computersavailableforindividualuse.Thereweretwocomputersforcheckingoutandreturningbooks

      How did you figure this all out? Did you ask someone or just go one by one and try the computers to see what they were for?

    8. UnlikethehammersthatNasirandCookmentionintheirarticle,thevarioushammershapessuggesttheirusage.Inthelibrary,therewereavarietyofsimilarlookingcomputersthatservedveryspecificfunctions

      This is a nice distinction between what Nasir and Cooks saw and what you see in terms of the "Immediate apprehendability" (Allen's term) of the resources. This might be a nice lens to add if you find it sheds more light on how the resources get (or don't get) taken up by visitors.

    1. The purpose of the fieldwork reported in this study was to describe the ideals that surrounded learning within team life and to capture—primarily through detailing the language of activities—manifestations of the environment of learning that the specialized domain

      I am linking this right away with the AA article and the excerpt in LPP. Particularly because of this focus on language. "How to talk like a ..." has a lot to do with "being a..." according to both LW and these authors. Thus it seems that language, it's development, and its use, in particular ways supports particular identities.

    1. ISlANDS OF EXPERTISE

      I couldn't really find a place in the text to throw this up so I just used the header :)

      What is the connection between islands of expertise and "lines of practice" (Azevedo)?

      Azevdo argues that, "A line of practice is a distinctive, recurrent pattern of "long-term" engagement in a person's practice participation" and continues on to add that it is mediated by preferences and conditions of practice. So then are "lines of practice" the process by which an interest develops into an "island of expertise"?

      (Recall that, "preferences refer to the deep, long-term goals, values, and beliefs that a person develops in the practice, whereas conditions of practice refer to the constraints and affordances impinging on the person's practice")

    2. In our work we have been interested in exploring the hypothesis that ~conversation, and parent explanation in particular, contributes to .. 1 ~. / building islands of expertise in informal learning.

      This seems comparable to the Kirshner (youth activism) study where "adult volunteers" replaces parents and "youth" replaces "child". What kind of conversation might best support learning?

    1. the theory suggests that one can produce anaccount of how and whatconditions of practicecontinuously enable hobbyists toengage and develop their variouspreferencesacross practice time.

      And if we can do it here, maybe we can work at doing it in the classroom, or seeing how it might apply in the student/teacher/education setting

    2. taking observational notes helps one tolearn about various celestial objects and their defining features and eventually tobetter see such objects (Levy, 1991). Note taking is also a requirement for receiv-ing certificates/awards for certain achievements.

      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?

    3. A learning ecology describes a system ofpeople, practices, technologies, and values in a local environment, and individu-als typically participate in multiple such ecologies across time. The frameworkhighlights how people actively create learning opportunities for themselves asthey strive to pursue their evolving interests (in this case, in technological mat-ters), in the process crossing boundaries of several settings (e.g., school, home,and after-school programs). As we will see, tracking how individual hobbyists’practices change over time is one of the methodological/analytical strategiesto inferring the immutable/persistent aspects of people’s short- and long-termpractice, which therefore are central to both a structural and process account ofengaged participation

      A long highlight, but I think important to framing how the author pulls out "resources" and frames the analysis to come. What seems to be the most important part of the concept of a "learning ecology" is that it is distributed over time as well as people, places and things. The aspect of time again brings me back to my earlier annotation about the dynamic aspect of participation and (as the author argues at the end of this quote) central to engaged participation.

    4. Learning, therefore, is seen in the different rolesthat a newcomer progressively takes on, in the process becoming accountable tomore central aspects of the practice.

      Learning not as a set of objects ("knowledge") to be had but as a process or development and action of and by the learner towards a particular practice.

    5. Suchdetours, which he called “personal excursions,” afforded students the means toforge deeply personal connections to classroom activities and thus served asstrong motivators for students’ continuous pursuits.

      So "personal excursions" support learning because they keep the student engaged, even if that means "detouring" a bit.

    6. individual inter-ests are seen as a relationship between the person and the environmen

      Interesting way to frame it, an interest as a relationship - even if the interest is an activity or an inanimate object. Makes sense then that interests are dynamic and subject to change just like any relationship.

    1. However, their behavior can also be interpreted as having a much more direct engagement with themuseum than others –especiallythosewho grew fatigued and retreated to their phones.

      Maybe they have discovered the key to museum going: speed walk through and only stop if you have something to say - and even then stop only shortly. What might Lave and Wenger say about their participation? Is it peripheral in the "art connoisseur" CoP? Or some tangential CoP?

    2. The other conversation was notable in how it was deviant from what one might define as acceptable museum behavior.

      I am interested in what is "acceptable museum behavior"? If the less experienced friend is learning from her friend (who at this point only has more experience because she has a friend who bought a piece of art) - what is she learning? Are they participating in some formal CoP of "art connoisseurs" or more broadly in the CoP of "museum goers"? The latter of which seems might be more forgiving in terms of "acceptable behavior".

