Clearly articulating levels of participation through physical attributes.

Makes me think of LPP because the resources for newcomer participation may prohibit people from wanting to become a participant. This could turn off a lot perspective users.

Did they vary in price or 'clams'? This would show direct variation with the 'value' of these body pieces and the implications it has in terms of racism.

An instance that shows virtual worlds can mimic physical spaces in both their good and bad attributes. This is very much a real issue in the US and it is translating even in a virtual world with 'fake' people representing avatars.

Is this what happens to every newcomer?

This made me think of the discussions we had around figured worlds vs. communities of practice. One of the biggest differences that we identified is the component of identity in each- in figured worlds, identity can be ascribed to you, whereas in a community of practice, you are taking part in that identity. Here the British writer was ascribed to an identity in the virtual world.

What does virtual segregation look like in a game like Whyville?

Is the author referring to representation in gameplay or in real life?

Thinking about how identities and figured worlds are defined differently or even similarly in a virtual world and how resources are shaping these. Digital divide could have been implying a segregation based on figured worlds and online Identity, but here the author uses it to distinguish a divide for accessibility.

Lack of insight from their conclusion is underwhelming. What did they contribute to future researchers in this field of study?

Is this during independent gameplay or two-player? These implications mean different things depending on the goal; are they cheating to beat a competitor or are they cheating for personal gain? And are both these things detrimental to their identity as a 'gamer'?

I like that the author highlights the complexity of game playing; they are accounting for the fact that Tyler using cheat codes in one game is not directly correlational to his behaviors 'in-room' or a reflection of his morals, but that it pertains to specific games and in certain social settings (perhaps when he is playing 1-player games only).

Interesting that the author labels the two distinct views and says they don't know where they stand until they have more information- in the research I have previously read the authors already have an assumption and use the data to persuade or support this assumption.

Makes me think of all the articles on apprenticeship that we read about; what does learning entail? Is it the transfer of problem solving to real world contexts and careers, or are we using the basis of school curriculum? Here the author articulates that they will cover many types of learning and not just a translation to curricular learning.

Wow! Cool way to make science really relevant to their avatar's lives.

Once again, is there a group chat or how are students virtually 'hanging out'.

Does anyone else find it strange that students are playing a game where the ultimate goal is to buy/sell virtual identities?

This is interesting. This is proportionally heavy on the girls, what could be the possible reasons for this? Could the science curriculum component make it feel like less of a game and more like school? This makes me think of Allen's article about the exploratorium and trying to make content driven tasks not feel artificial in the produced space.

Interesting term. I would like to know the authors definition of "hanging out" and how he thinks it looks in a virtual world.

Is this avatar supposed to be inconspicuous?

When Nespor discusses public spaces, he describes them as a space produced through repeated actions- in this case the 'play places' are socially structured through online interactions.

I would love more explanation on why values are such a pivotal point for creating these sessions. And how closely or loosely can they align in order to partake in leading?

Are they learning these values? Or is this something that they should only participate in/volunteer for if they already have these values?

If you have not, you should definitely read the #pathways article for this week!

It's interesting that you are thinking about what learning these volunteers are having through the experience of leading these groups. So technically, you are evaluating the learning that is taken place from the facilitators (or teacher) standpoint after becoming a part of the organization.

Here we see that while Vossoughi & Gutiérrez focus on research methods on what to evaluate, here the author suggests that the student's perception of themselves plays a role. The previous article discussed how to think of students in these situations as not having deficits, but it seemed like a unilateral viewpoint, whereas this author evaluates learning from both standpoints.

This makes me think of our #posing reading and our reading on museum visitors. These places are shaped for specific visitor experiences- though the interpretations vary.

Becker would love agree. Viewing students as a living vessel with feelings, emotions, passions and interests and not removed from the planning and evaluating of academia is crucial to understanding why schools are not appropriately encouraging spaces for learning.

This is similar to multi-sited learning, but at the same time there are varying characteristics. Pathways focusses more on the socio-cultural situations that students inhibit, whereas multi-sited focussed more on their settings of learning.

This is very similar to the multi-sited learning article. However, this is interesting because it puts the emphasis on the learner needing to adapt these skills, whereas the other article was focussing on the lens in which the learner is assessed.

Thinking of 'life long learning' as an impediment is interesting. Students can definitely mislearn something, effecting their trajectory of learning.

This is interesting. How does 'disciplined subjectivity' work?

