This is a test for Tuesday's session with Noah and INTE 2500 - have fun!

A great analogy for course design, particularly the types of courses informed by #digped philosophies.

And that such continued, cyclical professional growth is the development of expertise.

Such an important framing, and I appreciate that this comes immediately to the fore.

I think public questioning of practice - whether in teaching, perhaps in research - is one possible affordance of open and collaborative web annotation.

And now we've joined the conversation, too ;)

All teaching is political and, in many circumstances, so too learning.

This text was featured in a Marginal Syllabus annotation flash mob on Wednesday, October 26th. Thanks to Cindy and Antero for encouraging us to read and remark upon the introduction to their book Pose, Wobble, Flow: A Culturally Proactive Approach to Literacy Instruction.

I had a professor once refer to this as self-evidence assessment, that the evidence of learning is so powerful, given that it changes dispositions, forms of interaction, and that it has resonance across settings - and that this, more than a final test of project - was evidence of deep learning.

What a powerful example of student agency that transcends the concerns of self and course, and pushes for public engagement and dialogue.

I really like this play on the idea of written - it helps to expand the notion of text - within the context of a university course - to consider the various social, historical, and cultural narratives that record and revise what matters.

In my experience, this type of creative risk-taking requires the experience of more traditional attempts. Like the musical improvisation, it's useful to practice scales and know "the standards" before playing with a community - of musicians, of students - in new and unexpected ways.

What a nice course feature, I wish there were more opportunities for undergrad and grad students to learn with and from one another.

On Wednesday, September 28th this blog was featured as the second "annotation flash mob" text associated with the Marginal Syllabus project. Thanks to all those who joined and contributed to the conversation, especially Mia Zamora!

this is a test

Following the first Marginal Syllabus flash mob on Wednesday, August 31st (reflection here), a few folks participated in this Google Hangout: https://youtu.be/DRW-b3RlOnM

In my experience with most LMSs, there is an implicit pedagogy that does restrict openness and co-production and sharing of knowledge and information. In this respect, digital redlining is packaged as efficiency, classroom management, etc.

I agree. Learning with and from the #digped community has been very influential in helping me to think about the various ideologies of technologies, and how our pedagogy and design can work against restrictive structures.

A special thanks to Chris Gilliard (hypervisible) for joining the first Marginal Syllabus flash mob and talking with us about these important educational equity issues.

If you're curious, here's Vygotsky's Wikipedia entry.

A moving obituary by Alexander Luria, another eminent psychologist responsible for articulating and advocating cultural-historical psychology (a precursor to sociocultural/situative perspectives).

We'll encounter this quote in full context during our first Cycle's reading.

And from the scale of the classroom to that of a school system, such practical barriers and poor understandings also manifest as political barriers and priorities - and as noted, often to the detriment of learners.

I'm eager to learn - and contribute to a conversation - about alternative ways to frame such collaborations.

I'm curious - when we work as academics, what identities, practices, and commitments do we intentionally foreground? Asked another way, what stance (such as "international-first") shapes our work?

Is it helpful to specify what critical means here? For instance, reading so far, critical might refer to:

• about critical education issues, generally?
• critical of US-centric view of ed tech?
• critical of something associated with digped?

How many people think they might share this with their students this fall? I think I will.

This piece reminds me that concerns about equity in making (and, broadly, the so-called "Maker Movement") have become the focus of some very sharp learning scientists. Here are a few examples: Making Through the Lens of Power and Culture

On Equity Issues in the Maker Movement, and Implications for Making and Learning

Makeology book, Vol 1 & 2

Our "thoughts and prayers"...

And this all changes, now, with Orlando.

Reminds me of my experience contributing to the Civic Media Project.

Might we be edging into Dylan territory here?

This opens an interesting conversation about whose data and measures are more reliable. Given that we're in an election cycle, I've turned frequently to 538, how about others?

I appreciate reading this and wonder how other criteria might change our understanding of protest. And a question for Mark: Why were these five criteria chosen, were any discarded, and have any been added since this was published?

Chuck authors a wonderful blog.

