More of us literacy ed instructors need to do this - it really broadens perspectives about language, communication, and design.

Connected learning is sometimes used to describe contemporary learning (e.g., as a “model” or “framework”), and other times to describe a proactive educational reform and research agenda (e.g., as an “approach” to research and design). Here, I attempt to take it up as a theoretical framework (the former), for the purpose of analyzing a learning experience.

One of the most exciting and interesting things to me about CL is how it is a learning theory still in development and in a process of emergence. We are watching it evolve in real time, and we are contributors to this evolution - even through something like participating in this Marginal Syllabus!

really hoping this can lead to more pedagogical conversations about critical coding literacy.

I think it is fascinating to study the context and history that undergirds the reasons that these "magical teachers" have come to internalize this orientation - a lot of which I tried to trace in Transformative Teachers

This is a phrase that resonates throughout CL literature.

You know - these look a lot like... Connected Learning!

Or maybe that serve to transform systematic inequalities?

I am grateful for this statement. I think its so important to move from the deficit orientations of youth and re-focus on the challenging structural and systematic inequities.

I'd really like to have a discussion at some point about the role and definition of "technology" in CL. First, in terms of definition, Merriam Webster gives two:

1. the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area
2. a capability given by the practical application of knowledge And I have always thought about it as any kind of tool that serves to support work. Given any of these definitions, I wonder how that might broaden our imaginations about how CL is "enhanced by technology." Secondly, in terms of role - I've seen a range of conversation of the role of technology in the CL framework, and in teaching/learning today. Would love to hear others' thoughts on either role/definition of tech in CL.

I find this statement and reframing particularly powerful.

I am so curious about Kara's own background in Food Justice work, and her curation of the curriculum materials and resources. It reminds me so much of the work of the youth activists that worked with the Agaston Urban Nutrition Initiative in Philadelphia. I remember attending a workshop led by the youth, and seeing them make so many connections between politics, economy, history, society, biology - and they then translated these understandings into actions in their community. One difference was that they ran their own school garden, and sold the vegetables at a local farmers market in their neighborhood, as a means of disrupting the "food desert." I'm not sure if they are still doing the activist kind of work they did years before, but I know the program is still around - here is a link: http://www.nettercenter.upenn.edu/what-we-do/programs/university-assisted-community-schools/agatston-urban-nutrition-initiative

After May 1, this will be UIC

Maybe a third bullet point here is that you are positioning youth not as "learners of a subject," but as practitioners of that subject. E.g. Not "teaching coding" but "teaching/mentoring/working with coders" -Kira

Somewhere in this intro, it might be worthwhile to acknowledge the ways that digital and social media have shaped the ways we relate/connect to each other, and that the CL model recognizes and speaks to the new era of connectedness we are living in. -Kira

Another good resource is the Social Media Wellness book by Ana Homayoun. She talks about co-designing "acceptable use agreements" with youth. -Kira

I wonder if would also make sense to add something here about self-care. I think a lot of the conflicts that youth and adults face can often be diffused when its framed from a place of love, and in the interest of teaching self-care. Since CL is such a relational model, it might make sense to incorporate here. -Kira

also the idea that you can enter at "any level" yet strive to "level-up" -Kira

Elsewhere I've seen "human-centered" design - I like that better than user. -Kira

I agree with "Start with Why?" but I think that is actually in part the responsibility of the educator to inquire about, not explain to students. Like - the educator should be trying to figure out (in conversation with youth), what about this topic/activity is important to you in your lives? And design from there, instead of: "this is important because xyz, and you should think so too." -Kira

visually this section looks very crunched on the page. Hard to read through. Line breaks possible here? -Kira

are you committed to this term? I'm partial to "action" or "taking action" -Kira

perhaps, instead of the negative here, you could flip to say, it encourages educators to be creative curriculum designers themselves, harnessing the principles of CL in their praxis (reflection + action). -Kira

Something also unique to CL is that it changes not only the youth/learners, but also the teachers/adults - helps them develop professionally, develop learning relationships, etc. -Kira

I think this speaks to the SJ/equity orientation of CL. I wonder if there is a way to make this more explicit? Like, in the previous sentence, changing to "CL stresses the important of meeting youth of all social and economic backgrounds where they they are" or something like that. Don't take my exact wording for it, but I think this could be better integrated as part of the core aspect of CL. -Kira

maybe "cultivating" here - instead of the teacher/adult "providing" - "cultivating" is more co-generated. -Kira

Hmm. There may be some who disagree with this? -Kira

My guess is that you've played around with this opening line quite a bunch. It is the first thing people read, and has an impact. I guess I would like to know more about some of the intentions behind the word choices here. For example, there is no signifier or distinguishing characteristic behind the word "model" (e.g. "new," "comprehensive," etc.). What are the thoughts behind this choice? Is there a signifier that might be good to put there? Also "youth engagement" carries certain meaning. Is the intention here to broaden beyond or change ideas about "learning" (which is the first word I would think of to put there)? I also asked myself: Engagement in what? For what? -Kira

On the topic of 'rhetoric,' I think, especially in thinking about Pedagogies of English/Language, one of the most threatening aspects of this time is the ways in which rhetoric is used to twist people's perceptions and make people question their most inner truths about goodness, humanity, and ethics. This, too, is trauma. I suppose it does go back to Freire. When the leaders try to say that dehumanizing others is normal, acceptable, something deep in the guts of us - many who work for social justice, and those who are oppressed in some form, can feel a sense of disbelief in the now, and, at times, in ourselves. This is trauma on top of the obvious trauma. And much of it is to do with rhetoric.

When Christiansen structures her teaching around a big issue that is important to students lives it allows for a deep interdisciplinarity that I think a lot of teachers strive for in designing units, but don't know how to start. Start at the heart of things, not just focused on the individual skills/outcomes.

This also makes me think about what Tufekci write about in her book, Twitter and Teargas - tracing how the digital has impacted/reshaped activism in several social movements around the globe - https://www.twitterandteargas.org/

This is a big contrast to the traditional notion of civic education/learning as that of learning about governmental institutions. It gives youth much more agency in being civic participants from early on.

would love to know more of where this "cognitive practice" concept comes from.

Great session!