Our thanks to partner author Erica Hodgin for contributing this important text to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus! Erica and guest reader Paul Oh joined Marginal Syllabus co-founders Joe Dillon and Remi Kalir for a CLTV webinar discussion about this text - it will air "live" on Tuesday, April 3rd at 4p PT.

If you are joining the Marginal Syllabus for the first time, or if you're using Hypothesis to publicly annotate an online text for the first time, here are a few useful resources:

• Getting started with Hypothesis
• Hypothesis education resources
• KQED's Digital Annotation with Hypothesis course, a great step-by-step primer
• How to join an annotation conversation with crowded margins
• Information about the Marginal Syllabus and our 2017-18 Syllabus hosted by the National Writing Project

Welcome to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus and April's conversation! This is the seventh text we will read and publicly annotate as part of "Writing Our Civic Futures." The Marginal Syllabus convenes and sustains conversation with educators about issues of equity in teaching, learning, and education. The project's name, Marginal Syllabus, embraces a political and technical double entendre; we partner with authors whose writing may be considered marginal—or contrary—to dominant education norms, and online conversations with authors occur in the margins of their texts using web annotation. The Marginal Syllabus is a partnership with the National Writing Project, who is hosting the 2017-18 syllabus, and Hypothesis, an organization building an open technology for web annotation.

educational labor - building a site of intellectual and moral agency

closed architecture

Our thanks to partner authors Drs. April Baker-Bell, Raven Jones Stanbrough, and Sakeena Everett for contributing this important text to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus. A conversation with our partner authors will air "live" on Tuesday, March 6th at 4 pm PT/7p ET - watch it here, it's a really amazing conversation.

If you are joining the Marginal Syllabus for the first time, or if you're using Hypothesis to publicly annotate an online text for the first time, here are a few useful resources:

• Getting started with Hypothesis
• Hypothesis education resources
• KQED's Digital Annotation with Hypothesis course, a great step-by-step primer
• How to join an annotation conversation with crowded margins
• Information about the Marginal Syllabus and our 2017-18 Syllabus hosted by the National Writing Project

Welcome to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus and the March conversation! This is the sixth text we will read and publicly annotate as part of "Writing Our Civic Futures." The Marginal Syllabus convenes and sustains conversation with educators about issues of equity in teaching, learning, and education. The project's name, Marginal Syllabus, embraces a political and technical double entendre; we partner with authors whose writing may be considered marginal - or contrary - to dominant education norms, and online conversations with authors occur in the margins of their texts using web annotation. The Marginal Syllabus is a partnership with the National Writing Project, who is hosting the 2017-18 syllabus, and Hypothesis, an organization building an open platform for web annotation.

Building upon open standards

ThinqStudio has been recognized by the Chancellor's Office as a strategic priority to "advance scholarly excellence and innovation in teaching, research and creative work."

Open web annotation as social practice that encourages boundary crossing

design principles to architect a particular form of learning

building critical thinking

building as weaving

building a space for shared presence

educational labor - building a site of intellectual and moral agency

cultivating high-quality ignorance

Educator agency co-opted by neoliberal reform; pedagogy traded for the currencies of social and economic prestige.

A history of building inequality

closed architecture

Digital architecture as scaffold for thinking and connecting

another annotation test

annotation of an annotation

Architecting connectivity, architecting the world

That's the question...

Our thanks to partner authors Joe Kahne and Ben Bowyer for contributing this important text to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus! Joe also joined a number of educators for a Connected Learning TV webinar that will air on February 6th at 4p PT. You can watch it here.

If you are joining the Marginal Syllabus for the first time, or if you're using Hypothesis to publicly annotate an online text for the first time, here are a few useful resources:

• Getting started with Hypothesis
• Hypothesis education resources
• KQED's Digital Annotation with Hypothesis course, a great step-by-step primer
• How to join an annotation conversation with crowded margins
• Information about the Marginal Syllabus and our 2017-18 Syllabus hosted by the National Writing Project

Welcome to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus and February’s conversation! This is the fifth text we will read and publicly annotate as part of "Writing Our Civic Futures." The Marginal Syllabus convenes and sustains conversation with educators about issues of equity in teaching, learning, and education. The project's name, Marginal Syllabus, embraces a political and technical double entendre; we partner with authors whose writing may be considered marginal—or contrary—to dominant education norms, and online conversations with authors occur in the margins of their texts using web annotation. The Marginal Syllabus is a partnership with the National Writing Project, who is hosting the 2017-18 syllabus, and Hypothesis, an organization building an open platform for web annotation.