Yes, though isn't this stance reflective of the individuals who create the source material, in this case news headlines? I'm curious about the interplay between human processes (from editorial meetings, to the creation of that which is newsworthy) and the automated - and how, to borrow from Mark, this reflects conviction.

While these may be "horrors" of another variety, I'm reminded of the recent effort by James Fallows at The Atlantic to chronicle "The Daily Trump: Filling a Time Capsule" so that readers might recall what remains so shocking about our daily political machinations.

Here's Jill Lepore's wonderful The Disruption Machine, my favorite critique of Christensen's schtick.

I'm curious why this automation matters, and how this relates to various human ambiguities - such as the nuance of meaning and interpretation - that invariably inform how we protest, why, for whom, and under what circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFc8glsWjgU

This speaks to such a narrow view of academia. Given the prior statement about "the lab," I might presume this author is a training to be a research scientist in a field such as chemistry or biology (again, I'm making an assumption). I'll never forgot a job interview I had in which a search committee member remarked to me, "I'm a historian, I don't actively pursue many grants for external funding." While I might seek funding from various agencies or foundations to advance my research, I cannot privilege my experience about what "counts" as the difficult, challenging, and intellectual work of academia.

Also, I don't think grants are a place to show off. Rather, grants are a means of convincing others that your research fills an important need, or advances a question yet asked, or tackles a challenge creatively and with methodological precision. Having reviewed grants for both federal agencies and my own university, I'll be far more likely to support a grant application that carefully considers methods, limitations, possible outcomes, and next steps, than an application that shows off the researcher's credentials.

This might come off as petty, but a sample size of one is typically not useful for asserting broad claims about a given phenomena, particularly social practices that span such diverse settings, peoples, and purposes.

I, for one, would never frown upon a colleague's decision to keep social media private, just as I would never frown upon a colleague's decision about where to publish, or present, or what research agenda to pursue. We might debate such decisions, but we should not actively privilege one decision over another - doing so only accentuates the hyper-competitive nature of certain academic circles, rather than build communities of support and curiosity.

Perhaps this is motivating, in part, the author's perspectives noted in the essay? My work as an academic intentionally spans multiple settings, including classrooms, schools, community locations, and many online (and social) networks. One approach to knitting together my activity and meaning-making across these settings is through networked media.

Enthusiasm is great (I mean, shouldn't we have fun!), though might we not see our tweets as something akin to cave paintings or graffiti, a message of personal import that notes, "I was here, and this is what i saw; this is my mark of meaning."

The scope and subsequent structure of this essay is quite challenging - it starts broadly, with claims about academia as a static institution (or culture?), and then dives specifically into conference etiquette, as if that one setting is some proxy for all the various ways of being in academia (again, something I don't consider a static or single "thing.").

Perhaps because our lives are fluid, because some practices are not easily bracketed from one context and not another, because our identities are not so easily turned on and off when talking from one building to another, down a sidewalk, and among meetings and projects and collaborations.

In other words, in what contexts is this appropriate and inappropriate? At conferences, sure... in a dissertation proposal defense, I hope not. As a learning scientist, I consider social practices embedded in everyday cultures and activities, from the peer cultures of Pokemon Go to the cultures that grow among research teams, disciplines, etc. There are many "events" that, quite appropriately, welcome us to tweet and hashtag our way through shared activity.

Is this a primary, or even secondary, reason why academics use various forms of social media? Of course I might promote my upcoming talks or publications on social media. But that is but one purpose that more frequently takes a back seat to collaboration, questioning, resource-sharing.... the list goes on.

What specific culture is this? There's a serious strawman argument in the making here...

remi's website

Is there a distinction here between playful subversion about education, and playful subversion as education (learning)? In my work, I see educator agency via gameful and playful learning as subversive - contrary to, a deviation from - expectations of what "counts" as their professional development.

I'd suggest that one (perhaps not the "most") ethical purpose of learning, and both individual and collective learning, is the critique of purposiveness. However, I think there are many ethical purposes of education (as a system, or interrelated sets of systems), including those that are decidedly economic.