    3. But unless the visitor took the time to read the explanatory text, the theme, or even the fact that the art was collected purposefully, wasn’t always obvious.

      I missed it!

    4. Instead of thinking about what they wanted to see, and making a point to seek it out, visitors tended to passively follow the flow of traffic, idly circulating around the room gazing at a piece of art before moving on.

      Probably a long shot, but did you follow any of these "gliders" to another floor or to another area of the exhibit? It would be interesting if these passive viewers were any more "focused" there.

    5. visitors needed to use quite a bit of cognitive power

      What was some of your evidence of this?

    6. area immediately surrounding the elevators

      This is a great idea. I know I went right past this area and into the larger space, trying to gain an awareness of what was there and what people were doing and missed this section until much later on when I was headed out. This speaks to immediate apprehendability (IA in the rest of my comments) of spaces versus things or resources and also hints that maybe part of IA is what the visitor expects/is focused on.

    7. I was interested more in how people used the space and each other to learn than I was in the content being learned.

      Focusing inquiry of the author.

    1. But because so much of the workwas performed collaboratively with adults, youth had fewer opportunities to prac-tice and master skills on their own, which makes it challenging to draw inferencesabout their learning. This does not, however, mean that they did not learn. Rogoffet al.’s (2003) description of “intent participation,” for example, suggests that theprocess of attentively observing an activity is a central part of the learning process.Opportunities to observe, listen to conversations, and engage in shared endeavorswith adults may be meaningful even if they do not lead to independent perfor-mance.

      Rogoff would probably argue that joint work helps youth develop identity in ways that the other GP don't because it involves both keen observation of and active participation in the environment.

    2. Similar to the apprenticeship approach, in joint work youth were exposed tomature strategies used by more experienced practitioners. In this case, the focuswas on planning and carrying out a conference.

      Overlapping things happening as a result of each type of guided participation. Supports Kirshner's warning at the beginning that the three categories should not be taken to be distinct and completely separate.

    3. Similar to the apprenticeship approach, in joint work youth were exposed tomature strategies used by more experienced practitioners. In this case, the focuswas on planning and carrying out a conference.

      Overlapping things happening as a result of each type of guided participation. Supports Kirshner's warning at the beginning that the three categories should not be taken to be distinct and completely separate.

    4. Similar to the apprenticeship approach, in joint work youth were exposed tomature strategies used by more experienced practitioners.

      Overlap in the kinds of things happening in each category of guided participation. This supports Kirshner's argument at the beginning that non of the types should be taken as firm, distinct categories.

    5. Similar to the apprenticeship approach, in joint work youth were exposed tomature strategies used by more experienced practitioners.

      Crossover in methods and interactions in the different kinds of guided participation. This supports Kirshner's argument in the introduction that none of these categories are firm.

    6. Second, unlike either facilitation or apprenticeship, joint work rarely includedelements of a youth-centered environment, such as skill-building workshops or ef-forts to foster group belonging. Aside from periodic check-ins at the beginning ofmeetings, there were no team-building activities. The TRUE project resembledwhat one might expect a planning process to look like in a workplace or commu-nity group, in which the primary goal is to complete the project successfully ratherthan to teach, mentor, or counsel certain members.

      This paragraph has me rethinking the pros/cons of joint work. It does seem arguable that by" throwing them" into a context that most resembles what an adult activist group would look like/how it would run, TRUE is treating youths as full participants without the youths having to do any apprenticing. Looking at it like this makes the other two forms feel more like the youths are "learning what it would be like through supported simulation" - kind of a schooling of youth activism, where as in joint work they are "learning by being treated as an activist".

      Might the type of guided participation lead to a different formation of 'youth as political' identity?

    7. From a youth-led standpoint, these opportunities may appear more limited thanthose afforded to YELL participants. But the benefit for Youth Rising organizerswas that they gained more extensive practice developing and implementing a cam-paign with clear policy objectives.

      Kirshner not arguing one is better than the other in terms of forms of guided participation - instead noting the pros and cons of each.

    8. Practicingfor student club meetings(Youth Rising)

      This excerpt (not all highlighted here) lines up nicely with the AA case study. There are new comers who talk less, and when they do are coached by old-timers in how to talk, there is a sense that everyone is there for the same reason, and there is a sense of apprentice-master relationship without a heavy amount of authority - and this kind of modeling isn't always explicit either.

    9. The principal difference between apprenticeship and facilitation pertains toadult participation. Unlike facilitation, whereby adults adopt a neutral, detachedpose, adults in Youth Rising, especially Alonzo and Vanessa, conveyed that theywere also participants in the campaign.

      Main difference between facilitation and apprenticeship is the level of adult involvement.