If you are joining the Marginal Syllabus for the first time, or if you're using Hypothesis to publicly annotate an online text for the first time, here are a few useful resources:

• Getting started with Hypothesis
• Hypothesis education resources
• KQED's Digital Annotation with Hypothesis course, a great step-by-step primer
• How to join an annotation conversation with crowded margins
• Information about the Marginal Syllabus and our 2017-18 Syllabus hosted by the National Writing Project

Welcome to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus and January’s conversation! This is the fourth text we will read and publicly annotate as part of "Writing Our Civic Futures." The Marginal Syllabus convenes and sustains conversation with educators about issues of equity in teaching, learning, and education. The project's name, Marginal Syllabus, embraces a political and technical double entendre; we partner with authors whose writing may be considered marginal—or contrary—to dominant education norms, and online conversations with authors occur in the margins of their texts using web annotation. The Marginal Syllabus is a partnership with the National Writing Project, who is hosting the 2017-18 syllabus, and Hypothesis, an organization building an open platform for web annotation.

Thanks to dogtrax (Kevin Hodgson) for both his blog post inviting educators-as-annotators to create "a multimedia collage of thoughts and connections," as well as his annotations in these margins that blend hand-written with digital marginalia (here's one example), I'll share another from my reading:

I'm inspired by Linda's emphasis on teaching as a sustained argument against inequality. In doing such work (for it is work, and more on that later), what - and who - offers sustenance so as to sustain such argumentation? How is such work sustained, particularly over time? And what is the role of networks in sustaining arguments against inequality? I also appreciate Linda's use of the word "work," for teaching is a labor - in this case, literacy education is a means of laboring for equality and justice.

If you are joining the Marginal Syllabus for the first time, or if you're using Hypothesis to publicly annotate an online text for the first time, here are a few useful resources:

• Getting started with Hypothesis
• Hypothesis education resources
• KQED's Digital Annotation with Hypothesis course, a great step-by-step primer
• How to join an annotation conversation with crowded margins
• Information about the Marginal Syllabus and our 2017-18 Syllabus hosted by the National Writing Project

Our thanks to partner author Linda Christensen for contributing this important text to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus! Linda will be featured alongside Andrea Zellner (Literacy Consultant for Oakland Schools and Teacher Consultant, Red Cedar Writing Project), Kevin Hodgson (6th grade teacher in Southampton, Massachusetts and Outreach Co-director at Western Massachusetts Writing Project), and Marginal Syllabus organizers Joe Dillon and Remi Kalir in a Connected Learning TV webinar scheduled to air on Tuesday, December 5th. This annotation will be updated to include that webinar video.

Welcome to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus and December's conversation! This is the third text we will read and publicly annotate as part of "Writing Our Civic Futures." The Marginal Syllabus convenes and sustains conversation with educators about issues of equity in teaching, learning, and education. The project's name, Marginal Syllabus, embraces a political and technical double entendre; we partner with authors whose writing may be considered marginal—or contrary—to dominant education norms, and online conversations with authors occur in the margins of their texts using web annotation. The Marginal Syllabus is a partnership with the National Writing Project, who is hosting the 2017-18 syllabus, and Hypothesis, an organization building an open platform for web annotation.

test

This chapter by Nicole and Antero is associated with an issue of the journal Review of Research in Education that explores the theme "Disrupting Inequality Through Education Research." If Marginal Syllabus participants are interested in other articles from this issue and do not have access via an academic institution, please contact me privately (i.e. via Twitter DM, I'm @remikalir) and we'll make arrangements.

