They offer a form-function analysis as a type of functional analysis. Their definitions of form and function (though limited) do seem to align with Saxe's use of each term.

This feels more relevant to what we are currently doing in the Special Issue. When and how are players working to determine, "the casual or functional structures that relate elements in a system?"

The how will, at times, be engaging in data practices and or data literacies. In an analysis like this, some of functional discoveries will be those built in by the designers/research team - maybe most of them - makeing them designed learning goals. Yet, HOW they get taken up and WHEN will likely differ across playres and game play.

One possible analysis of the video data we have thus far is one that seeks to uncover the structural analyses players are engaging with in the game. When and how are they answering the question, "What is the nature of X?"

target epistemic forms

transfers (change of epistemic game)

Moves

Entry conditions

Epistemic games cross disciplinary boundaries.

Wondering right now about how epistemic forms/games align (or don't) with Saxe's forms (cultural tools) and functions.

Example from Saxe: Through participating in candy-selling practices, individuals construct specialized kinds of cognitive forms (e.g., currency arithmetic as a sign form for number representation) and functions (e.g., representing large numbers; setting candy prices; comparing price ratios) in order to accomplish their goals emerging through participation in candy-selling practices.

4 other epistemic game characteristics: entry conditions, moves, transfers, and target epistemic forms

Constraints of epistemic games: similarity, coverage, distinctness, multiplicity, and brevity

"New knowledge" relative to the list maker

Definition of epistemic forms and games - tic tac toe example

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.

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

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?

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

Age old "goodness" tied to academic success

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?

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).

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.

"Reform" a.k.a. overwrite

Race doesn't stand alone in their language development

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

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

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)?

test

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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)

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?

(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.

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)?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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..

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.

Main argument/aim of the article

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.

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

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

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"

I absolutely love this description!

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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)

go students for getting this up above! :)

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

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

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?

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).

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).

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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")

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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".

I missed it!

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.

What was some of your evidence of this?

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.

Focusing inquiry of the author.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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"?

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?

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?

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

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

Also a theme of LPP (See Case study chapter)

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

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

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?

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

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)

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.

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

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?

Perhaps it will be interesting to watch for this on Wednesday

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."?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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"?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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

Long, but a nice summary of FW.

(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.

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.)

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

(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

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?)

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

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)

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

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.

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

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.

The CoP, as a site for learning

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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")

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

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.

decentering supports identity creation as a person in the world

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

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.

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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.

"head" understanding rejected

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.

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.

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

(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?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.