I'm curious to learn about what this looks like, in practice/praxis. I've intentionally abandoned the idea of safe spaces in my course design, the term in my writing, and the promotion in my public pedagogy - and for various reasons, some political, others - as is noted here - ethical. If, however, such "safe" spaces can engender the emergence of such new education (and learning?) systems, I'd love to know more.

Yes, and this motivates - in my current work - experiments with annotation flash mobs as a playground/sandbox of sorts. And also my PAHSIT project.

My research, at least in the past few years, has primarily been about gameful practices. Happy to share more if people are interested, though my colleagues (and our co-designers and learners) find this distinction very useful (and not useless!).

Are you referencing specific "learning institutions" that are spending this type of money on some variation of game-based learning, or institutions in a general sense? If you do know of a given institution that is investing that type of capital in games and learning, I'd love to know more. There are, of course, many granting organizations and agencies that are funding game development, and games and learning studies, but I see such investment as different than (what I take your argument to be) the wanton waste of money.

Interesting that you're pointing to Jenkins here... his recent conversation (in book form) with Mimi and danah is pretty relevant to the utility of certain social (and educational) systems in supporting expressions of agency, critique, etc.

As a teacher educator (and games and learning researcher), I'm seeing the opposite - the proliferation of play, games, game-based learning, gamification everywhere... to the point where the terms lack meaning, educator/systems-level practice is often superficial, and a sense of agency is abandoned to jargon and algorithms. One of my greatest concerns, in this respect, is the explosion of game-based learning to the detriment of play.

And what of learning?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts about Sicart's (2014) definition of playful, and how that may (or may not) be relevant to both the content of this essay, as well as your essay as an experiment.

An interpretation of Lorde's "master's tools not dismantling the master's house," perhaps?

I have a hard time with this phrase, and for a variety of reasons:

1. Because I don't perceive higher education as a singular entity, but rather as a fractured, challenged, likely unsustainable, but quite diverse intersection of social, political, and economic relations.
2. Because (some) higher education institutions do a tremendous job creating the conditions for critical thought, divergent discourse, and social critique. I'm reminded of Goffman's idea of secondary adjustments, and relish the fact that many faculty (perhaps especially adjuncts) and students create collective secondary adjustments to the institutional norms of higher education that can result in more just policy, creative expression, etc.
3. Because, at least in an American context, higher education institutions have often played a key role in organizing collective action, protest, and resistance to various hegemonies. In one respect, learning institutions are ideal training grounds for resistance - and in some places that still happens today.

Curious what you mean here by cultural work.

Is this the only - or even a "true" - dichotomy, that between all cultural endeavors as (ideally) useless or destined to be of utilitarian economic value? Purpose - whether of art, storytelling, home construction, or sport - need not always be commodified, no?

For the sake of argument, is it worth unpacking whether productivity and efficiency are always - or necessarily - forces to resist? There are, for that matter, many moments throughout my given day when I must embrace productivity and efficiency - often so that I can later be playful.

Suits, however, was writing specifically about the play of games - a "voluntary attempt to overcome an unnecessary obstacle" - and not "just" play. There is, for example, notable distinctions between Sutton-Smith's descriptions of joy (and deviance, and "biting-not-biting") in play, and Suits' definition of game play via his "lusory attitude."

While it's nice to see equity noted at the end of this post, equitable teaching and learning is seldom - if ever - about access to devices. At the very least, the author should mention access to data - to broadband access, to networks that facilitate the production and sharing of information. Beyond that, access is far more powerful when framed in terms of networks and institutions, not devices. Giving every kid a device won't do much for systemic educational inequity in America, or elsewhere for that matter.

At this point I'm pretty dumbstruck...

See my previous annotation. The author's inability to consider the privilege of mobility and space is troubling. This is further emphasized by the fact that the four kids in the next picture are all white and male. Privilege speaks loudly.

And when others walk around playing Pokemon Go, they might end up in very different circumstances.