Our thanks to partner authors Nicole Mirra and Antero Garcia for contributing this important text to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus! We anticipate that Nicole and Antero will join our annotation conversation throughout November. In addition, please check out these additional resources:

• Nicole and Antero will be featured in an episode of Connected Learning TV, alongside Marginal Syllabus organizers Joe Dillon and Remi Kalir, scheduled to air on Tuesday, November 7th. We will update this annotation and embed the video once it's recorded.
• Antero was also a partner author during the 2016-17 Marginal Syllabus. Antero and co-author Cindy O’Donnell-Allen contributed the introduction from their book Pose, Wobble, and Flow: A Culturally Proactive Approach to Literacy Instruction. You are very welcome to read and join that previous annotation conversation, too.

If you are joining the Marginal Syllabus for the first time, or if you're using Hypothesis to publicly annotate an online text for the first time, here are a few useful resources:

• Getting started with Hypothesis
• Hypothesis education resources
• KQED's Digital Annotation with Hypothesis course, a great step-by-step primer
• Information about the Marginal Syllabus and our 2017-18 Syllabus hosted by the National Writing Project

Welcome to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus and November's conversation! This is the second text we will read and publicly annotate as part of "Writing Our Civic Futures." The Marginal Syllabus convenes and sustains conversation with educators about issues of equity in teaching, learning, and education. The project's name, Marginal Syllabus, embraces a political and technical double entendre; we partner with authors whose writing may be considered marginal—or contrary—to dominant education norms, and online conversations with authors occur in the margins of their texts using web annotation. The Marginal Syllabus is a partnership with the National Writing Project, who is hosting the 2017-18 syllabus, and Hypothesis, an organization building an open platform for web annotation.

We're really excited to launch the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus at the same time as the 2017 Digital Media and Learning Conference, held at UC Irvine. If you're attending DML and want to learn more about the Marginal Syllabus, many people from our organizing team will also be attending and can talk with you about using Hypothesis and joining these public annotation conversations:

• Christina Cantrill from the National Writing Project
• Liana Gamber-Thompson, from NWP's Educator Innovator
• Jeremy Dean, Director of Education at Hypothesis
• Remi Kalir, Asst Prof of Learning Technologies at CU Denver

The Marginal Syllabus will also be featured during the session "Layered Learning: Web Annotation in Collaborative and Connected Contexts," on Friday, October 6th, 2p in Emerald Bay DE.

Again, here's Marginal Syllabus partner author Sangita Shresthova's text "Between Storytelling and Surveillance: The Precarious Public of American Muslim Youth,” which was featured in the 2016-17 Marginal Syllabus.

Our thanks to partner author Henry Jenkins for contributing this important text to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus! Henry previously contributed to the 2016-17 Syllabus last April; we read and annotated a chapter from By Any Media Necessary, by Sangita Shresthova, titled "Between Storytelling and Surveillance: The Precarious Public of American Muslim Youth." Sangita, Henry, and a number of other Marginal Syllabus collaborators - Neta Kligler-Vilenchik, Liana Gamber-Thompson, and Joe Dillon - joined a webinar about the text and our annotation conversation: https://youtu.be/E9NHC9YqOTg

If you are joining the Marginal Syllabus for the first time, or if you're using Hypothesis to publicly annotate an online text for the first time, here are a few useful resources:

• Getting started with Hypothesis
• Hypothesis education resources
• KQED's Digital Annotation with Hypothesis course, a great step-by-step primer
• Information about the Marginal Syllabus and our 2017-18 Syllabus hosted by the National Writing Project

Welcome to the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus! This is the first text we will read and publicly annotate as part of "Writing Our Civic Futures." The Marginal Syllabus convenes and sustains conversation with educators about issues of equity in teaching, learning, and education. The project's name, Marginal Syllabus, embraces a political and technical double entendre; we partner with authors whose writing may be considered marginal—or contrary—to dominant education norms, and online conversations with authors occur in the margins of their texts using web annotation. The Marginal Syllabus is a partnership with the National Writing Project, who is hosting the 2017-18 syllabus, and Hypothesis, an organization building an open platform for web annotation.

Here's another thing that really frustrates me about this letter, as much as I might agree with its broad brushstroke approach to advocating certain values - one of the most specific examples is an analogy (our garden patch)! I recognize that brevity was an authorial choice throughout, and that many specific examples were not included... so it's odd, to me, that an analogy was included rather than an example from an organization, or from the literature, or from history, or...