    10. The facilitation ap-proachcreated opportunities for youth to participate in a variety of leadershiptasks. Youth participants routinely initiated the meetings, explained the agenda,and helped keep the group on task.

      This finding seems to support the idea that more student involvement and less hierarchical adult control leads to more access for students to participate and, potentially to form identities of "youth activist" in their own terms.

    11. A few weeks after splitting into four groups to work on theseprojects, youth decided, also in a vote, that adults should be available to answerquestions or assist on an “as-needed” basis, but not be present to supervise routinesmall-group work. Dolores, a YELL veteran, described her perceptions of this di-vision of labor in an interview at the end of the year:

      This shows the students' and adults' opinions about what the adult role should be didn't line up. (Adults want to be referees where students wanted them to be available resources by not authority figures/access granters).

    12. Differences between facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work.

      This table has me thinking about Holland (Chapter 5) when they talk about the directive force of figured worlds.

      On page 100 they write, "thoughts and feelings, will and motivation are formed as the individual develops. The individual comes, in the recurrent contexts of social interaction, to personalize cultural resources, such as figured worlds, languages, and symbols, as means to organize and modify thoughts and emotions."

      How might the level of youth versus adult engagement impact the individual's development? (Identity specifically, their place in the FW of youth activism). Holland et al argue that recurrent action/interaction in social settings is key to identity formation. It seems a different kind of "youth activist" identity would be formed depending on the type of guided participation most used.

    13. nitially I set out to identify the strategies that adults used to turn responsibilityfor the group over to youth so that it would become youth-led. It quickly becameapparent, however, that Youth Rising and TRUE did not share this goal withYELL. Therefore, instead of approaching my study as a technical question abouthow adults support youth-led activities, I sought to document the variety of ap-proaches to working with youth that I observed and how these related to broadergroup goals and contexts.

      Again, this passage has me thinking in terms of our projects, or any kind of research observation. What kind of limits do we place on what we can see if we go in with particular categories in mind versus looking at "what is going on there"?

    14. Unlike in YELL or Youth Rising, in TRUE adultsand youth treated me as a regular participant in the conference planning process—Iwas expected to offer opinions, vote on decisions, and implement necessary tasks

      Identity of Researcher-participant blurred in observation at TRUE. Kirshner adds below that this gave particular insight into aspects of division of labor and access. Ties here to being a "participant observer" in our own independent observation projects...if possible, how might "being involved" like Kirshner was, shed new/different light on learning there?

    15. One unique aspect of youth activism groups, however, has to do with an em-powerment discourse that assigns political significance to the distinction betweenyouth and adults.

      So being a part of "youth activism" is partially about or results in developing a particular identity? Maybe even an identity that will impact future identity development when they age out of the youth bracket?

    16. Observers often de-scribe this process as a form ofscaffolding, which implies temporary assistancethat will be withdrawn gradually as the learner assumes greater mastery (in con-trast todistributed intelligence, in which collaboration among actors and tools isan ongoing feature of an activity; Pea, 2003

      Kirshner contrasts scaffolding and distributed intelligence, could we also contrast it with Hutchins' "distributed cognition"? They seem very similar.

    1. The contrast is not whether or not words are used, but the embeddedness orisolation of the words from the endeavors being referred to. In intent participation,talk is usedin the serviceof engaging in the activity, augmenting and guiding expe-riential and observational learning; in an assembly-line lesson, talk issubstitutedfor involvement.

      Clear distinction of the actions/roles words play in IP and AL processes.

    2. They are initially given supporting tasks and work close enough to observe themore advanced participants; they move to more complex aspects of the activityas they learn (Metge 1984).

      Also a theme of LPP (See Case study chapter)

    3. Intent participation involves a collaborative, horizontal participation structure withflexible, complementary roles. This contrasts with assembly-line instruction’s hi-erarchical structure, organized with fixed roles in which someone manages others’participation, acting as a boss.

      Another key aspect of IP, but also a key to understanding why school forms such as taking notes from the board, listening to lectures, etc are not IP - they are inherently hierarchical which is in contrast to the participation structure of IP

    4. The processes of intent participation and assembly-line instruction are not nec-essarily tied to the type of activities or domain of knowledge (such as practicalversus theoretical endeavors or concrete versus abstract information). The distinc-tion is in the form of involvement, not in the subject.

      One key aspect of what differentiates IP from AL - the form of involvement matters more than the subject content

    5. We see the two traditions as descriptions ofprocesses, whereas the infor-mal/formal dichotomy is often applied toplaces.

      Important distinction between intent participation/assembly-line production as processes while formal/informal as places.

      Is Rogoff saying then, that either process can happen in either place? Do we think that one place is better suited for a particular kind of process or vice versa? What does it all depend on?