And before Goosechase there were educators and media designers who were creating various mobile learning activities, technologies, and pedagogies to meet the needs of their students and communities. The author should carefully consider the cases presented in the books Mobile Media Learning: Amazing Uses of Mobile Devices of Learning and also Mobile Media Learning: Innovation and Inspiration.

Many learning technologies have been designed and deployed in diverse settings, many outside the formal confines of a school classroom. The history of mobile computing did not start yesterday. There's a long line of scholarship that usefully indicates design principles for learning across settings, and the role of learning technology to afford authentic practices (such as scientific inquiry).

Technically, this is augmented reality, not virtual reality.

Where is the recognition of contested policy - that some schools and districts prohibit students from using personal phones in school? Or that educators are not permitted from experimenting with mobile learning pedagogy? And - certainly more importantly - the author's decision to ignore issues of access and equity is very troubling.

Some very smart people have thought about why learners use various tools, and why that may or may not be beneficial to their learning. I highly recommend that you read Audrey Watters, Larry Cuban, and Sherry Turkle to name but a few people who would likely bristle at this superficial analysis of an emerging technology as somehow relevant to education.

Why? Because they are distracted in class due to learning that is not relevant to their interests? Or because they are participating in some type of activity that is complemented by mobile device use? The initial presumption that learners are "on" a device and not engaged with authentic practices (i.e. questioning, inquiry) is troubling, if not shortsighted.

There are likely pros and cons to this approach. In one respect, and by engaging with the same people over an extended period of time, you might really connect with certain people. And then again, you might also want to find ways to branch out. Happy to discuss this more!

I agree, I think the quality of your group's annotation-as-discussion was much improved from prior weeks. So what can we learn from this past week that will be applicable to the remainder of our course? What strategies might continue to support such quality exchange?

And I'm really pleased to learn this! Finding a way for this course to enable personal meaning-making, and to apply to professional practice, is a goal. Please keep us all informed about your growth in this regard, and if the course design or facilitation fails to engender this anymore, keep us accountable!

What if access to technology matters less than pedagogy that honors the assets of your students?

Can you tell us more about this? I'm not sure if this is something you fear, or value, or consider necessary to learning, or... ?

Great, I'm so pleased that this course can provide that opportunity for you!

Are you suggesting that the "internet" is a singular space? Some clarification would help.

I'll be eager to learn about what you think of these case studies, many of which are written by educators who teach in schools similar to the one you're describing - see Teaching in the Connected Learning Classroom.

Really? I'd have to disagree. Please email me so that can we talk about this in detail.

And I'm glad you do, and - more importantly - this course can create the conditions for you to experiment with creativity.

I'm really pleased to learn that this is working out for you (and your group!). Lisa and I anticipated that the smaller groups would seed intentional connections and collaborations. It sounds like this is happening for you - wonderful!

I really appreciate the intention - and strategy - of your reflection - thank you!

Yup, dive in, experiment, see what fits, and make it work for you - well observed!

This is tremendous, and an important realization. Activities like Daily Creates and all our blogging emphasize production over perfection. As an educator, I care about seeing your learning as it emerges, as it is in process - and I care less about perfection, whatever that means.

And that's OK, some of the L&K remix practices may not be entirely relevant to the qualities of the story you've selected to critique. Adapting and - if necessary - discarding those practices is fine. You seem, however, to have grokked the broader point - that switching up the criteria for a critique changes how you will "read" and interpret the given story. So in that respect, well done!

Yes, this is a legitimate fear. Yet at the same time, I'm consistently amazed by the K-12 and higher ed educators who are sharing their work publicly, and often being rewarded because of that openness. Not all schools, districts, and policies are the same. And I'm reminded that with ISTE in Denver this past week, there are so many educators who are making public commitments to sharing their teaching practice. Among the many groups who are taking this more transformative approach to sharing, I'm impressed by Educolor and also the Ed Speakers Co-Op.

I am so pleased to learn this, and am deeply appreciative of the fact that our course design can support your expression of voice, however your emerging voice blends the personal with the academic and scholarly.

I likely noted this in our private reading conversations, though have you had a chance to look at the model of publication - and peer review - practiced in Hybrid Pedagogy?