How? Not only does this letter lack specific recommendations for much of anything, including such public conversation, the limitations of this letter as noted by others - written online, written in English - already constrain notions of equitable participation. That being said, it is both awesome and a bit meta that this group of reader-annotators has taken it upon themselves to "build" (dare I say) one version of that public conversation using the open annotation platform Hypothesis - well done!

Thanks to Maha Bali for organizing this public annotation of an important text. As Maha mentioned briefly at the end of her blog post, the theme of this text and digciz conversation connects nicely with the 2017-18 Marginal Syllabus theme of Writing Our Civic Futures. For those who don't know, the Marginal Syllabus convenes and sustains conversations about issues of equity in teaching, learning, and education. Writing Our Civic Futures invites educators - and those who care about education, like students - to a year of social reading, collaborative web annotation, and public conversation that explores our civic imaginations and literacy landscapes. As civic engagement changes and evolves, Writing Our Civic Futures will consider implications for connected learning and teaching. Click here to learn more about Writing Our Civic Futures and the Marginal Syllabus. As you read and annotate this text, you're invited to tag your annotations with "marginalsyllabus" (as I've done, below). And we'll be sure to add The Copenhagen Letter to a list of complementary syllabus texts featured on the Marginal Syllabus website.

test via box

test via box

A small but important detail - despite their conflict and mediation, Abraham could still text Bronwyn. Whenever a teacher, school, or district suggests limiting the means of accessibility and conversation among educators and students (including providing phone numbers), this story is a great example of why that matters.

This phrase was used earlier and I'd like to know more... which means I should probably read Bronwyn's entire book!

What a powerful reflection on a student-teacher relationship that eschews placing blame and rather seeks to find a sense of nuanced understanding in a rather complex human relationship. Thank you for sharing!

I appreciate this framing of writing as a collection of practices that mediates participation in various contexts, from the personal to the more academic and communal.

What a sobering analysis.

The following is incredibly powerful! On a tangential note, I'm curious about how Bronwyn worked with Abraham (and other students) to get access to and use their writing in her book. No doubt Bronwyn likely details this elsewhere in her book, though some background for the purposes of our conversation would be grand.

How many educators take the time to learn about the academic dexterity of their students?

I was recently at a research conference and presented during a session on methodological complexities in studies of learning. Long story short, one of the presenters critiqued the often short timescales of many studies (often less than a few months, if that), and advocated years-long engagement with learners - despite many of the challenges that come with sustaining inquiry over such a period of time. Nonetheless, educators are uniquely positioned to conduct inquiry over longer timescales.

An inverse of this statement is fascinating to consider, too: Educators' pedagogical success is inextricable from their ability to develop and sustain positive relationships with learners.

Though specific to the context of Abraham's learning, this statement strongly resonates across other intellectual and professional contexts...

Thanks to Bronwyn LaMay for partnering with the Marginal Syllabus and joining us in an annotation conversation during the week of May 22nd. Click here for additional information about our annotathon in partnership with Educator Innovator, including a webinar on Tuesday, 5/31 at 7p ET.

Thanks to Educator Innovator for partnering with the Marginal Syllabus and hosting this week-long annotathon! We're most appreciative of Liana Gamber-Thompson at Educator Innovator and Christina Cantrill at the National Writing Project for guiding this collaborative effort forward. And, of course, a special thank you to Sangita Shrestova and her By Any Media Necessary co-authors for partnering with us for this annotathon and related webinar.

This excerpt from Dr. Christopher Emdin's book For White Folks Who Teach in the Hood… and the Rest of Y’all Too: Reality Pedagogy and Urban Education is the focal text for the Marginal Syllabus' annotathon in March. From March 27th through 31st, educators are invited to participate in an annotation conversation using the platform Hypothesis; additional information and directions for joining this conversation are here.

And wires spark - "rewire" is very generative as a guiding metaphor - well done!