    6. This approach to learning has beenquestioned by sociocultural scholars. Several have proposed instead the idea thatlearning is a process of transformation of participation in ongoing cultural activities

      Rogoff sites LW, but I am also thinking of Becker and Resnick here.

    7. Now,instead of routinely helping adults, children are often involved in specialized child-focused exercises to assemble skills for later entry in mature activities from whichthey are often excluded in childhood. These specialized child-focused situations—especially schooling, but also pre-school lessons and child-focused conversation infamilies—often employ instructional practices and a concept of learning that wereheavily influenced by the organization of factories, forming a cultural traditionthat contrasts with intent participation

      US shift that took children out of situations where they could "keenly" observe adult activity and set up "child-focused" learning about skills and practices of adulthood.

      Rogoff implicitly arguing there is a difference between intent participation and forms of school learning that involve participation (the latter is child focused rather than focused on observations of real things/activities)

    8. Observers’ attention is likely to be quite different if theyexpect to be involved than if they observe incidentally. We focus explicitly onobservation as an aspect of participation. Our term “intent participation” refersto keenly observing and listening in anticipation of or in the process of engagingin an endeavor.

      Already we might argue we can see Rogoff's argument forming in regards to this week's question being asked about the difference between intent participation and forms of school learning.

      Seems like a lot of what is in the latter category falls more in what Rogoff labels observing incidentally because students are required, maybe some will engage in intent observation, but not all, and not just by sitting there, copying off the board. Going to keep looking for examples from the author.

    9. Theyobserve and listen with intent concentration and initiative, and their collaborativeparticipation is expected when they are ready to help in shared endeavors. Thistradition, which we refer to asintent 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

  6. Sep 2015
    1. “affordances”to refer to the di-rectly perceivable properties of objects that determine how they could possibly be used.

      I don't think Allen is just talking about physical resources as affordances, but there aren't other examples. Could we think of "ease of access" or "user-friendliness" as affordances?

    2. every intermediate stepin the visitors’experience must be sufficientlymotivating that they make the choice of continuing to invest time and attention there

      Perhaps it will be interesting to watch for this on Wednesday

    3. In a school setting, a teacher can use a variety of strategies to regulate her students’progress, ensuring that they all arrive at the rewarding or significant climax of a lesson. Bycontrast, if an exhibit has a boring or effortful or confusing component, visitors have no wayof knowing whether the reward for persisting will be worth the effort

      Do people agree/disagree with Allen here? Do students enter the classroom thinking, "Hey, this might be so boring, but if I stick it out I know there are rewards/benefits on the other side."?

    4. the exhibits should facilitate science learning, yet they also need to supporta diverse visiting public in making their own personal choices about where to attend,

      Okay, first sentence so it may be premature but I am thinking that another way to state this dilemma is: What happens when CoP collide? And how do we support more than one CoP with the same physical resources?

    1. The maker of a picture or other historical artefact is a man addressinga problem of which his product is a finished and concrete solution. Tounderstand it we try to reconstruct both the specific problem it wasdesigned to solve and the specific circumstances out of which he wasaddressing it

      Then as viewers of the art, aren't we engaging in a conversation with the artist? And even though he/she isn't there, they have already left their answer to us in the form of art work.

    2. In recent years there has been a growing commitment amongst artists,designers, curators and educationalists to enhance the ways in which peopleparticipate and collaborate with and around installations, exhibits and artworks.

      I find this so interesting. Has there been this increase because of new technology that allows for it? (E.g. Video). Maybe the desire was there before (Thinking of installments in cities all over the world where artists sit or have people sit to be watched). What else might have caused this shift besides technical availability?

    3. important issues for ourunderstanding of visual communication. It directs our attention towards theidea of an ‘active spectator’ who constitutes the sense and significance ofobjects and artefacts

      This reminds me of something someone (I'm sorry I couldn't find the post) highlighted in the AA chapters. This idea that there are people outside the immediate Figured world (Last week it as AA and those who are family members/friend, here it is the art makers and those who look at/experience the art) that play a role in what goes on in the FW. So cool.

    1. Just as onthe first day, the children use the present to understand the past, andthe past to clarify the present:

      I think this description highlights an important act of FoK, they "stretch" across social environments and time (here years)

    2. Such formal rituals, however, are but onemechanism through which social networks are maintained. As impor-tant, or more so, are visits – informal rituals themselves. Not only dothe Sanchez family often have guests, but they visit their friends andrelatives almost daily. This frequent contact helps them both to main-tain important social ties and to renew and update funds of knowl-edge in this social world on which they depend constantly.

      I think this is really interesting, the kinds of things we might do to maintain our social relations and in turn our FoK. How much of this is a conscious effort beyond just "keeping in touch"?

    3. "fluid reality" ofthe households, the changes in household composition, residence,jobs, and social relations; it is within this fluidity that the experiencesof families must be understood.