These are very important questions to grapple with. In response, might I suggest you peruse a resource like Antero Garcia's Teaching in the Connected Learning Classroom.

Not a bad at all! In fact, this demonstrates - as you know - a great connection to our course readings about identity and blogging.

Of course! And yes, there are many resources out there about student blogging. I tweeted out another resource just this morning. Translation into practice does certainly take a lot of time.

Yes, isn't it interesting how web annotation and time work together when participating in social reading? The first person to "take a pass" at a given text will have a very different experience than someone who reads, and contributes, later in a given week. For me, I find it useful to revisit a reading multiple times so as to appreciate the annotations from multiple people.

Of course, because by design most of our learning in this course is open. Our course blog isn't going anywhere - same goes for all the posts created by your peers (unless they delete them!). Our reading PDFs aren't going anywhere, and all Hypothesis annotations are sticking around (and are archived). This is one reason why we've ditched an LMS. Access to a course LMS "shell" often disappears after a semester, and as a private space creates all kinds of issues with access. As you note, your learning is ongoing, why not have access to our collective knowledge long after our course "officially" ends?!

So glad we're on the same page!

I'm really glad to learn that these Hypothesis annotations are a useful scaffold for your reading comprehension!

What are your thoughts about our more structured use of Hypothesis as a means of peer-to-peer feedback? This is certainly a change from Games and Learning, and I hope this helps with the need for ongoing, formative evaluation, much of which should come (I believe) from the broader learning community and not a single authority (like me).

Me too!

I'm so pleased to learn that you have more and more questions - that's a core goal of this course, to create conditions for learners to ask questions about literacies, inquiry, expression, and creativity. And what's further interesting, for me, is that getting "back to the classroom" does not mean a four walled room abstracted from the real world. A classroom is Twitter. Your blog is a classroom, and our networked blogs an entire school. For me, "working with my students" means writing and reading socially, interacting on Twitter, and turning all our mediated networks into distributed learning environments. I no longer privilege one definition of a classroom. I actively try to trouble the expected geographies and grammars of learning in favor of more creative and contested learning spaces and expressions.

I'm glad you did, and that you're sharing this information here! This is precisely why we're critically reading and posting our thoughts publicly, to encourage more engaged discourse that examines between the lines.

Why doesn't it fit? What is preventing you - or anyone - from bringing the critical education perspectives, sociocultural theories (which here also addressed in our first week's reading), and political critiques from those courses into our learning here? If we're reading about mashup, why not mash together those courses with the social learning practices of ILT5340?

And thanks for challenging yourself to reach, and share, outside your comfort zone. And in doing so, here's one additional layer - and public recognition - that your public post is a way to make meaning among our learning community. Thanks!

You've captured the entire ethos of our course in this reflection, thanks for sharing and being open to such emergent and new learning!

And, I would suggest, that humor can be quite serious, and a great motivator for deep learning.

I appreciate learning that you're enjoying a sense of connectedness in our course. That's really important. All the various tools that we use are simply means to create more authentic conversations and collaborations among both peers and the public. And yes, I know the same can be done in K-12 settings, too.

And this is precisely why we're using various tools in our course, and working - in some ways - publicly. Why not engage with the authors, creators, and thinkers who are shaping our learning - I'm so glad you did this!

I'm so pleased to learn that the conversations we're having with Hypothesis in small groups are supporting divergent, challenging, and perhaps growth-oriented thoughts about your writing, and specifically public writing via blogs. That's precisely what our course is all about - honestly critiquing our preconceptions about media and expression, and leveraging these new thoughts to make change in our own practices. Thanks for being such an engaged and open-minded participant in that process.

As I look over your work, I'm curious about the following questions: How does the use of various digital media and learning technologies strengthen your commitment to teaching diverse learners? And how might such tool use change your teaching practice?

Congrats!

No, not at all.

So here's a related set of questions: What lessons from our course are applicable to your setting? How might you borrow aspects of our course design? How might you encourage learners to pursue their own interests, and then write about that? How to best scaffold learners into a community of practice where writing, peer commentary, and reflection can flourish? I would suggest that our social learning practices in this course can be translated into various K-12 settings.