The importance of adaptation - rather than uniform adoption - is so important, and speaks to trust in educator agency and co-design, using artifacts from this text as objects that move across boundaries, that influence emergent practice, and that don't presume "one right way" of a lock-step formula.

What a term! Perhaps we should use this more as we describe the kind of emergent learning that occurs through open and collaborative web annotation. What is awakened through this process of open learning, and who are the awakeners (such as authors) that mediate the process?

Another big thank you! As I've mentioned on Twitter, your course's "re/turn" to a previous Marginal Syllabus conversation (from October) is what Joe, Jeremy, and I hoped would happen over time - that educators would find conversations and texts that resonate with their interests and courses, and then join the text-based conversation via ongoing annotation. This turns the text-as-conversation into an open educational resource (OER), and - like you - we hope other educators and courses revisit these conversations to support their own learning.

I've had students say similar things about using Hypothesis to read together. I'd like to explore the relationship between open/collaborative web annotation and community-building... many questions to consider...

Awesome. Is it possible to connect with some of these posts and perspectives?

This is important, and in my teaching I've been careful to include web annotation in both private (group) and public modes so that learners find comfort with different approaches and can come to appreciate some of the scaffolding that you describe.

You're very welcome, and we're appreciative of your willingness to merge formal course activities with the more open-ended and interest-driven approach to educator learning via Marginal Syllabus.

A publicly visible and annotated syllabus is a great practice, and something I'll incorporate into courses - great idea!

This is quickly going to become a bit meta... :)

The preface to this book was featured as a Marginal Syllabus flash mob conversation on Wednesday, Feb 22 in partnership with Dawn Reed and Troy Hicks. Our thanks to Dawn and Troy for joining the Marginal Syllabus as author-discussants, and view our annotation conversation here.

I appreciate how, for some publicly engaged scholars, collaborative web annotation is becoming a frequent characteristic of social reading and professional learning.

And I'm pleased to read this!

What do you mean by identity?

As I suggest in the conclusion to Teacher Pioneers which we read during C1, same goes for classrooms and schools. Co-design, distributed power, and agency are really important.

Very similar to the focus on tutorials that we read during C1.

Which is why his design principles are exemplified by certain (digital) games, but are not only afforded by games.

His design principles (which we briefly touched during C1) are also useful, though do keep in mind that features change over time as new technologies and practices emerge.

This was an early piece from Gee about games and learning, I'm glad you read it.

Sounds like a solid plan moving forward - you've identified a game, related affinity spaces, and some literature - time to dig deep!

This echoes Gee from C1.

Is this Price's observation or your analysis of her article based upon what we read during C2?

Great decision, and thanks for mentioning here.

Great connection here to C2 readings about fan cultures and affinity spaces.

Echoes of Gee and tutorials that scaffold familiarity with a new system.

I'm glad you're selecting to read scholarship based upon personal interest and play history - very important.

Yes, common equity-oriented concerns associated with cost, access, and who gets to participate will always confront new technologies (whether VR, Tesla cars, etc.).

This happens to me with research all the time. I wonder about a research question or a method, consider how awesome some study would be... and then after asking around a bit, come to learn it's already been done in X way, by Y people, and that they're now onto project Z. At least you know!

Same with me.

That's helpful, thanks for including. Having not yet read these studies, it would seem (although I'm making an assumption) that data about affect is rather different (though perhaps complementary to) observations of affect described in Stevens and colleagues' ethnography... perhaps?

And this would be evident through some type, or types, of biometric data?

It seems like this is already taking a rather narrow view of game, as something a person plays perhaps in isolation from others? The agency of the "system" seems more important than the player/s.

If you're going to cite like this, may as well go all the way and include the year for APA formatting.

I'm curious - what your interest in this area of research?

Way to read deeply and beyond the required scope of a typical scholarly critique, much appreciated!

I'm curious - what does effective mean in this context?

I appreciate that you're highlighting a limitation of the study. What counts as social dimensions, from either the perspective of K&L or in your opinion?

I'm glad you're reading literature that combines course content with professional interests and responsibilities, great idea.

Caro Williams and I wrote a brief for NCTM in 2014 about video games and math education, check it out here.