      This idea reminds me a lot of Holland et. al. when they first introduced Figured Worlds (FW) as cultural worlds. That so much of what a person is has to do with what goes on in their predominant FWs and further, what makes sense in one FW (language, action, interaction) may make no sense in another - so we can't copy and paste actions/interactions/language/etc. from one FW to the next and expect it to explain anything.

    4. "The social environment does not take a neutralview towards the acquisition of knowledge and skill, but is insteadhighly interested, and often directive, controlling or even denying ac-cess to information" (p. 260)

      I think the point of this quote and the paragraph that follows is that knowledge is not an object to be had, but a living thing that is created and the social environment is a key aspect of that. (Context matters)

    1. It is notjust an accumulation of skills and information, but a process of becoming-to become a certainperson or, conversely, to avoid becoming a certain person"

      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.

    2. He conceptualizes learning as an aspectof identity and identity as a result of learning.

      I am a little confused about this statement; it feels incomplete. He says learning is a part of identity and that identity is a product of learning. I feel like there are other things that produce identity (and if we pull in LW and Holland of course there are - culture, society, context, LPP, etc). Yet here they leave those out.

  7. newclasses.nyu.edu newclasses.nyu.edu
    1. Most of the hundreds of gender-marked terms the students used desig-nate problematic types of men and women-problematic in relation to the taken-for-granted progress orilliilvfemale relations posited by the cultural model.

      Defining who/what is a part of the FW developing ways to point out who/what is not.

  8. newclasses.nyu.edu newclasses.nyu.edu
    1. As a cultural system, and one that no one is born into, this entire figured world of AA is new to neophytes.

      I.e., no one is born into the FW, but instead must learn about it and how to be a part of it.

    1. artffaets'assifiiieoolli'aif'Olivfousancfilecessaij material sub-stance is embedded in ifie figiired world of their use. By the.sami;token tlii:y are both Tnsiiirfrient aiicfcalleCtivereiriem:Tirance.

      Artifacts as having two significant and differing roles - physical and conceptual.

    2. It is a landscape of objectified (materially and percepti-bly expressed) meanings, joint activities, and structures of privilege and influence-all partly contingent upon and partly independent of other figured worlds, the interconnections among figured worlds, and larger societal and trans-societal forces. Figured worlds in their conceptual dimensions supply the ccmtexts of meaning for actions, cultural produc-tions, performances, disputes, fo;:'the understandings that people come to make of themselves, and for the capabilities that people develop to direct their own behavior in these worlds.l9 Materially, figured worlds are manifest and practices; the idioms of the world realize selves and others in and everyday perform-ances that constantiate relative positions of influence and prestige. Fig-ured worlds provide the contexts of meaning and action in which social positions and social relationships are named and conducted. They also provide the loci in which people fashion senses of self-that is, develop identities.

      Long, but a nice summary of FW.

    3. happenings of a figured world

      (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.

    4. By "figured world," then, we mean a socially and culturally con-structed realm of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others. Each is a simplified world populated by a set of agents (in the world of romance: attractive women, boyfriends, lovers, fiances) who engage in a limited range of meaningful acts or changes of state (flirting with, falling in love with, dumping, having sex with) as moved by a specific set of forces (attractiveness, love, lust). 3

      So then, what are the characteristics of the "figured world" of school? Particular characters/agents: students/teachers/administration broadly, and certain types of each of these (bad/good/smart/mean/strict/etc). Valued outcomes: achievement, good grades, attendance, etc. And forces: smartness, behavior, etc.

      With this perspective we can see what probably gets left out if we say this particular world is the only place students can/do learn. What about other figured worlds they are probably a part of? (The playground - or play more generally; their family setting; their religion/church; etc.)

    5. People's identities and agency are formed dialectically and dialogically in these "as if' worlds

      As the author's expand on how they think this happens we might expect it to correlate nicely with LPP because they are already mentioning identity and agency as products of "as if" worlds and these are also key in LPP

    1. 3ĖĖ Ė   Ė Ý$  ĖĖĖ    Ė Ė  CĖ]Ė  $ Ė Ė    Ė   Ė ĖĖ  1Ė Ėå,ĖĖ ĎĖĖĖĖĖ  ĖĖ^_ ďr@Ė žñÇÈ¿ÀòŸæóĖ‰xŠÉ³ Zç¬ÕÖÁą1

      (Had difficulty highlighting, but it is the last paragraph of the chapter). I think this connects perfectly to the story Raquel shared on Slack about her family business and what she called "bi-directional" learning. I wish LW had been this explicit earlier on about everyone learning and being a new-comer to some degree, no matter how long they have been a part of a CoP

    2. When the process of increasing participation is not the pri-mary motivation for learning, it is often because ''didactic caretakers'' assume responsibility for motivating newcomers.