These are interesting comments for me to read. In one respect, the "apply-on-Monday" approach to ed tech use is something I find perpetuates a system of easy answers and silver bullets. On the other hand, some learning technologies can be usefully applied in classroom settings, perhaps such as Hypothesis.

Here's my bigger question for you: What is motivating the idea that technology should be used in your classroom "immediately"? What is the technology the motivating factor? For me, tools are used in response in authentic problems of practice. For example, I am always concerned with the quality of peer-to-peer conversation. Hypothesis is a useful tool to address that concern. The tool, for me, comes second, second to the primary need for quality communication among learners. When I hear educators talk about "immediately" implementing any learning technology, I'm concerned the tool is being used for its own sake, abstracted from a relevant teaching and learning need.

Does that resonate?

I'm so pleased to learn this, thanks for sharing!

Are there not practitioners in your area of work who are blogging about their experiences with software development, guest services, and leadership? I imagine the lessons from last week's readings are applicable across fields, and that you might challenge yourself to find thought leaders in your professional practice who are using the medium of blogging to share knowledge, build community, and even push boundaries.

This is awesome, glad Hypothesis is serving as a scaffold for your learning!

If so, that's a win! This is precisely why we're using Hypothesis - and for both course readings and to engage in peer-to-peer feedback on our course blogs.

Not my brilliance! This is borrowed from Stuart Firestein's work on "ignorance."

So pleased to learn this! I agree, reading paired with social (group) annotation changes how we interact, engage our intellects, and - as you note - stay accountable to the text, to ourselves as readers, and to those we read with. I'm glad this aspect of the course is so meaningful for you!

Wonderful! Cultivating a sense of ownership - even when the work required to "own" one's learning is challenging, or frustrating, or unknown - is an important goal of this course.

Blur those boundaries! The separations between so-called academic and so-called personal lives are often constructions. Returning to Gee's notion of Discourse - and, in particular, secondary Discourses - underscores this hybridity. Let's embrace the complexity of relevant learning in this course.

Yes! This is a core design element of the course. I'm glad this is working for you!

I'm so pleased to learn this. A challenge - and a goal - of this course is creating a mix between what is required and what is pursued based upon interest. When the two synthesize, that's really where deep learning can occur.

I really like the metaphor of pacing - and this is relevant both to summer term courses generally (at 8 weeks, half the length of a "typical" semester) and certainly ILT5340.

And our peers. Again, such an important point! And on the point of respectful disagreement - people tend to regularly read texts - whether scholarship, or the news media - that confirm their biases, or that conform to their particular world view, or that maintain their (perhaps privileged) position in various social and cultural spheres. I firmly believe that a tenet of graduate education is respectful critique and debate so as to challenge such assumptions. An open mind, and empathy, are not contradictory to disagreement.

This is an exceptionally important point. And by the way Lisa, Comic Con was this past weekend here in Denver, and there were so many people participating in cosplay.

I use Camtasia for my screencasts. I highly recommend this platform.

And very fun!

Productive struggle is really important. And, it's also good to know when to walk away. Not every assignment bank entry needs to be "perfect;" rather, every assignment needs to be an authentic, and well-intentioned effort to stretch your creativity.

Yes, it is really difficult! One of the reasons why we engage various media in the early weeks of this course - visual, audio, video - is to give everyone a taste of media production and editing. If you don't like something, no need to return later this semester when we have "choice" weeks. If you do like a particular medium, however, you can always return to explore more.

Isn't Lisa awesome! Thanks for doing this!

here's my mashup:

Here's Remi's example of DC1610, and note this annotation is posted publicly. And because it's posted publicly, I've added some tags below (ILT5340, DS106, dailycreate).

And, on the other hand, where negligence borders upon, or even becomes, abuse.

This is such an important recognition. Ironically, it likely took multiple game nights, multiple sets of interaction over time, to recognize this a) as a dynamic and b) as such a problem. I wonder if you could have identified the significance of this dynamic upon your first game night...?