This makes me think of FoK. Moll et al talked about students using their previous knowledge about wars to bring to the classroom discussion or about the students who have to deal with paperwork for their immigrant parents. This idea of outside school lives being a deficit is essential to thinking about why equity is not possible in the classroom. Also focussing on expertise as a strength speaks to the islands of expertise reading. If students master topics, then they are able to use that knowledge or the skills they gained to apply to new situations and understanding- this should be recognized as a strength!

This reminds me of Becker's paper on the problems with school and how students are removed from curriculum & classroom planning. However, Becker didn't address students' 'histories of participation' as a lens for best practice learning ecologies.

This 'shift' in participation is very closely tied yo LPP (Lave & Wenger). They describe learning as a 'movement' understanding the mobility in one's participation within these practices, but also leave the possibility of a reinvention, or a new interest. `

I think this gets very tricky when thinking about 'nodding' as a physical cue to demonstrate understanding. As a teacher, I feel like often times this is not a valid way to demonstrate understanding.

This seems like a struggle between trying to make it more 'school math' friendly, and trying to make it an organic experience.

The author suggests that by using embodied cognition she is not only seeing the saucer and cup as having resonance to school math through her experience, but she is able to translate that experience to someone else through this physical interactions.

How does Nespor suggest we do this? How does a place with rules, regulations and routines resemble a public space? And how does this change the roles of the students?

Seems similar to a structure in inquiry based learning in the classroom. A teaching (who is more experienced) sits back and watches as the novice performers practice towards their goals, and exchanges wisdom or information on their performance.

LPP- Everyone's participation is necessary in the construction of the story telling.

Highlights the importance of skating as an art form.

Sounds like in a way it's their "alienation" that is bringing them together, so it is more of a reason for their existence within a society that is more aligned here.

This is also really interesting because you can push the conversations in directions of identity and get this information directly from the students themselves.

This probably sounds like a more feasible setting especially since it is clear who is participating and how frequently.

Overall great job exchanging ideas from both the reading and the observations!

Nice job! Overall great connections between readings and observations.

Very interesting. I noted that this room was strategically placed to combat museum fatigue due to it's immediate apprehendability, but you note here that it is actually the opposite. Awesome job for taking out the time to piece together what this side of the Whitney had to offer. I noted the emptiness of the room, but never questioned the significance of these pieces.

Interesting viewpoint! I focussed on why the benches were possibly placed in a specific location, while you focused on what they were implying by not placing the bench there and what it meant to each art piece. Perhaps where I thought a bench placement marked a sense of importance, you viewed it almost as a limitation.

I also looked at the layout as a diversion from museum fatigue. I think the layout also plays a big role in terms of immediate apprehendability.

This directly relates to the building 'islands of expertise'. Though the act of reading the paper during baseball season is not directly effecting his playing, it is helping to solidify his knowledge about baseball as an island of expertise.

Interesting because this contrasts with communities of practice a bit. Although I understand why the author does not consider interested children a community of practice, the adult scientists are because they are contributing to the goals of a community. It almost sounds like the author is arguing that in order to be an 'expert' you just need to know a lot about a topic, but not necessarily contribute to the needs of that community- just engage with a critical lens and be up-to-date with material.

Don't know if this is too farfetched, but could this be an example of guided participation? The parents have now developed a sort of 'lesson plan' where they can implement curricula of the boys' interest and he is 'engaging in practice'.

Connects to FoK because Moll et al describes thinking as a distribution of knowledge through social interactions. However, this takes FoK a step further by saying that though the content knowledge may be limited for a certain time depending on interests invested, the implicit learning that occurred will be carried over to another 'island'.

Once again the importance of 'natural' conversation. Not forced or content driven, but completely interest based.

Social interactions as a form of resource; whether through small chats or larger conversations, they are learning through knowledge/experiences of others.

Here the author highlights the importance of tangible goals within the field of practice or hobby. Is this goal a form of 'resource'? These goals are important because this is where the drive to participate in the community is key and pushes the learner to break past a newcomer to the community.

This article mentions 'distances' very often- even when discussing the research context. I think when interpreting access and resource in relations to hobbies one cannot ignore the physical access in terms of locations. One can study astronomy all they want, but the importance of these interactions and experience within a community of practice are unparalleled to anything they can read.

Interesting use of the word "motives" here. Not the word I would use when thinking about participating in a "hobby". How could this be read differently if the word 'goals' replaced it?

Azevedo does a nice job of summarizing how access to resources plays a role in accountability in LPP

It is possible to use ideas around intent participation but still only conditioning a child only as a student, rather than a community member.