      Self-motivation is key; else it becomes the "person-to-be-changed" and the new-comer has not self, no identity or chance to form it. (How do we evaluate the teacher/student relationship with this in mind?)

    3. An apprentice's contributions to ongoing activity gain value in practice - a value which in-creases as the apprentice becomes more adept. As opportuni-ties for understanding how well or poorly one's efforts contrib-ute are evident in practice, legitimate participation of a peripheral kind provides an immediate ground for self-evaluation.

      Failure (to learn) may be clearer (to the new-comer, other members, to the researcher) than success.

    4. Acceptance by and interaction with acknowledged adept practitioners make learning legiti-mate and of value from the point of view of the apprentice.

      Acceptance and interaction with all members of the CoP, not just the masters. (Ties back to section one when LW discussed importance of the learning that occurs between new-comers)

    5. For newcomers then the purpose is not to Jearn from talk as a substitute for legitimate peripheral participation; it is to learn to talk as a key to legitimate peripheral participa-tion.

      We can return here to questioning what schooling really teaches us.

    6. Close analysis of both instructional discourse and cases of apprenticeship raise a different point: Issues about language, like those about the role of masters, may well have more to do with legitimac y of participation and with access to peripheral-ity than they do with knowledge transmission

      Anecdotal connection: I have, because of friends, started to regularly go to softball games over the last few years. I have, over that time, learned through observation and participation (correct and incorrect), what to yell out and when to yell. I have as LW write, "learn[ed] how to talk (and be silent) in the manner of full participants," (the full participant being a member of the crowd.

    7. It might be useful to give a sense of this interplay by anal-ogy to a window. A window's invisibility is what makes it a window, that is, an object through which the world outside becomes visible. The very fact, however, that so many things can be seen through it makes the window itself highly visible, that is, very salient in a room, when compared to, say, a solid wall.

      I really appreciate this analogy about the window as a tool for transparency, providing access (making visible the things the learner needs).

    8. The key to legitimate peripherality is access by newcomers to the community of practice and all that membership entails.

      Thus, for example, the butcher apprentices fail to learn and thus to become full participants, not because their legitimacy was denied, but because they weren't given full access.

    9. A community of prac-tice is a set of relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice. A community of practice is an intrin-sic condition for the existence of knowledge, not least because it provides the interpretive support necessary for making sense of its heritage. Thus, participation in the cultural practice in which any knowledge exists is an epistemological principle of learning. The social structure of this practice, its power rela-tions, and its conditions for legitimacy define possibilities for learning (i.e., for legitimate peripheral participation).

      The CoP, as a site for learning

    10. For example, in most high schools there is a group of stu-dents engaged over a substantial period of time in learning physics. What community of practice is in the process of re-production? Possibly the students participate only in the repro-duction of the high school itself. But assuming that the prac-tice of physics is also being reproduced in some form, there are vast differences between the ways high school physics stu-dents participate in and give meaning to their activity and the way professional physicists do.

      Thus, the learned subject matter does not define necessarily the CoP, nor does it reproduce it

    11. learning curriculum and a teaching curriculum.

      The Learning Curriculum: -situated opportunities -resources in everyday practice (pov the learner) -essentially situated

    12. To begin with, newcomers' legitimate peripherality pro-vides them with more than an ''observational'' lookout post: It crucially involves participation as a way of learning -of both absorbing and being absorbed in -the ''culture of prac-tice.''

      Speaking to the details of legitimate peripherality - the new comers still need to participate or they are not becoming members, but instead just observers

    13. opportunities for learning are, more often than not, given structure by work practices instead of by strongly asymmetrical master-apprentice relations.

      Adds to the above discussion about where legitimacy comes from (who "gives" a new comer legitimacy)

    14. In all five cases described in the preceding chapter, in fact, researchers insist that there is very little ob-servable teaching; the more basic phenomenon is learning

      Does anyone, especially those coming from a school teaching background, find this observation problematic/uncomfortable?

      I think it is an important one that speaks to the point I was mentioning earlier about breaking down the assumption that schooling is equivalent to learning and that school is the only/best place to learn.

    1. If apprenticeship is a form of education in which work and learning are seamlessly re-lated, it is nonetheless a fonn in which the work and under-standing of newcomers bear complex and changing relations with ongoing work processes; the structure of production and the structure of apprenticeship do not coincide as a whole (though they may do so for given tasks, e.g., plot-fixing for the quar-termasters).

      What else is a part of the structure of apprenticeship that is not necessarily part of the structure of production (or vice versa)? LW would definitely include identity formation...is there more?

    2. The notion of partial participation, in segments of work that increase in complexity and scope, a theme in all the analyses of apprenticeship discussed here, also describes the changing form of participation in A. A. for newcomers as they gradually become old-timers.