Why not? What counts as data? And why wouldn't you have various forms of data to support instructional decision-making? Stories are powerful forms of data, perhaps more so than standardized test scores or whatever so-called "objective" data says something about learning.

And I hope you continue to do so after the conclusion of this course, too!

I'm not sure what you mean by this... can you clarify?

With an article that's a decade old, I'm curious how many of these sites and games are still around.

Statistics such as? And effectiveness as measured by...?

And why might this occur?

And perhaps also the pedagogical practices that usefully enact game-based learning?

In future scholarly critiques, it might be useful to your reader to include article title, author, and citation information.

In other words, could your team have failed?

Yeah, I've thought a bit about escape rooms, and I'm not sure they're games as much as very elaborate puzzles. I'm curious how your experience and analysis squares with my assessment of puzzles vs games from the Conclusion to Teacher Pioneers you read during C1.

Nice connection to the cycle readings.

This is a useful bit of context, thanks for sharing and connecting this professional experience with your coursework.

It's great that you experienced an escape room and included this as your play journal!

Yeah, this is a narrative about capacity building in support of game-based learning, less (perhaps) a recipe for "how to do X."

Likely very similar to our course.

Yup, this article was featured in a special issue on games in higher education. Not sure if you noticed, but I also had an article in that same issue (under my previous name, Holden).

So pleased you read this article! Dani Herro is a good friend and colleague, we've done a bit of work together.

I'm curious how platforms like Hypothesis, and more broadly the social practices afforded by open annotation, help create the conditions for new types of professionally-relevant (online) forums. I think a stance toward engagement with the political dimensions of learning is complementary to the work organizations like Hypothesis who are building tools and partnerships for a more democratic, peer-reviewed web. https://youtu.be/QCkm0lL-6lc

One means of engaging such dialogue is through the public annotathon scheduled for February 27th through March 3rd, and which will occur right here - in the margins of this pre-print turned blog post. See my post for more information about the annotathon, and how to join and use Hypothesis.

This pre-publication version of "The Learning Sciences in a New Era of U.S. Nationalism" is the featured text of an annotathon, scheduled for Monday, February 27th through Friday, March 3rd, in collaboration with The Politics of Learning Writing Collective and Cognition & Instruction. Thanks to Thomas Phillip, Susan Jurow, Shirin Vossoughi, Megan Bang, and Miguel Zavala for graciously agreeing to participate in the annotathon of their article, and to Noel Enyedy and Jamie Gravell for their assistance in organizing and promoting the event.

Questions can be addressed here via Page Notes (a type of annotation attached to an entire document/URL, and not in-line), or via Twitter (@remikalir).

Take to Twitter and crowdsource additional resources, too.

These thoughts address a core concern - what are artistic practices, and what types of games (irrespective of content, and perhaps because of certain play mechanics) support those practices?

Indeed, it seems like any game design platform (we'll read about some during C3) would be quite relevant to arts education.

What does this mean, particularly after reading Stevens et al during C2?

Why? What about your professional practice as an art educator makes this a particularly generative aspect of game play?

this is an interesting bit of context within which to design and implement a game

This is great motivation to select interest-driven scholarship for your critiques.

Sean is pretty active on Twitter, you might consider sharing this with him (Constance just moved to a new university/job, and wouldn't likely respond via a social media platform like Twitter).

A reflection of affinity space participation, and the multiple settings and social relations that surround and support ongoing game play.

Is it ironic given what we've been reading in our course to date?

Where? Some context here would be useful

players who posted to WoW forums?

What is the foundation of these studio habits? Can you tell us a bit more about this?

Constance, as I likely mentioned elsewhere, was my boss at UW for a number of years when we ran the Games Learning Society Conference and Playful Learning initiative. Sean does great game-based learning work (and also came through the GLS crew at UW). Good friends and colleagues.

I'm pleased to learn this, and establishing connections to professional practice is an important element of our course.

according to this study

I'll be curious to read about your responses to C3 readings.

While this is an important finding, it seems as though the core message stands irrespective of the tool. In other words, take out (digital) game and replace with any other tool or instructional method, and the importance of clear instructions and sustained engagement stand.