The word transmission implies very much a learn/repeat flow where there is little input or exchange. When observations are taking place with anticipation of participating, children are strategizing efficient ways of obtaining a goal without repeating.

This reminds me of Lave and Wenger's chapter 3 where they discuss the importance of apprenticeship. Rogoff instead suggests the importance of intent participation may not necessarily build the craftsmanship that an apprenticeship may, but that students can learn the social skills, and interactions that will happen in the work environment through these participations. This idea of assembling skills for late entry doesn't seem to work since students aren't being immersed in the scenario since they are only surround by adults. This is why "school is a lousy place to learn", sometimes.

Observation versus listening-in : one is done intently while the latter is sort of just picked up. Why is it important for the author to emphasize that listening-in is usually against the subjects' will? Does it suggest the types of things these children are learning through listening in shouldn't be learnt?

Individual views vs. interactive behavior: seems like FoK playing here.

Is this type of response always the desired outcome of artwork?

Places emphasis on placement of artwork as a very strategic thing. It addresses the issue of accessibility and building to the community of practice. Perhaps people who do not typically visit art exhibits will see this and join in the conversations.

This adds a personal touch. The active participant becomes apart of the installation, so their vision is playing along with the artists vision through conversation.

Interesting choice of installation. It seems like humor is universal; something that everyone can relate to regardless of cultural differences.

It's interesting that they are focussing on the process of being an active participant both alone and with others.

Interesting. I noticed that visiting the Whitney was very much a social experience for many visitors. Most people came in groups or couples, exchanging ideas, opinions and interpretations of the pieces with one another.

How does this exchange of knowledge become problematic if the information is not accurate. Communities can 'mislearn' something.

I love that they recognize Susan as an attribute to the FoK even though they acknowledge her lack of historical content.

Equity through access of resources, literally. Awesome!

Lave & Wenger would be thrilled since they believe that students have no agency in what they are learning. By bridging the gap between their social worlds and the learning in their classrooms, they can now become participants in learning instead of recipients of information.

Trades can be very much culturally shaped; for example many of my Albanian relatives are in the restaurant business- allowing me access to knowledge about the hospitality world that someone else may not know. Interesting to think about how these trades become apart of a persons "funds of knowledge".

It's interesting to think of the parents' "funds of knowledge" being dependent on their children in some instances such as the government visits mentioned above. While these children may be gaining a different piece of knowledge (legalities, policies) parents are learning that their children are a form of resource. However can this crutch of children as resources limit the parents interconnectedness with their new environments?

Fostering social relationships similar to the storytelling in the AA narratives. By creating a figured world, then they are able to gain an understanding.

Agreed! I see this way too often in my classes.

I don't understand where confidence or self-assessment plays a role in this? What one may consider an expert, someone may consider a novice.

We often think about the things we want to identify ourselves with, but how many of our actions/decisions are shaped by avoiding identification with another group.

Culture has created a necessity for us to think about how things "should be" in a relationship and people use those as indications for evaluating their relationships.

"Culture" is embedded in one's interpretations of their figured worlds- however, in chapter 4 they spoke about how our actions fit these figured worlds.

Who defines these criteria?

I often hear things like "you look like a teacher" or "you act like such a teacher" and I wonder if this is something that naturally occurs or am I subconsciously situating myself to fit into what is culturally acceptable for this group I identify by.

This goes back to my comment from the previous chapter. Who decides what the boundaries for these groups are?

Our identities are not just shaped by our knowledge and interpretations, but how our knowledge plays off of cultural knowledge. The reading claims that for some "self-understanding" is transformed. Is this creating prototypical members of this group?

This comparison seems that strong to me- though I agree that referring to the Pope as a bachelor is an example of culturally figured worlds, a poker player redeeming chips at an AA meeting seems like a misinterpretation of a physical object rather than the meaning behind that object.

I think this is an interesting point, and to play off of that- how is can we use this these cultural interpretations to inform our teaching in school?

Isn't this criteria only widening the gap of students who are underprivileged? How will these resources be available to them? And how often do students 'mislearn' behaviors in non-traditional settings?

what does 'risk' look like in formal settings vs. informal settings?

Power dynamics in communities of practice shape the ways in which we learn and the roles we take in this process.

It would be helpful to look at the informal learning that happens in school settings since intentional instruction is too multilayered to analyze due to these limitations.

Consistent with Banks' (Banks, J. A., Au, K. H., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E., Gutiérrez, K. D., et al. (2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep.) first principle.