      The move from partial to full participant is still a theme here.

    3. short, repetitive tasks. He puts ap-prentices where they can work for him most effi-ciently.

      When the apprenticeship model breaks down - or may break down. New-comer's periphery never evolves because participation doesn't develop/increase/become more complex.

      Eg, 1st and 2nd yr grad students working on studies involving coding analysis often get assigned coding tasks because it can be done with relatively little experience. However this can result in them not becoming a full member of the research team until a new student comes in, is trained for the coding job and the older student moves on to a new task.

    4. As time goes on, the apprentice takes over more and more of the work load, starting with the routine and tedious parts, and ending with what is in Yucatan the culturally most significant, the birth of the placenta [Jordan 1989: 932-4].

      Theme of all apprenticeship studies here from the LPP lens: Gradual acceptance and implantation of participants from peripheral to full participant over many changing roles and over years of inclusion and participation.

    5. Our intention is to show how learning or failure to learn in each of our examples of appren-ticeship may be accounted for by underlying relations of legit-imate peripheral participation.

      Highlights well that LPP is a theory about how we learn (not just in schools or workplaces but also in our other CoP) not a description of a particular way of learning that can be applied

    6. At the very least, schooling is given a privileged role in intellectual development. Because the theory and the institution have com-mon historical roots (Lave 1988), these school-forged theories are inescapably specialized: They are unlikely to afford us the historical-cultural breadth to which we aspire.

      This is a really important point for LW. It is necessary to let go of the taught synonymity of schooling and learning and restructure the relationship as the former being one way to achieve the latter. (And that the learning achieved be seen more for what it probably is - an understanding of how to "do school")

    1. Legitimate periph-eral participation refers both to the development of knowl-edgeably skilled identities in practice and to the reproduction and transformation of communities of practice. It concerns the latter insofar as communities of practice consist of and depend on a membership, including its characteristic biographies/tra-jectories, relationships, and practices. Legitimate peripheral participation is intended as a concep-tual bridge -as a claim about the common processes inherent in the production of changing persons and changing commu-nities of practice. This pivotal emphasis, via legitimate periph-eral participation, on relations between the production of knowledgeable identities and the production of communities of practice, makes it possible to think of sustained learning as embodying, albeit in transformed ways, the structural charac-teristics of communities of practice.

      It's a long highlight, but I think it outlines LPP really nicely.

    2. ''Locating'' learning in classroom interaction is not an adequate substitute for a theory about what schooling as an activity system has to do with learning.

      I think this is part of the "myth" of schooling that Becker was talking about. Unquestioned, it is easy to equate learning we see (through evaluation or other means) of students with an understanding of how students learn.

      I like this because it makes really clear what LPP is, a theory of learning. Not to be confused with a way to teach, a pedagogical tool, or instructional method.

    3. It is by the theoretical process of decentering in relational terms that one can construct a ro-bust notion of "whole person" which does justice to the mul-tiple relations through which persons define themselves

      decentering supports identity creation as a person in the world

      So identity, along with learning, is a fluctuating, negotiated discourse.

    4. Participation is al-ways based on situated negotiation and renegotiation of mean-ing in the world.

      Oscar shared his group's observation of people buying a metrocard last week. One of the machines was not accepting bills and that changed the expected experience of many subway riders who used that machine. Using the LW language, riders interacted with the machine in a renegotiation of what it meant to go through the process of buying a metrocard when added decisions (continue or end) was involved. We can remember that different riders ended up with different results (meanings) and actions. Some left the machine without doing the extra steps while some continued on in a new interaction with the machine.

    5. In contrast with learning as internalization, learning as increas-ing participation in communities of practice concerns the whole person acting in the world.

      Clear distinction here of lpp theory of learning from other, more constructivist, views.

    1. teaching � well required intense stud . Teaching was, he said, "the greatest � art in all the world"

      What it means if the "natural born teacher" myth is just that, a myth

    2. Both sides of the "teacher quality" debate tend to depict the challenge as a transfer problem-how to help unsuccessful, often low-income students (like the ones I cover as a reporter in New York City) to access the experiences enjoyed by their more affluent peers

      *

    1. Our theorizing about legitimate peripheral participation thus is not intended as ab­straction, but as an attempt to explore its concrete relations. To think about a concept like legitimate peripheral participa­tion in this way is to argue that its theoretical significance de­rives from the richness of its interconnections: in historical terms, through time and across cultures

      We can talk about particular kinds of research methods supporting this theorizing better than others.

    2. There is no place in a community of practice designated ''the periphery,'' and, most emphatically, it has no single core or center.