With this style of research, games are positioned as an intervention to improve, and prove, a very specific idea. There are pros and cons to this type of research.

what a fascinating term having already read, in our course, much literature that suggests games (both digital and others) can, under certain circumstances, be educational experiences and support particular learning practices and outcomes.

What do you mean by this? I'm curious if your thoughts about design will change based upon C3 readings...

Yes, you're making sharp connections here among Gee and Hayes' theory about affinity spaces, and seeing how those types of relations are fostered at multiple scales: a) in individual classrooms and b) among a network of educators who are all experimenting with this platform/tech/approach to learning.

Though it sounds like you were able to make some astute observations of activity.

Would you call this Twitter chat one expression of an affinity space?

It seems that class craft is what some people call a "skin" that provides thematic elements and, in some casts, strategies to continue supporting what educators already do (manage, motivate, engage students).

I'm pleased to learn that you're choosing to play games based upon your interests and then observing learning through an interest-driven lens.

There are so many reasons to guide implementation in your classroom, many of which you can find easily online or via interactions with certain communities on platforms like Twitter. This is also why we have the affinity spaces project, to support people in engaging with activities relevant to their interests and professional practices.

Many people in our course are starting to parse the dynamics of cooperative vs competitive game play, and your summary here contributes some important points to consider.

Observed like the methods Stevens and colleagues employed to study shared activity? And how did their observations demonstrate an "increase"?

This is a really nice complement to Stevens and colleagues' ethnography from C2.

Article? The term does carry different connotations, so specificity in this respect is important.

I'm glad you're questioning this idea, and reading research that suggests learning emerges through social and technical relations, rather than primarily because of what a tool delivers.

How do you know this happens? What are the indicators that suggest such learning in taking place?

Why is it important that these emotions are positive?

What do you mean by this?

A question we'll be engaging all semester, and my conclusion to the book Teacher Pioneers (which we read during C1) begins to provide some answers.

Does this presume that people can't learn from games irrespective of developers' goals? I would suggest many games can teach players something, and some games which are designed according to specific learning principles (such as those outlined by Gee in C1) create conditions where specific learning experiences are more likely - does that make sense?

If you're interested in making your blog posts more multimodal, consider including those videos here as embedded in your posts

yes, L&K's emphasis on new literacies expands upon more traditional notions of reading and writing.

I'm a big fan of L&K and their text is a foundational anchor of INTE 5340 Learning with Digital Stories.

I'm curious what you mean by modern environment... digital aspects? Online only? Something else?

Take your chances, yes, though the risk of failure is not too high-stakes, unlike school.

You've got peers who are also exploring cooperative and competitive game play dynamics, I hope this emerges as an ongoing conversation across our various game play experiences.

Important connections here to Gee's analysis of games and apprenticeship which we read during C1.

This is a nice way of creating a multimodal post, thanks for including this video!

I began playing Magic in middle school, and got pretty serious over a few years, to the point where I was entered in some local competitions, had a few complete sets (I forget what a version of cards was called...), and had developed some pretty serious battle-tested decks. I liked playing Magic a lot.

Perhaps because schools and schooling is, by design, inequitable?

Such as?

How does "thorough engagement" relate to learning?

What do you mean by validity here?

At face value, having not read this article (yet), I am always quite resistant to claims that games (or simulations) are so-called "answers." As I argued in my conclusion (which read read during C1), games and game-based learning may be useful for various reasons (like encouraging agency and creativity), but as a silver bullet, I'm always a bit dubious.

I'm curious to learn more about these previous teaching experiences.

I'm curious, having read your post, how notions of peace define outcomes of play or characterize the game play experience - in other words, peaceful means vs peaceful outcomes.

As another example of the trend in annotated news, there are many things to like about this example, and some notable drawbacks as well. Pros: More interactive than NYTimes' previous annotation efforts, nudges reader use of layered commentary, content of annotation layer encourages perspective-taking and reminds reader that political is personal (and vice versa). I also think it's interesting that interview processes and outcomes become the content of the annotation layer. Cons: Confusing how annotations (i.e. refugee contributions via interview) are related to specific anchor text, the "Notes" are static (no ability for reader response, no links out to related information), and annotation "Notes" don't have tags (limiting association with other documents and annotated content). That's my rough assessment of an important step forward.