Given what you do know about this situation, would you qualify this as victim blaming?

I wonder what impact this public action will have on future group attendance.

A wonderful critique

Yes, and... I anticipate there's a bit caveat coming...

Like my interest in "glimpsing" the value of open annotation?

Relevance to everyday learning and knowing is also really important for children - I wish schools adopted such an approach more regularly.

Are you referring to Graphite, the broad field of education, or politics? While might tongue-in-cheek question might appear as a joke... I'm not joking ;)

I was wondering about this while watching your screencast. To what extent did you interact with other Graphite members? Or how are you planning to do so, especially once you begin teaching your courses?

Yes, I was wondering about educators agency as well when watching your screencast. How does an affinity space like this encourage educators' agency?

Indeed, and as you note on a number of occasions during your screencast. It's nice to have such notable funders backing a project like this - it adds to a sense of validity.

This crowd-sourced approach to reviewing media (whether videos, apps, or games) is a wonderful way of honoring educators' knowledge and experience.

During yesterday's annotation flash mob Susannah made a similar point. How do we navigate this information so that it is useful? How do we "ride the wave" (as she said)?

I appreciate that Goethe has been a presence - a companion of sorts - throughout your learning this semester. I'm glad he made an appearance in your affinity space project!

I also loved dinosaurs as a child. I should track down a photograph...

Or even "seemingly" pointless, per Wikipedia's definition. I thought about riffing on this qualifier "seemingly," and exploring the connections among flash mobs as performance, the perception of activity, and annotation as form of public (and "open") performance... but those meandering thoughts are well-beyond the scope of this practical invitation.

This doesn't surprise me one bit... any specific MMORPGs that stand out for you?

Nice connection to the surrounding culture of this particular social experience.

You're likely familiar with the concept of "whales," yes? This piece from a few years ago has always stood out to me.

Similar to pathways of interest-driven learning, perhaps? I'm reading this and thinking of parallels to course design, how learning environments afford participants multiple opportunities to navigate "upgrades" throughout a learning trajectory...

Great question, and I'm curious too - time for a literature review! #kidding #notkidding

Are referencing the concept flow as described and studied by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi?

Interesting... reading your thoughts, I would return to Bevelier et al's study on visual perception and cognition, and compare how this specific scenario compares to her team's review of current neuroscience research.

Reading this and thinking about the Dungeons & Dragons video recently posted as a Retro Report in the New York Times.

What an interesting set up for research... I'm intrigued!

The fact that these incredible learning scientists and scholars are familiar names is just awesome - win for you, win for the course.

And what an excellent reason to read an article!

I see a parallel to course design and pedagogy. My hope is that courses like INTE 5320 have helped you/other learners connect various dots so that it is easier to step outside the role of participant (and often consumer of content) and into the role of course co-designer.

This is coming up all across our course right now - cooperative versus competitive game play. Susan has been writing and thinking about this a lot.

Is this unique to video game design... or to design activities generally? From dance choreographers to architects, it seems as though there might be some elements of these three qualities inherent to those respective design experiences, too. On the other hand, what is it about (video) game design that makes this trifecta particularly effective?

Interesting that we've examined - in some way - three of these game design platforms:

• Gamestar Mechanic in the Alex Games article
• Scratch in the Peppler & Kafai article
• And Kirk has joined the Unity community as his affinity space

As I've likely mentioned, I'd welcome the opportunity to pair a game design course with our games and learning course - two semesters - focusing on learning first semester, then design in the second.

Why?

huh... from my perspective, I'm seeing this happening quite a lot via Twitter, via blogs and commentary (and Hypothesis annotations), and also via our annotation-as-discussion when a particular course text aligns with people's interests (like games and learning in higher education/adult learning contexts). Would a group project of some sort have amplified this type of collaboration for you?

Is this not happening via our various course blogs? I'm thinking about Robert's consistent blogging about video games and language learning, Susannah's affinity space participation that examines coding skill development, Lainie's ongoing commitment to libraries and information accessibility given her professional responsibilities... and - at a more meta-level - this course itself and a design that pairs the study of games and playfulness with playful design, pedagogy, and participation.