      Yes, so and as such, this theory of learning supports the "master" learning as well as the "new-comer"

    3. Thus, in the terms proposed here there may very well be no such thing as an "illegitimate peripheral participant." The form that the legitimacy of participation takes is a defining charac­teristic of ways of belonging, and is therefore not only a cru­cial condition for learning, but a constitutive element of its content. S

      This is a fairly big shift; I'd like to open this up for interpretation in class.

    4. there is no activity that is not situated. It implied emphasis on comprehensive under­standing involving the whole person rather than "receiving" a body of factual knowledge about the world; on activity in and with the world; and on the view that agent, activity, and the world mutually constitute each other

      New focus/emphasis/pov from which to think about learning and activity.

    5. The challenge for a community that seeks to reproduce itself would be to regiment the interactions in which learning is likely to occur, as well as the outcomes to which it may lead.

      Maybe Becker would link this to the traditional choice to put kids in schools in an attempt to do this, although that's not to say he argees that that works.

    6. The activity of under­standing, in such a view, comes down to recognizing and im­plementing instances of structure, filling them in with an overlay of situational particulars, and relating them to a "context" (which is in tum structured).

      "head" understanding rejected

    7. There is no necessary implication 14 Foreword by William F. Hanks that a learner acquires mental representations that remain fixed thereafter, nor that the "lesson" taught consists itself in a set of abstract representations.

      Then being lectured to does not assure implanting knowledge (Giver/Receiver roles of teacher and student). Foreshadowing here other characteristics of LPP including learner responsibility and agency.

    8. located learning squarely in the processes of coparticipation, not in the heads of individuals

      Here Hanks starts us off right away with one of Lave and Wenger's main distinctions. Learning as occurring outside of individual cognition and instead, as occurring in through participation in activity.

    1. This leaves the actual training to the apprentice's own initiative.

      The addition of personal responsibility in students' learning. This foreshadows agency and authorship as well.

    2. When what tests require differs from what the school wants 1 to teach, and when the school rewards good test performance heavily, the structure of the school will systematically divert

      (the end of the quote was: "student effort")

      Tests are designed by people, so aren't we looking in a gap between those who teach and those who develop the curriculum and tests?

    3. nstead, we rely on test results for want of anything better. In any event, the skills required to perform well on school examinations may not be the same skills required to perform adequately in the situations the school trains people for.

      And almost certainly doesn't translate to taking part in the working and/or civic community as an adult (Aligned here with Resnick).

    4. I may be a proficient user of mathematics and a skilled driver and unable to teach a child either one

      This reminds me of Lee Shulman's (1986) "Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching" (worth a read)

    5. Schools could teach students individually, and occasionally make provision to do so.

      So since schools are evaluating/assessing the individual they should teach the individual too? This seems to be the opposite of what Resnick calls for when she highlights that the latter of this thought process doesn't jive with how we learn/work/thrive in the world outside of school.

    6. The spectacle of elementary and secondary education gives credence to Herndon's (1968: 79) wry hypothesis that nobody learns anything in school, but middle-class children learn enough elscwhe:-c to mah:c it appear that schooling is effective: since lower-class children don't learn the material elsewhere, the schools' failure to teach them is apparent.

      Is Herdon making a division between only school and home? I am uneasy with such a dichotomy. I'd like to know what is included in "elsewhere" as it seems that economic status the ticket in to that place.

    1. Outside school, actions are intimately connected with objects and events; people often use the objects and events directly in their reasoning, without necessarily using symbols to represent them.

      This happens before we begin school and in the workplace; bookends of schooling. I read this and it makes me think about how it is our natural instinct to make sense of the world with our hands, eyes, nose, etc, not just our minds. So what is it about the school years/schooling culture that this kind of sense making isn't incorporated?

    2. One important function of schooling is to de- velop the knowledge and mental skills students will need to construct appropriate mental models of systems with which they will eventually work.

      Do we see this happening in schools? If so, what's an example?

    3. The simplest view of education as a means of improving economic productivity treats schools and class- rooms as places in which to prepare students directly for jobs.

      In addition to what Resnick says in this section, I also wonder about how other purposes of school get lost in this view. The students' opportunities to question things, learn about themselves and the world...it might get lost in this "simple" layering of training over schooling.

    4. It seems that children treat arithmetic class as a setting in which to learn rules, but are somehow discouraged from bringing to school their informally acquired knowledge about numbers.

      Could this have something to do with the physical setting? Is there something in the enculturation of schooling that tells students: Hey now you are in the classroom and I am going to teach you the right way to think about and solve problems.

    5. Out of school, because they are continuously engaged with objects and situations that make sense to them, peo- ple do not fall into the trap of forgetting what their calcula- tion or their reasoning is about. Mental activities make sense in terms of their results in a specific circumstance; actions are grounded in the logic of immediate situations

      And trying to get students to make this connection, get them to give problems a context with which to reason in/about, typically seems to help them understand the problem and be critical of their solution.