The NYTimes' in-house annotation efforts are iterating rather quickly - this approach is more interactive than what was publishing a week ago, yet still isn't participatory or open. I'm eager to see how their efforts continue to grow, whether or not they'll jump to a third party platform, and if they'll discuss their process publicly.

To learn about these refugees - who they are, where they have come from, etc. - the reader must click on highlighted anchor text and read the annotation. The UX makes interaction with the annotation layer an essential quality of the reader's experience.

The numbering convention is similar to footnotes, and reminds me of commentary about similarities among annotation, hyperlinks, and footnotes.

Test annotating the new NYTimes dynamic "note."

I'm curious about the relationship between interviewing and annotating. Su "asked refugees... for their responses," with answers then anchored to specific parts of the EO. What's the process linking new content (refugee responses) to the anchor text?

Of course, today the telegraph is a personal device, however irrational our use of such mobile technologies - from the ill-informed tweet to the use of such devices for political surveillance.

Many critics and theorists today would suggest that this broader is also cultural and - given that we're reading and discussing a text that was first written 118 years ago - historical.

This strikes me as such a radical statement in light of America's current political earthquake.

Given what's happening at the turn of 2017 with public education, and in both K-12 and higher education contexts, it's challenging to appreciate "the agency of the school," particularly if such agency is meant to embolden - and not "destroy" - our democracy.

Even though I know this text was published in 1899, the gendered language conventions of Dewey's text really stand out.

I'm looking forward to this, and will be following along - often by jumping into these margins and inviting subsequent conversation.

This seems to echo a previous EDUCAUSE article on next generation digital learning environments.

Because I'm adding these thoughts via public annotation - and have been thinking a bit about how designs for social and collaborative web annotation might inform higher education practices associated with collaboration, research, and peer review - here's something I've written with Jeremy Dean about web annotation as disruptive media.

Essential viewing from Robin DeRosa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpOP6RZXzXQ&t=3s

Higher education systems and dominant pedagogies too often entrench a passive approach to students reading a static web, rather than writing (and yes, critiquing) a more dynamic web.

Though as Audrey Watters and others remind us, it's also important to remember that the history of the internet's development (by academics) was a result of military funding and partnerships.

Essential reading: Vannevar Bush's As We May Think (and the Hypothesis annotations layered atop this version of his essay are pretty great, too).

I've found such advocacy rather short-sighted. Such logic requires we accept that a given tool (the web, broadly defined) can be both appreciated and applied outside the/any political economy, social context and inequality, as well as institutional power. In addition to the oft-cited adage by William Gibson that "The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed," I'm reminded of the important work by Chris Gilliard on digital redlining (resources here, and a great introductory article) that expressly critiques the notion of a neutral web that is - by default - vibrant, agile, and innovative as a form of beneficence.

I'm reminded here of an argument made by Keri Facer in her book Learning Futures: Education, Technology, and Social Change. Briefly, Facer suggests that patterns associated with people's social uses of new technologies - what she calls sociotechnical formations - are divergent, often contradictory to the intention of designers, and yet can be directed toward more equitable means of use, expression, and impact.

Something I haven't thought about enough, and that I would welcome to unpack (perhaps here) through conversation, is the extent to which certain "recent technologies" can function as a counterweight to the so-called attention economy.

I would suggest that the affordances of web annotation can help to mitigate such a circumstance. If I'm going to respond publicly and with a participatory technology that encourages in-line and contextualized commentary, the quality of my reading (and subsequent responses) better be more than half-assed.

Or perhaps something uniquely engaging might happen if people chose to gather here in the margins, read socially, and annotate this article as a means of discussion - let's hope so!

test

is this a general term connoting the fact that our everyday media is social and participatory, or a direct reference to "participatory culture" (a concept studied and critique by various DML folks)? and perhaps that distinction doesn't matter?

only as noun? i'm always intrigued by works that carry multiple meanings as both nouns and verbs... "network" can simultaneously be a noun and a verb, making it a more hybrid and complex concept than the plural noun (networks).