Just curious, because I'm often involved in similar course design and evaluation efforts - what types of feedback/data did you receive from these students to capture the "transformative" aspects of this learning experience?

Literally immersive - that's wonderful.

Where are you drawing this from?

Given your comments about Twitter, was there a conference-sponsored backchannel during the keynote? That's often a very informative - and participatory - element of keynotes that I really value - and whether I'm watching the talk or giving it myself.

This is very true... and also scares me a bit. I have a forthcoming conclusion to a book about educators as game designers (it'll be published soon, I was hoping we'd have a chance to read it this semester) in which I argue against the "bid data" and learning analytics developments in game-based learning. Here's one paragraph, a bit out of context, but it's a sense of thinking on this topic:

Teacher Pioneers also contests a narrative that games are a means of thoroughly assessing learning given supposed shortcomings in educators’ ability to understand what students know. An ill-informed logic—in the worst of cases—suggests that educators possess neither the skill nor the professional disposition to accurately or adequately assess what their own students have learned during a given lesson or upon completion of a unit. As a tool that exemplifies the mining of big data and the capabilities of embedded learning analytics, digital video games are often lauded as a means of closing this presumably troubling gap in educator competency. Yet when educators do use digital games as a means to assess students, the game—in and of itself—rarely functions as the sole mediator of evaluation. A recent survey of more than 450 classroom educators investigated formative assessment practices during students’ digital gameplay. These educators did not passively monitor students’ gaming, as some narratives might suggest. Rather, the teachers actively observed their students, interacted with them via questioning, and created opportunities for complementary problem solving. Such relational and in-the-moment assessment practices can deepen and further contextualize students’ digital data trails. Video games can serve as a mechanism to assess what students know and can do. From this perspective, however, an outstanding tension concerns the extent to which educators’ assessment practices complement—or are ultimately circumvented by—the authority of algorithms.

I'm glad there were some unanticipated yet fruitful outcomes!

I take a very similar approach. A student and I were just discussing annotation and grading here.

Indeed... and what are the implications for how games, or playful experience generally, are structured within formal schooling?

What makes for simple design? What are the principles that guide the creation of a simple and playful game?

How people choose to adopt certain strategies within the formal set of rules, or how people bring "house rules" to their play of Uno?

Yes... and a tension here, as we discussed during the third cycle readings about gamification, is the extrinsic motivation associated with such "ego boosts."

perhaps like playing as a means to learn?

I'm wondering... are you making a judgement here about the need, perhaps benefits or limitations, of social collaboration?Just curious.

I think you'll be really taken with our readings later this term. There are various ways to assess student learning in formal classroom environments through games and game play. Particularly when we look at our cycle readings about teachers as game designers... more to come!

Hmmm, this seems like a big concern. Standardization and regulation of game-based learning seems not much different than rote memorization, or textbook recitation, or skill-and-drill. Old wine in new bottles, as the saying goes... I hope we don't take the playfulness out of game-based learning!

Check out the latest US Dept of Ed Educational Technology plan - there's a lot about formative assessment through game-based learning. It's actually quite progressive!

Here's my gut reaction: this formulaic approach to "integrating" games into schooling isn't really playful... as noted, I'm going to read this article, my own curiosity is piqued!

This is a powerful opening. I'll have to look up the article. I'm curious if there are citations accompanying that first sentence. What types of evidence support the claims?

Indeed, such a mindset helps to perceive failure as part of a longer-term trajectory, and not a static end-state that is consequential to the point of inaction.

These are really useful observations as they present such a stark contrast to the way in which students typically approach - and relate to - failure within formal school contexts.

A nice connection - and despite my limited experience with KTNE, there are a range of skills (communication, representation, problem posing, problem solving, etc.) that do becomes literacies of sorts in the context of game play.

I liked playing KTNE even briefly with Lisa and Brian, and it's nice to learn that you chose to pick up and give it a go!

Very nice!

Which, given certain circumstances, may be quite a leap of faith! And, in some ways, isn't this what happens between students and their teachers?